Omnibus Bill Includes Specific Clause Barring Funding for Donald Trump ‘Wall’

Breitbart ^ | 22 Mar 2018 | Charlie Spiering

[detective]

The 2,232 page Omnibus bill includes a specific clause barring funding for a wall on the southern border that mirrors the new prototypes already there. The bill reads:

The amounts designated in subsection (a)(2) through (a)(4) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, (Public Law 115–31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety.

[TheRake]

I’m in Michigan. Both of my senators are Democrats.

[VastRWCon]

Where is Jack Bauer when our country needs him...

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

If Trump signs this, almost certainly someone (Rand Paul?) will run against him from the right in 2020.

I'll consider my primary vote as negotiable in that situation and I am sure I'm not the only one.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well Trump is threatening to veto the bill.

[Luircin]

Well, I’m not accusing you of being a troll if you’re not going to give up.

But the people who are telling the rest of us that there’s no hope and to just give up can go and shove it where the sun shines not.

[Pajamajan]

Ughhhh!

[klsparrow]

Pres VETO the damn bill worse than no bill Border wall not fully funded hell it is not funded at all. The chance of this wall getting funded at all is 0 Ryan,McConnell gave the congress to the Democrats in 2018 with this Dem bill you will get no wall Mr. Pres ever. The president needs to understand that Ryan McConnell are not his friend they planned this all a long to stop your agenda buy giving congress to Democrats in 2018. just because the bill has some military spending in it does not make a bad bill a good bill. This bill is bad for teh county. Ryan and McConnell killed m your wall on purpose Mr. president

[raiderboy]

He Better do more than threaten!! His political future absolutely depends on his promise. There is no more time.

[Taxman]

Can’t never could, my FRiend!

It ain’t over ‘til its over!

Stay in the fight!

[kelly4c]

But impeached over what exactly? What will the charge be? I just don’t get why there’s still talk of impeachment.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I love Trump but IMO if he does not veto this men bus bill he can kiss the midterm election goodbye.

[kelly4c]

Here, let me fix that for you:

Friend, I find your undying hope so sad. It reminds me of the musicians that played chamber music on the Titanic. They all died in the icy water playing sweet violin music.

Too many typos. I just couldn’t let it go lol.

[Morpheus2009]

Exactly, we could take what we have in Afghanistan and have at least a border guarding effort in place.

[Morpheus2009]

For not being a Democrat in the white house is an impeachable offense now, did ya know?

[JME_FAN]

Well, raiderboy, “boy” is definitely the right moniker for you.

[Cheerio]

But impeached over what exactly? What will the charge be? I just don’t get why there’s still talk of impeachment.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is so yesterday, and in today's amped up "We hate Trump" environment it can mean anything Piglosi & Schumkie want it to mean if they have their voter & never-Trumper support.

"The Constitution's impeachment clause, Article II, Section 4, is simultaneously so specific, and yet so broad, that it's hard to put into practice. The Constitution says a President can only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-set-impeachment-article-1.2950501

"And so the impeachment power was both strong and weak. Strong as it hovered as the ultimate sanction for any president who might push his luck, but weak insofar as it was deliberately limited to the offense of subverting the Constitution itself or betraying the United States in foreign affairs: the famously grave and yet vague Anglo-American terminology of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which included “great and dangerous offenses.” These were essentially serious political crimes, which was why they had to be dealt with in the political arena rather than the courts. They amounted to one core idea: If the president was to start acting like a king, he could be dispatched."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/books/review/impeachment-cass-sunstein-can-it-happen-here.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

[Rurudyne]

Considering the Democrats why shouldn’t they believe they are immune too?