@Guy22Sox @AP And that's the proposed legislation to make it a criminal offense. Here's the one that makes it a civil offense to have an abortion:

@flinty32 @House0fCarter @HunnyRabbit1968 @JesusJones100 And thats just a small chunk ($2bn) of the $17bn consumers received as a direct result of CFPB's actions.

@aurantiium @SubieMayhem @SenAdamSchiff @elonmusk I think you may have been suppressed by the "platform of free speech". I see 2 comments on his list of donor comments, but can only see my own.

@AdamInHTownTX @atownsquare @AP That's literally the opposite of what the Impoundment Control Act says. The president cannot decide whether or not to spend the funds. The ruling your talking about specifically says "Political Appointees OUTSIDE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT" (emphasis added)

@AdamInHTownTX @atownsquare @AP Cool, and then what does the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 do? Was it passed because Nixon tried to do exactly what trump is doing, circumventing congressional "power of the purse"? The president is not a dictator that can arbitrarily ignore congressional action.

@SubieMayhem @aurantiium @SenAdamSchiff @elonmusk Grok also said none of them, in a very verbose way.

@AdamInHTownTX @atownsquare @AP What in article 2 does it violate? Can you cite case law? Any requisite Statutes? If not, I'm afraid you've bought into propaganda. The executive branch has overstepped its authority, and judiciary is keeping them in check. Just like the framers intended.

@ShieldWolf19 @AdamInHTownTX @atownsquare @AP $50m in condoms to Gaza never happened. And that’s not how government funding works. That’s why there’s the impoundment control act and that’s why the judge issued the TRO.

@KingDonkey16 @ken16020977 @acnewsitics You can disagree that we should be spending money on a thing. I disagree with a TON of what both dem and republican administrations spend money on. It doesn’t make it fraud.

@dhiney4242 @MrDucks1954 Which part? They’re likely to win on the merits and congress has explicit authority to create lower courts and define their jurisdiction.

@ShieldWolf19 @AdamInHTownTX @atownsquare @AP Did you even read the judge’s ruling? The whole reason the TRO was granted was because the funding stopped.

@esjesjesj I typically agree with you, but a government shutdown does nothing but hurt people. Even if you disagree with Trumps actions, which I do, shutting down the government does more harm than good. There are better issues to take a stand on.

@zack_overflow #2. I never realized thats one of the few commands that i use the initialism instead of the acronym.

@ken16020977 @acnewsitics None of those things are fraud. It's just spending you disagree with.

@SubieMayhem @aurantiium @SenAdamSchiff @elonmusk And which of those donors has served as a member of a democrat administration?

@nonlinear_james @ZacksJerryRig That's not what happened. The ruling literally states: "[they are] restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency OUTSIDE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT"

@MrDucks1954 That's literally not the law. Congress is empowered to create lower courts (Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution). They've defined the jurisdiction of those courts numerous times, but the important one is 28 USC § 1331.