Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[Kutnupe14]

I have a few choice words I would love to say, but I have no intentions of becoming a Shooter on here, at least I don't bend, twist and manipulate to try and fit a argument or agenda.

TDS and the left are real world problems.

I’m the one using words with their proper meaning, so spare me that twist and bend stuff. If you got your feeling hurt because you jumped into a discussion you don’t understand, avoid them in the future.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Pretty sure the GOA is busy in Richmond right now; and if you mean GAO, pretty sure the 'one true president' (by your lights) ignored pronouncements of the GAO 7 or 8 times. Not only do they have no real authority, but a 'scandal free' president apparently didn't cause any scandal by ignoring them

If Good Morning America, or whatever the **** this outfit is called, was so important, why were the articles of impeachment passed to the Senate before they could make their declaration? Could it be because Democrats panicked due to the fact Trump was signing Phase I of a trade deal with China and the markets were going ape-****, and they needed to do something to lessen the impact?

 

[Doug]

I’m the one using words with their proper meaning, so spare me that twist and bend stuff. If you got your feeling hurt because you jumped into a discussion you don’t understand, avoid them in the future.

Your modesty and concern for other's feelings are what I like most about you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your modesty and concern for other's feelings are what I like most about you.

Lol, that was dripping. But seriously, I don’t shoot shots across the bow, until someone fires first; prior to that I’m a model citizen that simply has a difference of opinion.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I’m the one using words with their proper meaning, so spare me that twist and bend stuff. If you got your feeling hurt because you jumped into a discussion you don’t understand, avoid them in the future.

Again with the condescension.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Lol, that was dripping. But seriously, I don’t shoot shots across the bow, until someone fires first; prior to that I’m a model citizen that simply has a difference of opinion.

Everyone here, like it or not, Kut is telling the truth on this.

He's giving what he's being dealt. That kind of banter can be fun if people don't get super-offended over it.

Too often I see someone take a personal shot at Kut... he responds in kind... then the person acts like Kut escalated things! It's... hilarious!

 

[Doug]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Everyone here, like it or not, Kut is telling the truth on this.

He's giving what he's being dealt. That kind of banter can be fun if people don't get super-offended over it.

Too often I see someone take a personal shot at Kut... he responds in kind... then the person acts like Kut escalated things! It's... hilarious!

He knows what he’s doing. Provocateur, twists words to try to get under skin, then when his “opponent” has had enough of the twisting he lashes out. It’s not as if he’s mr innocent and people are just attacking him for no reason other than to attack him. I don’t recall ever seeing any posts about firearms. Only political, where he gets his jibbies going by getting under people’s skin.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

But meh, whatever. Tis the internet. There’s one in every crowd.

 

[bobzilla]

not worth it

 

[nonobaddog]

Everyone here, like it or not, Kut is telling the truth on this.

He's giving what he's being dealt. That kind of banter can be fun if people don't get super-offended over it.

Too often I see someone take a personal shot at Kut... he responds in kind... then the person acts like Kut escalated things! It's... hilarious!

Good one! It's getting deep in here now.

 

[KG1]

That's an interpretation, but the law talks mostly about the agency required to handle such things, which is filing a lawsuit and letting the courts decide it. And I may have to go back and reread that law, but I thought it was the GOA which had the responsibility to file the lawsuit if the agency responsible for disposition of the funds doesn't notify congress when the funds were delinquent by a certain deadline. I'm not aware of anyone on the congressional side filing such a lawsuit.

This is entirely correct. First of all the GAO determination is an opinion and they have been know to reverse their opinions on occasion in the past.

In this case it’s basically a disagreement between the GAO and the OMB.

Secondly say it were to in fact be illegal there is indeed a remedy.

The Comptroller General has the responsibility to file suit against the administration.

That never happened in this case. No such suit was ever filed.

 

[BugI02]

He knows what he’s doing. Provocateur, twists words to try to get under skin, then when his “opponent” has had enough of the twisting he lashes out. It’s not as if he’s mr innocent and people are just attacking him for no reason other than to attack him. I don’t recall ever seeing any posts about firearms. Only political, where he gets his jibbies going by getting under people’s skin.

I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a forum busybody who wants to set playground rules () but to be fair, only a little over 20K of Kut's nearly 36k posts occurred in GenPoli. Click on post areas, the link won't lead directly where I want it to.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/kutnupe14.html

I haven't looked, but I guarantee you my numbers are worse than his

Edit: Full disclosure, 2/3 of my posts are in GenPoli

 

[jamil]

This is entirely correct. First of all the GAO determination is an opinion and they have been know to reverse their opinions on occasion in the past.

In this case it’s basically a disagreement between the GAO and the OMB.

Secondly say it were to in fact be illegal there is indeed a remedy.

The Comptroller General has the responsibility to file suit against the administration.

That never happened in this case. No such suit was ever filed.

The law requires stuff. But not following the law doesn't always mean a crime has been committed. If that's the case then every president whose played political games with foreign aid has committed a crime, which is probably all of them.

So this is an interesting situation. NYT wrote "Hours before the Senate embarked on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency unexpectedly weighed in on an issue at the heart of the case: the president’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine."

Why is a nonpartisan watchdog agency now weighing in just before the trial starts, when IT WAS THEIR JOB TO WEIGH IN LONG BEFORE THAT! Why did they not follow the law? If Trump, and by Trump, I mean the OMB, broke the law, and if that's a crime subject to Trump being impeached for it, who gets impeached for the GAO breaking the law?

 

[mmpsteve]

.

 

[Leadeye]

Post up some pictures of your guns, it's what most of us are here for.

 

[KG1]

The law requires stuff. But not following the law doesn't always mean a crime has been committed. If that's the case then every president whose played political games with foreign aid has committed a crime, which is probably all of them.

So this is an interesting situation. NYT wrote "Hours before the Senate embarked on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency unexpectedly weighed in on an issue at the heart of the case: the president’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine."

Why is a nonpartisan watchdog agency now weighing in just before the trial starts, when IT WAS THEIR JOB TO WEIGH IN LONG BEFORE THAT! Why did they not follow the law? If Trump, and by Trump, I mean the OMB, broke the law, and if that's a crime subject to Trump being impeached for it, who gets impeached for the GAO breaking the law?

Seems to me that the GAO picked this time to insert themselves into the impeachment process for whatever reason.

They never followed procedural guidelines at the time when they should have.

There are proper remedies to deal with such a case without it rising to the level of an impeachable offense.

That is the reason for bringing up the way in which Obama’s offenses were handled.

It is relevant and not just a simple case of “whataboutism”

 

[jamil]

I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a forum busybody who wants to set playground rules () but to be fair, only a little over 20K of Kut's nearly 36k posts occurred in GenPoli. Click on post areas, the link won't lead directly where I want it to.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/kutnupe14.html

I haven't looked, but I guarantee you my numbers are worse than his

Agreed. It doesn't matter. To those of you who think every member must meet some predetermined ratio of posts in the gun areas to be a "real" gun owning member, I have something to say. I've seen this sentiment before on INGO. I've wanted to address it but haven't. This isn't intended towards H87. It's just time.

It doesn't matter who posts where, or in what proportion. That has no bearing on the value of a member or the opinions rendered. In the gun related sub-forums, the people who know their **** really well, and provide a reliable source of knowledge for others, that's the value. Maybe others are also interested in politics and like to comment there as well. And some people just avoid politics altogether. INGO scratches different itches for different people.

I have no idea into what proportions my posts distribute, and I don't spend one ****ing minute of my life worrying about it. It's as irrelevant as any statistic could be. But if I were to guess, I know I have to have way more posts in the political forum and break room than any other sub-forums. I love guns, AND I am uber interested in talking deeper about ideas, especially political ideas. On INGO I am a net consumer of gun related threads by a lot, because there are more knowledgeable members than me. I do post sometimes where I think I have something worth contributing. But I contribute most often in the political threads. Point is, it shouldn't matter who posts where. The value of people's posts is determined by the content. I judge Kut's or anyone's posts by what they say, and how credible they are, and I pay zero attention to where they're posting elsewhere on INGO. If you feel differently, go with god. Be who you are. But I don't have to care.

 

[jamil]

Seems to me that the GAO picked this time to insert themselves into the impeachment process for whatever reason.

They never followed procedural guidelines at the time when they should have.

There are proper remedies to deal with such a case without it rising to the level of an impeachable offense.

That is the reason for bringing up the way in which Obama’s offenses were handled.

It is relevant and not just a simple case of “whataboutism”

Sure. It's a frame of reference. They seemed to figure out their ****ing job when Obama's administration held up aid, or whatever other things they did. Since the GAO did not follow the prescription this time, and came out so close in proximity to the senate trial, it's easy to suspect that they're not so non-partisan. Why would they complain now about something that was their responsibility to oversee and remedy, back when they missed the deadline? I kinda think since Democrats have ****, this is a law they could say Trump broke, but it's really ****ing weak and it exposes some pretty serious ****.

 

[2A_Tom]

Seems to me that the GAO picked this time to insert themselves into the impeachment process for whatever reason.

A good fisherman knows what bait to use to catch the deep state critters.