Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

trumper,

what is your explanation of Trump:

1) asking comey for an oath of personal loyalty

2) asking comey to go easy on the russia investigation

3) firing Comey, and then saying he fired comey because of the russia investigation.

that's an easy one. see what you can do with it.

there were two flips yesterday - where dems won elections in districts Trump won.

That's a nice pattern.

One in NH and one in NY

Trump is a brick around the neck of the GOP - he's bringing you all down.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/334890-sanders-delegate-wins-ny-state-election-in-district-that-voted-big-for

you're being dense on purpose.

brennan never said Trump hasn't been trying to mess with their investigations - you made that up out of the air because you so want it to be true.

Brennan said he is unaware any any such incidents. Which he wouldn't be, since he hasn't been in government work during the Trump admin.

really man - you are so unwilling to look at actual words and facts. What's the metaphor? something about a thick, stubborn skull, probably.

Ah, now I see that DFF was somehow banned. This is his new handle.

Say no to Libs wrote:

So again, little Libbies, tell us what evidence you have seen that proves "But, but, but... RUSSIA!!" is a true story.

So, you lost because of Russia, sexism, and racism... sounds like a party in good shape at the moment. HAHA

POTUS

House

Senate

Governors

SCOTUS

wah wah libturd wrote:

“I see no sign that there’s any likelihood that he’ll be impeached,” - Podesta

I was first devastated when I read this. But then I remembered that Flagpole promised us that Trump will be impeached very very soon.

Thank you, Flagpole. Now, I'm happy again!

I haven't promised anything.

Flagpole wrote:

wah wah libturd wrote:

“I see no sign that there’s any likelihood that he’ll be impeached,” - Podesta

I was first devastated when I read this. But then I remembered that Flagpole promised us that Trump will be impeached very very soon.

Thank you, Flagpole. Now, I'm happy again!

I haven't promised anything.

There's ZERO chance that Trump is NOT impeached. If there's one thing I know, it's presidential impeachments.

LOL. Idiot.

#realFlagpole wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I haven't promised anything.

There's ZERO chance that Trump is NOT impeached. If there's one thing I know, it's presidential impeachments.

LOL. Idiot.

Never said anything of the sort, brother.

well then there is this wrote:

If there is nothing to fear, then why did Trump work so hard to subvert the investigation. . .

This has been explained.

///////////////

Consider how Trump thinks - He thinks he is god, basically. And he expects to be worshiped. He truly believes that he is above mere mortals. To question him is an insult to god. Comey questioning him was an unacceptable insult to god. Had to be squashed.

And it never occurs to god that others have their own understanding of things; that it could ever be wrong for god to tell someone to make their story match his. In Trump's 6 year-old mind nothing he has ever done or ever could do is wrong. Nothing that makes him look bad could ever be anything other than fake news.

So -

"He asked comey to stop it

he asked comey for an oath of personal loyalty

he fired comey

he asked the NSA director to deny it

he asked the dir nat intel to deny it

he wrote in his comey firing letter that comey said 3 times there was no investigation of trump"

So what? If you are judging these actions as if they were executed by an adult you are making a mistake. Judge them as if they were executed by a 6 year-old, or a mentally ill person who honestly believes he is god.

There does not need to be any there there for the god Trump to feel offended and to feel the need to lash out.

Stop whining wrote:

Trump didn't try to derail investigations, and "Brennan also said that evidence of contact between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign did not constitute evidence of 'collusion."

Haha... Trump publicly stated the reason for at least one of the firings was over the investigation.

Yet, you insist there was no attempt to derail an investigation... Keep hanging onto those alternative facts. Watch Fox some more to reinforce your fantasies.

In all of this, is there an impeachable offense that will get to the point of an impeachment vote? I have no idea and Congress still supports him. Overall, it needs to take about 3.5 years to find out.

I agree that Trump has no idea what it means to be President to the point he can't understand why this is such a big deal. He is that simplistic and impulsive.

BTW, Trump is punishing his voters very bigly with that half-baked, fantasy football budget dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation.

Hard to see things getting better for Trump.

Your underlying premise is that Trump did something wrong, and therefore he needs to derail an investigation. Firing the Director doesn't end the investigation.

If he did nothing wrong, but yet didn't trust Comey (as no one from either party supposedly did leading up to his firing) meddling around either, then firing him is understandable. After Comey let Hillary off the hook last summer, and knowing his deep ties with the Clintons, I wouldn't want him hanging around perpetuating the story either.

You still have yet to address so many Democrat politicians and high level officials saying there is no evidence of collusion.

Cross your fingers harder. It's going to pay off at some point! It has to!

Here is a handy chart showing how many ways and times Trump has impeded the Russian investigation.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15677444/trump-russia-intervention-chart

you really have to understand the collusion issue better.

first of all, it's not a crime. Which is a good fact for Trump.

second of all, the investigations do not publish their findings in real time. So your lame insistence that since there is no evidence of collusion in the public means that there is no evidence. It's just stupid when trumpers do that and they should stop.

third, brennan said that before he left the CIA he saw enough information for him to have enough concern that trump campaign people had been turned by Russia (willingly or unwittingly) that he was strongly in favor of an investigation. Read that a few times. That is a VERY bad fact for Trump. That a former CIA director was willing to admit in public that he had seen evidence that Trump campaign people might have been working for the Russian gov't.

fourth, there are unverified reports that a person of interest is high up in the white house. might be true, might not be true

fifth, there is more than just collusion. clearly Trump has a long history of criminal activity. I have little doubt that it is fear of his financial crimes being discovered that Trump is worried about. Forget the collusion thing. It's important but not the only thing. Think about why trump has gone to such embarrassing and possibly illegal lenghts to mess with the investigation. he clearly is worried about SOMETHING. My guess is campaign finance fraud or some other financial crime.

pop goes the weasel wrote:

You still have yet to address so many Democrat politicians and high level officials saying there is no evidence of collusion.

I'm guessing they haven't seen any "evidence" yet. However, that does mean that they haven't viewed "intelligence" that indicates a connection between Trump associates and Russia.

The CIA deals with intelligence, not evidence. Evidence is for law enforcement and the courts. The wording of Comey, Brennan, etc. is not by accident. In order to protect the integrity of an on-going investigation, they are very careful with their words. GLOMAR.

Gowdy was grandstanding... he knows the difference between intelligence and evidence. He looked like an a**. Brennan's responses were very telling and are further indication that the Trump camp is in deep sh*t.

Dude, there isn't evidence yet, for if there were, there would be impeachment proceeding preparation going on right now. The investigation is to determine if there was any collusion...the investigation is there because of lots of smoke on this issue. You can't hang your hat on the fact that "many Democrats" have said there isn't any evidence of collusion. Just means not yet. I don't know if there was collusion or not, and you don't either. This, though, is not a witch hunt. There is reason to believe collusion might have happened. Fair and right to investigate it.

Flagpole wrote:

pop goes the weasel wrote:

Your underlying premise is that Trump did something wrong, and therefore he needs to derail an investigation. Firing the Director doesn't end the investigation.

If he did nothing wrong, but yet didn't trust Comey (as no one from either party supposedly did leading up to his firing) meddling around either, then firing him is understandable. After Comey let Hillary off the hook last summer, and knowing his deep ties with the Clintons, I wouldn't want him hanging around perpetuating the story either.

You still have yet to address so many Democrat politicians and high level officials saying there is no evidence of collusion.

Cross your fingers harder. It's going to pay off at some point! It has to!

Dude, there isn't evidence yet, for if there were, there would be impeachment proceeding preparation going on right now. .

not necessarily.

collusion is not be a crime. Unless accompanied by something else. Just chatting with the russian ambassador about what would really hurt HRC or help DJT is not a crime.

but the trick is that impeachment is not a legal proceeding - they could convict the president for jaywalking if they want to. Which is why pressure will build on trump enormously if it looks like the House will flip next year. That would put massive fear into trump's 'heart.'

eric a blair wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Dude, there isn't evidence yet, for if there were, there would be impeachment proceeding preparation going on right now. .

not necessarily.

collusion is not be a crime. Unless accompanied by something else. Just chatting with the russian ambassador about what would really hurt HRC or help DJT is not a crime.

but the trick is that impeachment is not a legal proceeding - they could convict the president for jaywalking if they want to. Which is why pressure will build on trump enormously if it looks like the House will flip next year. That would put massive fear into trump's 'heart.'

Collusion by definition is a crime - "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

You are correct that the impeachment is not a legal proceeding, but collusion or obstruction of justice would be enough to start that. Trump's obstruction of justice so far is worse than what Clinton did (though he perjured himself, so that was pretty bad). This might ultimately be a situation where Trump is called into testify, and if he does that, he WILL perjure himself, because he wouldn't know the truth from a hole in a bag he can't get out of that is on the other side in a breadbox.

pop goes the weasel wrote:

You still have yet to address so many Democrat politicians and high level officials saying there is no evidence of collusion.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

Where are all these Democrats who say there is no evidence of collusion?

Can you quote even one congressional Democrat who has said that?

I think you are just lying.

The only thing we know for sure at this point in Trumpland is that President Trump is running the country like he runs Trump Incorporated, or whatever it's called.

Which won't work.

The president can't just tell people to do what he wants them to do, no matter what. It's going to be interesting to see how the GOP changes the rules, even possibility the ones they say can't be changed, to take in how this guy acts.

He needs to go. The clock is ticking.

eric a blair wrote:

there were two flips yesterday - where dems won elections in districts Trump won.

That's a nice pattern.

One in NH and one in NY

Trump is a brick around the neck of the GOP - he's bringing you all down.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/334890-sanders-delegate-wins-ny-state-election-in-district-that-voted-big-for

Trump's involvement in these local elections won't help and actually might hurt the GOP. The loss of several GOP seats that went red bigly last Nov will be proof of the short-lived Trump effect. How will he be able to show up and spew the same things he did pre-election? He has not made good on any promises so he's lost so much credibility. It will come down to GOP reps having to defend themselves against vicious Democrat attacks which will connect them directly with Trump's policies.