Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trump hat made in China wrote:Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis suggests his client has knowledge implicating Trump in ‘criminal conspiracy’ to hack Democratic emails

YEP!

I don't need redemption. I am just right about the fact that if you accept a pardon, it is an admission of guilt. Your logical assumptions don't play into this. In your Mother Teresa example, if she were to accept the pardon, she is admitting guilt. In cases where someone has been unjustly convicted, the court can overturn the conviction, but a pardon does not remove the guilt and, as I have stated and as is stated in Burdick v. United States, it carries the assumption of guilt. The reason for pardons (other than how Trump uses them which is to send messages and wield power) is to give prisoners or ex-prisoners their civil rights back (voting, gun ownership, etc.). If a President wants to end a prison sentence but not give civil rights back, they will Commute the sentence.

]

We can agree to disagree, but if you will search for legal opinions on the subject you will see that it is far, far, far from being a settled question.

Ari Melber is not an expert on this. His opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight, especially in this case where he is being paid to debate Arpaio. If Melber took the time to write a brief on it, he might come to a different conclusion.

In my Mother Teresa example, accepting a pardon before conviction wouldn't make her guilty in the eyes of the law or anyone with half a brain. Things like this (that looks stupid on its face) rarely hold up under legal scrutiny. But we will probably never know for sure because the question isn't likely to be tested.

Yesterday was quite a day.

Cohen plead guilty on fraud.

Manafort was convicted of fraud.

Also, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter was indicted for using campaign funds for personal lavishes.

And Republican Congressman Chris Collins was recently indicted on insider trading.

We can't forget that Trump's EPA lead, Scott Pruitt had to step down for sheer unethical swamp scum.

Or that last year, Trump's HHS Secretary Tim Price had to step down for his abuse of taxpayer money.

Quite the cast and crew

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Should really be noted wrote:

You are a Trumpette every bit as much as Lying Gary. Deflect, contort, excuse, lie . . . all because you are afraid of people who are not white.

#Sad

Sad is your comment when you know absolutely nothing about me.

#Worthless

Actually I do know that you believe that the US Marines should be sent in to murder babies if they are the offspring of terrorists. That is WAY more than I need to know.

#Vilecowardlyracist

The 116th Congress begins Jan 3, 2019.

My guess is that there will be a vote for impeachment by Jan 10.

Or maybe Paul Ryan will actually call for an impeachment vote before then as his last act of Speaker of the House.

That would seal his legacy as a historic American.

You have been banned before for such nonsense are you trying this again?

You really should see a psychiatrist for your illness.

#Get some meds

L L wrote:

REMINDER: There are a number of legal and ethical pitfalls lined up for Trump.

He may go down on tax evasion.

Look at Manafort.

All of these years he managed to evade taxes and the IRS catching him. But the profile of this Mueller investigation directed more resources towards him and now he is going to jail.

Look at Cohen.

He was getting away with fraud for a long time until yesterday.

Trump conspicuously would not release his taxes to the public.

He has associated himself with cheats and fraudsters.

The investigation is tracing all of Trump's cash transfers and loans and overseas transactions.

He is under a powerful microscope as is are his associates who are going down.

Trump can hang his hat on no current charges of Russian collusion or conspiracy, but he's very nervous.

All of what you post is correct but all of it, to this point, is probably not impeachable as it all appears to have occurred prior to Trump taking office. I'm also not sure there ever will be any direct evidence of whatever is defined as "collusion" and that issue will likely fall on whatever side of the political spectrum one happens to fall.

Mueller's report is unlikely to be kind to Trump. My guess is a lot of what is mentioned in the above post will be part of it along with potentially more by the time the report is given to Rosenstein. However all it will be is a report.

Those who don't want Trump to continue as President have one choice and that is to vote him out. He will not be impeached. The Cohen revelation yesterday is an issue but it is not the game changer too many people believe it to be. The entire SC investigation still remains one that will ultimately be a political issue of which the Republicans will not support any major sanctioning of the President. The only real game changer will be somehow moving out of a political issue or have the situation become so bad for incumbent Republicans in terms of their own political survival that they have to force Trump out. I don't see the latter happening at all.

So, while one board dope continues to chant "he's done. he's done" and another board dope continues to post "is not. is not" nothing has really changed.

The Fokus wrote:

I'm also not sure there ever will be any direct evidence of whatever is defined as "collusion" and that issue will likely fall on whatever side of the political spectrum one happens to fall.

You have no clue what you are typing about. It smells of desperation. Directing others to do your dirty deeds is "direct" evidence of involvement. Trump is the leader in a conspiracy to steal an election. Now, give it up on the "collusion" is not a crime game. Criminal conspiracy to subvert an election is more than enough to send Trump to jail.

We can agree to disagree, but if you will search for legal opinions on the subject you will see that it is far, far, far from being a settled question.

Ari Melber is not an expert on this. His opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight, especially in this case where he is being paid to debate Arpaio. If Melber took the time to write a brief on it, he might come to a different conclusion.

In my Mother Teresa example, accepting a pardon before conviction wouldn't make her guilty in the eyes of the law or anyone with half a brain. Things like this (that looks stupid on its face) rarely hold up under legal scrutiny. But we will probably never know for sure because the question isn't likely to be tested.[/quote]

The law is the law. Sometimes people with "half a brain" don't understand the law. I could pull up examples all day of agreements that accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. You are right about a lot of things, but you are wrong about this. Burdick v. United States is clear.

Flagpole, you are obviously not a lawyer, and from the way he/she writes, it seems likely that Fat Hurts is one, or at least knows more about the law than you. I think you ought not offer such confident opinions about thinks you are not really expert in.

agip wrote:

Always so strange when trumpers say, in effect, that the only crime that matters here is collusion. It's their last hope so I understand why they do it, but really. Really, idiot trumpers? Because if you focus your attention I'm sure you could come up with a few crimes not including collusion that would be pretty f'in meaningful.

Here's the truly weird thing for me.

OK, so everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, knows that Trump is a pathological liar, an ignoramus, a dictator wannabe, a racist, sexist pig, a narcissist of the most profound order who cares about one thing and one thing only - Donald Trump.

Even the Trumpettes know this although they won't say it.

Now, if you are cursed with genes that compel you to love authoritarians you really haven't much choice but to want all this messy rule of law crap and voting and free press nonsense . . . you want it all to go away so you can have your daddy figure telling you how wonderful you are while you slobber all over his ass 24 hours a day.

Strangely, I can accept that. I know you don't really have any choice but to want some tough guy to take care of you and simplify life for you. So, you sell your soul to have the king that you so desperately need. Sad. But weirdly understandable.

Now I said that I can accept that. I mean, if this king wannabe was truly a genius. Or was a masterful orator (MLK). Or perhaps just seriously competent (think Putin). But Trump? Trump? He is none of these things. If one met him on the street one would simply wish to steer clear. And if one were obligated to shake his hand for politeness sake, one would undoubtedly then want to rush home and take a shower to get the yuck off. Trump?!? is your hero? Your knight in shining armor???

It is one thing to sell your soul for a pile of gold.

But you have sold your soul for a steaming pile of sh!t.

That is the part that is truly beyond comprehension to me.

Wow...you don't know what you're talking about.

Cohen has said Trump was a co-conspirator and even the director of two felonies that directly violate campaign finance laws.

He has obstructed justice openly.

He has admitted to conspiracy with regard to Don Jr., and Mueller for sure has proof that Trump knew about the TT meeting ahead of time.

We also have the Emoluments clause case out there, the look into Trump Foundation case out there, very likely bank fraud and wire fraud and if Cohen is to be believed, a hacking charge.

Clinton was impeached for far less. Nixon wasn't as bad, and he would have been impeached and convicted, so he resigned.

I'm no dope brother. I am the great predictor, and I will be proven right.

You are like a lot of people who don't believe anything has changed until the conviction is sealed. Lots of dominoes to fall, but that first one has been pushed, and they will all fall.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done, and we shall see who is the dope on that one. Tip...it won't be me.

There is no definition of impeachment that says the crime has to have occurred during office, not before.

Congress can decide on their own what is impeachable.

But he surely can be impeached for obstruction of justice while in office.

The firing of Comey would be an obvious example.

But also refusing to be interviewed or testifying for the investigation could be seen as an obstruction.

Then there is the emoluments clause that can be clearly pursued.

And there still is time for Trump to screw up by having Rosenstein and Mueller fired.

With the precedent of Clinton being impeached for lying about sex, it wouldn't take much to start an impeachment proceeding.

Then Trump would have to testify and likely perjure himself about a major crime like bank fraud.

And all of the Mueller evidence will become public.

Then there may be public pressure to convict based on what comes out.

The odds are very high of an impeachment is Democrats gain the House. Probably 80%. Meaning, I'd put up $4,000 to win $1,000 (hypothetically).

Would you wager $1,000 for a chance to win $4,000 against that if the Dems gain control? (hypothetically)

quit while you're ahead wrote:

Flagpole, you are obviously not a lawyer, and from the way he/she writes, it seems likely that Fat Hurts is one, or at least knows more about the law than you. I think you ought not offer such confident opinions about thinks you are not really expert in.

The video I posted is of Arie Melber talking about this issue, with the quote from the Burdick v. United States case stating that you are assuming guilt if you accept a pardon. Melber IS a lawyer.

The case is out there. SCOTUS ruled on it. Sorry, but I'm right.

Racists.

the part you missed is that their souls were sold long ago - what they get out of this deal is owning the libs. Period. They know trump is a lowlife criminal. Yeah part of the appeal is the big man stuff you talk about. People do have a need to be dominated - just human nature.

But what they get from their trumplove is more than that - the most important thing - is that no one owns the libs like Trump. Trump's existence as president is a giant, monster middle finger sticking up at the elite democrats foisting transgender bathrooms and education and healthcare on trumplandia. They love him for that more than for being an authoritarian. When jerry falwell jr says trump is one of them...it sounds funny saying that a billionaire new yorker is 'one of the them' meaning lower class christians. but they see his f'ing with liberals as the most important thing.

Flagpole wrote:Melber IS a lawyer.

I'm sure you don't think that's a solid basis for holding your opinion... because "a lawyer" said it to be true, it must be true...?

I can think of some lawyers I wouldn't necessarily believe all the time. Quickly, off the top of my head, Dershowitz, Cohen, Giuliani....

Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history. The racist argument is a non-starter. Trump has cheated on his wives, big F'n deal & so did almost every other POTUS since George Washington. You voted for Crooked Hillary and what a disgusting POS she is. I look forward to your liberal head exploding until Trump completes his second full term.

M-A-G-A!!!

Mueller never

Clownpole forever