Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Just da Facts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Sentence 2 is dead wrong. Comey and Page never said that there was no evidence of a crime.

See, it's like you guys don't read any news except for that which resides inside "the bubble". This took 10 seconds to Google.

Read every word, then apologize regarding your ignorance.....

"Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Just da Facts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Umm...Comey isn't running the investigation. Doesn't matter what he knows or doesn't know at this point.

2) Umm...Page isn't running the investigation. Doesn't matter what she knows or doesn't know at this point.

3) Umm...there was an investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election, and it included looking into whether or not anyone in the Trump Campaign did any help with that due primarily to the actions of Papadoplous, but also reports from other countries. Trump then fired Comey and said he did it because of the Russia investigation. So, evidence to kick off the investigation initially and then evidence of possible Obstruction of Justice to kick off the Special Counsel.

4) "In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority." We have suspected wrongdoing.

Biggest mistake of Trump's life was firing James Comey. He will pay dearly.

Also- not surprisingly here- missing the point(s).

1) I said nothing about what James Comey "knows at this point", I said he stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

2) I said nothing about what Lisa Page "knows at this point", I said she stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

3) It's clear Papadopulous was set up now (nice try guys). Trump fired Comey because he knew the Russia investigation was all BS and was intended to be a cloud over him, so along with Rosenstein's RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE COMEY, he did so. (Still no evidence.)

4) You have yet to provide any suspected wrongdoing. If suspected wrongdoing can be subjectively applied to any person without any evidence, we are all in trouble. (Since COMEY AND PAGE have since stated there was no evidence at the time of the Special Counsel appointment, which was at least 6 months after the investigation by Comey began, why would we feel there was "suspected wrongdoing"?)

Oh, that's right- Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Just da Facts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Sentence 2 is dead wrong. Comey and Page never said that there was no evidence of a crime.

See, it's like you guys don't read any news except for that which resides inside "the bubble". This took 10 seconds to Google.

Read every word, then apologize regarding your ignorance.....

"Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

STSBO wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Assuming the Mueller report comes out before the 2020 election and there is enough time to do so, the House WILL go forward with impeachment proceedings, and Trump WILL be impeached by the House...unless he resigns first or dies (he is an overweight 70+ year old after all) first. If only for political reasons, . . .

I am not particularly fond of Trump. But he won't be dying any time soon. Take a look at the guy. Sure he is 70+ and overweight but he's got a ton of energy - not exactly showing signs of feebleness. And as far as alzheimer's goes, yeah he does seem to be showing some signs. But that horrible disease takes a long time to kill - it's a terrible thing to witness.

At any rate, Trump will be alive 5 years from now for sure. I wouldn't be too surprised to see him still around in 10 -15 years. So you're going to have to beat him at the ballot box if you don't want 6 more years.

Flagpole wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

Also- not surprisingly here- missing the point(s).

1) I said nothing about what James Comey "knows at this point", I said he stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

2) I said nothing about what Lisa Page "knows at this point", I said she stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

3) It's clear Papadopulous was set up now (nice try guys). Trump fired Comey because he knew the Russia investigation was all BS and was intended to be a cloud over him, so along with Rosenstein's RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE COMEY, he did so. (Still no evidence.)

4) You have yet to provide any suspected wrongdoing. If suspected wrongdoing can be subjectively applied to any person without any evidence, we are all in trouble. (Since COMEY AND PAGE have since stated there was no evidence at the time of the Special Counsel appointment, which was at least 6 months after the investigation by Comey began, why would we feel there was "suspected wrongdoing"?)

Oh, that's right- Trump Derangement Syndrome.

1) Good grief...Comey and Page haven't been involved in the investigation for a long time, so at this point, it doesn't matter what they knew back when they were. That is just a beyond a hopeful point for you to make and it doesn't prove anything.

2) Your reasoning for Trump's firing of Comey is ridiculous. If Trump and his campaign were truly innocent, he should have let the investigation go on unfettered, and been as helpful as he possibly could have been...instead he has tried to block the investigation in just about every way possible. Can you imagine that if he actually WERE innocent so that he KNEW the investigation would show that he was how big of a "f*ck you" that would have been to the Democrats had he allowed it to continue under Comey? As it is, he demonstrably lies about just about everything, and since he has tried to block this investigation at every turn, why would you think he is telling the truth about this?

3) Dude, what are you talking about with regard to suspected wrongdoing? The FBI got tips from several countries saying that the Trump campaign had perhaps been compromised by the Russians, and then a drunk Papadopolous lets the cat out of the bag to some Australian dude. Investigations of ALL kinds are started with phone calls to police...tips about someone who might have committed a crime. You then investigate to get evidence to present in court. There was nothing nefarious here...all on the up and up.

4) Again with Comey and Page -- doesn't matter what they saw THEN...goes to why this was the biggest mistake of Trump's life to fire Comey. He should have let it go...they might not have found anything. But, Trump behaves like a guilty person, and admits he fired Comey because of the investigation, so a Special Counsel is created with way more resources who have a more laser focus. Be honest with yourself, if a Democrat President fired the person who was investigating his or her campaign, you would KNOW it was obstruction of justice, you would be very suspicious of that person, and you would be RIGHT. For the record, I would be just as against that person as I am against Trump (well, at least with regard to that kind of improper behavior...it would be hard to be as big an a$$hole as Trump is).

Fat hurts wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

See, it's like you guys don't read any news except for that which resides inside "the bubble". This took 10 seconds to Google.

Read every word, then apologize regarding your ignorance.....

"Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

So where do they say there was no evidence of a crime? You pasted a bunch of statements, but none of them said that no crimes were committed.

Obviously, crimes were committed. Those stolen emails didn't go to WikiLeaks all by themselves.

Since crimes were committed, crimes were investigated.

If Tiny impeded the investigation then he committed obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offense.

Just da Facts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Sentence 2 is dead wrong. Comey and Page never said that there was no evidence of a crime.

See, it's like you guys don't read any news except for that which resides inside "the bubble". This took 10 seconds to Google.

Read every word, then apologize regarding your ignorance.....

"Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Just da Facts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Good grief...Comey and Page haven't been involved in the investigation for a long time, so at this point, it doesn't matter what they knew back when they were. That is just a beyond a hopeful point for you to make and it doesn't prove anything.

2) Your reasoning for Trump's firing of Comey is ridiculous. If Trump and his campaign were truly innocent, he should have let the investigation go on unfettered, and been as helpful as he possibly could have been...instead he has tried to block the investigation in just about every way possible. Can you imagine that if he actually WERE innocent so that he KNEW the investigation would show that he was how big of a "f*ck you" that would have been to the Democrats had he allowed it to continue under Comey? As it is, he demonstrably lies about just about everything, and since he has tried to block this investigation at every turn, why would you think he is telling the truth about this?

3) Dude, what are you talking about with regard to suspected wrongdoing? The FBI got tips from several countries saying that the Trump campaign had perhaps been compromised by the Russians, and then a drunk Papadopolous lets the cat out of the bag to some Australian dude. Investigations of ALL kinds are started with phone calls to police...tips about someone who might have committed a crime. You then investigate to get evidence to present in court. There was nothing nefarious here...all on the up and up.

4) Again with Comey and Page -- doesn't matter what they saw THEN...goes to why this was the biggest mistake of Trump's life to fire Comey. He should have let it go...they might not have found anything. But, Trump behaves like a guilty person, and admits he fired Comey because of the investigation, so a Special Counsel is created with way more resources who have a more laser focus. Be honest with yourself, if a Democrat President fired the person who was investigating his or her campaign, you would KNOW it was obstruction of justice, you would be very suspicious of that person, and you would be RIGHT. For the record, I would be just as against that person as I am against Trump (well, at least with regard to that kind of improper behavior...it would be hard to be as big an a$$hole as Trump is).

1) It's not a hopeful point- it is THE point regarding the Special Counsel's inappropriate appointment. Rosenstein caved to pressure from butthurt Democrats and establishment shills. At the time, there was no evidence of a crime, and- as stated by Comey and Page- a believe that they wouldn't find anything proving Trump-Russia collusion. (Point 1)

2) You need to read the article I posted regarding the Page/Strzok/Comey testimony. They all flat out stated that they did not have evidence of collusion. Trump took Rosenstein's recommendation as a green light to fire Comey for trying to hang a gray cloud over his presidency out of spite. Letting a fake investigation hound you by a butthurt MSM on a daily basis would suck real bad.

3) If you believe that, you are a fool. And even if Popadopulous did do something wrong, how is it that Comey, Page, and Strzok all stated in May 2017 that there wasn't any evidence of collusion (again, see the article I posted for their direct testimony).

4) This is just a bunch of babbling on your part. But to answer one of the few *objective* aspects of your post, Rosenstein's recommendation to fire Comey actually gets Trump off the hook here.

You guys need to lower your expectations for the conclusion announcement, or you're going to really go off the deep end and do something bad. You guys are still very sensitive to this whole POTUS45 thing. You should take some time away and re-assess what's important in your life, because it truly isn't Donald J Trump.

Hate to say it but . . . wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

See, it's like you guys don't read any news except for that which resides inside "the bubble". This took 10 seconds to Google.

Read every word, then apologize regarding your ignorance.....

"Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Are you (and Igy) really that stupid? Good DOG, dude! You sound like a complete moron!

From your own source, with your own copy and paste text, there is not a single quote from Comey or Page saying that there was no evidence of a crime. Not one. And you show this as evidence that Comey and Page said there was no evidence of a crime?!? WTF is the matter with you?

I mean, you seem to be able to type so I am guessing that your IQ exceeds 60. The only explanation for your apparent beyond-belief stupidity here is that perhaps you don't speak English and so have serious reading comprehension problems. Here, let me make it easy for you. The following statements are NOT saying that there is no evidence of a crime:

"It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,"

"it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing"

"As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question"

"When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump"

Get that, moron? So, I can understand if English is not your native language. Or maybe it's just properly defined Trump Derangement Syndrome - you simply have no ability to think clearly about anything related to Trump.

Now, I'm not going to ask you to apologize. You are too stupid to even understand what your own quotes say. But please do get a brain.

Flagpole wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

1) It's not a hopeful point- it is THE point regarding the Special Counsel's inappropriate appointment. Rosenstein caved to pressure from butthurt Democrats and establishment shills. At the time, there was no evidence of a crime, and- as stated by Comey and Page- a believe that they wouldn't find anything proving Trump-Russia collusion. (Point 1)

2) You need to read the article I posted regarding the Page/Strzok/Comey testimony. They all flat out stated that they did not have evidence of collusion. Trump took Rosenstein's recommendation as a green light to fire Comey for trying to hang a gray cloud over his presidency out of spite. Letting a fake investigation hound you by a butthurt MSM on a daily basis would suck real bad.

3) If you believe that, you are a fool. And even if Popadopulous did do something wrong, how is it that Comey, Page, and Strzok all stated in May 2017 that there wasn't any evidence of collusion (again, see the article I posted for their direct testimony).

4) This is just a bunch of babbling on your part. But to answer one of the few *objective* aspects of your post, Rosenstein's recommendation to fire Comey actually gets Trump off the hook here.

You guys need to lower your expectations for the conclusion announcement, or you're going to really go off the deep end and do something bad. You guys are still very sensitive to this whole POTUS45 thing. You should take some time away and re-assess what's important in your life, because it truly isn't Donald J Trump.

You have crossed the crazy bridge, and so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZR9SA5pOg

STSBO wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Assuming the Mueller report comes out before the 2020 election and there is enough time to do so, the House WILL go forward with impeachment proceedings, and Trump WILL be impeached by the House...unless he resigns first or dies (he is an overweight 70+ year old after all) first. If only for political reasons, . . .

I am not particularly fond of Trump. But he won't be dying any time soon. Take a look at the guy. Sure he is 70+ and overweight but he's got a ton of energy - not exactly showing signs of feebleness. And as far as alzheimer's goes, yeah he does seem to be showing some signs. But that horrible disease takes a long time to kill - it's a terrible thing to witness.

At any rate, Trump will be alive 5 years from now for sure. I wouldn't be too surprised to see him still around in 10 -15 years. So you're going to have to beat him at the ballot box if you don't want 6 more years.