Skip to main content

mastodon - Link to source

"US judge blocks Trump from unilaterally cutting foreign aid funding"
reuters.com/legal/government/u…
I mean... that is literally just the Constitution of USA.
Congress decides taxes, etc and then decides where those funds go to, then the "executive branch" (President) executes their decisions.
There is absolutely nothing, at all, that says otherwise in the Constitution of USA.
It is actually childrens' level reading comprehension, so I understand it is difficult for the Tangerine Hate-Clown to understand.

This is not me saying the Constitution of USA is excellent, just that Trump actually factually literally "solemnly" swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", twice, at worldwide broadcast inaugurations.

reshared this

in reply to b9AcE

goss
mastodon - Link to source
goss
• •
The sovereign refused to place his hand on the bible during his coronation so constitution be damned apparently ...

Radio Free Trumpistan reshared this.

in reply to goss

b9AcE
mastodon - Link to source
b9AcE
• •
@goss Well, hmm, if one would accept that the Donlad is not bound by the presidential oath for not having the hand on the bible when swearing the inauguration oath, then maybe it's more valid to claim that the same person is not the valid President due to not having been sworn into office..?
@goss
in reply to b9AcE

Radio Free Trumpistan
friendica (DFRN) - Link to source
Radio Free Trumpistan
•
@b9AcE @goss
Further, that he isn't really the President of the United States having failed to take the oath of office.
@b9AcE @goss
in reply to Radio Free Trumpistan

b9AcE
mastodon - Link to source
b9AcE
• •
@claralistensprechen5th Yes, that was what I meant. I was using an understating expression, but that was it. If one accepts the one idea, then one must also as an indivisible result accept the other.
@goss
@goss @Radio Free Trumpistan
⇧