Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

No no no wrote:

CONspiracy wrote:

Conspiracy. Not collusion.

Flagpole says collusion.

The meeting was neither collusion nor conspiracy. Bob Woodward agrees with me.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Ms. Ford takes a polygraph and hires a lawyer in August but had no intention of going public until her identity was exposed. Is that so?

Yes. You are not intelligent enough to know that until she passed a polygraph, and had a lawyer to make sure it was done properly, then it was obvious she has a case for the alleged abuse.

How do people like you manage to graduate middle school? Learning to think! properly usually occurs at that level. Well, maybe not for rabid Trumpers.

fist bump the idiots wrote:

bumping for idiots wrote:

Of course, I'm an idiot so how would I have a clue as to who is or isn't going down? I listen to Blowhard Flagpole, so that doesn't say a whole lot about my unstableness. Sorry, I forgot to put that part in there as I don't think so good.

Not too original nor very bright. My guess Rigged or jaminloper.

It is very, very likely that Rigged for Hillary = Jamin.

fist bump the idiots wrote:

bumping for idiots wrote:

Of course, I'm an idiot so how would I have a clue as to who is or isn't going down? I listen to Blowhard Flagpole, so that doesn't say a whole lot about my unstableness. Sorry, I forgot to put that part in there as I don't think so good.

I'm not too original nor very bright. My guess Flagpole or Flagpole.

I don't want to speak for others, but I do agree about the above statement.

Rigged by Jamin wrote:

fist bump the idiots wrote:

Not too original nor very bright. My guess Rigged or jaminloper.

It is very, very likely that Rigged for Jamin = FLAGPOLE.

Correct^^^

Make America Great Again wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This shows you don't know anything about anything. You should try another thread.

People like yourself resort to personal attacks when you have nothing of substance to write. How sad!

Well, I will submit to this...I should have just ignored your post. You aren't a regular poster, so you haven't really shown a pattern of not knowing anything...just in this one particular post you showed you didn't know what you were talking about. I wasn't in the mood to educate you, so you got that curt response. So, you didn't deserve that response from me. Now that it is out though, even though I shouldn't have said it to you just yet (again due to not enough posting from you), what I said was true, just not necessary just yet.

But again, you didn't deserve that response from me. I am not perfect, and I apologize unreservedly.

Politico wrote:

No no no wrote:

Flagpole says collusion.

The meeting was neither collusion nor conspiracy. Bob Woodward agrees with me.

An actual quote from Woodward's book "Fear" which you will never bother to read.

Chapter 21: [John] Dowd [Trump's former lawyer] discussed the known facts with Trump’s legal advisers and reviewed the material for possible vulnerabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the known evidence, he did not see anything to support a charge of collusion with the Russians or obstruction of justice.

And that is it as far as it goes. Woodward himself makes zero assumptions about collusion. The word conspiracy appears exactly ONE time. and it is a quote from Dowd. “All the records have been produced,” Dowd said. “All the witnesses have been interviewed except one or two. The entire inquiry appears to be the product of a conspiracy by the DNC...”

Make America Great Again wrote:

Because nothing came out of the meeting, there was no conspiracy or "collusion."

I understand your point, but under the law conspiracy does not depend on an outcome.

IF Donald Trump Jr. was under the impression that he would be dealing with agents of another country to influence an American election--and it certainly appears that he was ("I love it especially later in the summer") . . .

AND he took a concrete step toward such influencing--and it certainly appears that he did (setting up the Trump Tower meeting) . . .

THEN he engaged in conspiracy to commit an election-code crime, regardless of whether the outcome was what he desired or a complete nothingburger.

That's the law.

Related: Even if a crime is a misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit that crime is a felony.

Wow ... one post outs jamin as being Rigged for Hillary and Jamin has a meltdown.

Hey, jamin. You just confirmed you are Rigged for Hillary, as well as a rampant name thief.

Good work.

present, esq. wrote:

Make America Great Again wrote:

Because nothing came out of the meeting, there was no conspiracy or "collusion."

I understand your point, but under the law conspiracy does not depend on an outcome.

IF Donald Trump Jr. was under the impression that he would be dealing with agents of another country to influence an American election--and it certainly appears that he was ("I love it especially later in the summer") . . .

AND he took a concrete step toward such influencing--and it certainly appears that he did (setting up the Trump Tower meeting) . . .

THEN he engaged in conspiracy to commit an election-code crime, regardless of whether the outcome was what he desired or a complete nothingburger.

That's the law.

Related: Even if a crime is a misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit that crime is a felony.

The real issue for the Trump family is that not a single one of them cares about the law. Laws are for the "little" people.

Politico wrote:

The meeting was neither collusion nor conspiracy. Bob Woodward agrees with me.

You Trumpers are hilarious.

1) Bob Woodward did not say the Trump Tower Meeting wasn't collusion or conspiracy. In fact he said, "We’re going to see what Mueller has."

2) Here is the question that Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward, "Did you Bob Woodward hear anything in your research or your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?” Woodward replied, "I did not. Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard.” So, in his OWN research and interviews, he didn't hear anything about collusion. That would be remarkable if someone on the Trump team admitted to that.

3) Woodward's book is all about how unfit Trump is to be President and how his staff all feels that way. Woodward has been going on talk shows talking about how dangerous they all say Trump is, and Woodward has said he has never seen anything like it. Comparing Trump to Nixon, Woodward said that at least Nixon was competent and that no one ever said otherwise. As a result of that book then and those interviews, Trump and the White House have attacked Woodward as a bad journalist, said that all his other books have had big problems and that Fear is fiction. BUT, then when you can take a Woodward quote out of context that seems to support your HOPE that Trump didn't collude, then he's the most reliable person ever.

Note this -- It will be proven that Trump and his Administration colluded (conspired) with Russia to help him win the election.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

It is entirely possible they are both telling the truth. She was at a party and someone who she believes was Kavanaugh tried to force himself on you. But was it really Kavanaugh? She supposedly first remembered this 6 years ago I think. But she did not remember where, or during what year it happened. Since she believes everything she says, she passes the polygraph. That does not mean what she remembers (meaning who) is accurate.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Hey Dude! wrote:

Hey Lying Gary Lite! Remember when you came on this thread and tried to pretend that you were not a hard core Trumpette? That was sooooo cute! Absolutely adorable.

///

Lying Gary Lite

But we all knew that you are irrational and only see one side of an issue.

What is with the //? Seems weird, is that some symbol of deludion Dudley?

//?

Hey, Lying Gary Lite!

Any reason that you can't keep your word? I mean, besides the fact that you are a liar.

///

Lying Gary Lite

present, esq. wrote:

Make America Great Again wrote:

Because nothing came out of the meeting, there was no conspiracy or "collusion."

I understand your point, but under the law conspiracy does not depend on an outcome.

IF Donald Trump Jr. was under the impression that he would be dealing with agents of another country to influence an American election--and it certainly appears that he was ("I love it especially later in the summer") . . .

AND he took a concrete step toward such influencing--and it certainly appears that he did (setting up the Trump Tower meeting) . . .

THEN he engaged in conspiracy to commit an election-code crime, regardless of whether the outcome was what he desired or a complete nothingburger.

That's the law.

Related: Even if a crime is a misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit that crime is a felony.

Indeed!

The thought that a group needs to succeed in what they are conspiring to do in order to be conspiring (conspiracy) is so obviously incorrect that it is hard to believe anyone could actually believe this.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Ms. Ford takes a polygraph and hires a lawyer in August but had no intention of going public until her identity was exposed. Is that so?

Your reaction to Ms Ford might actually hand the Dems the Senate too. Let the hearings play out in public, she has the right to allege this happened and the public has the right to scrutinize his resume and moral standing for the job. People seem very eager to lower the standard for the highest seat in the system.

Duane wrote:

It is entirely possible they are both telling the truth. She was at a party and someone who she believes was Kavanaugh tried to force himself on you. But was it really Kavanaugh? She supposedly first remembered this 6 years ago I think. But she did not remember where, or during what year it happened. Since she believes everything she says, she passes the polygraph. That does not mean what she remembers (meaning who) is accurate.

A far, far more likely scenario for your "they are both telling the truth" hypothesis is that she is telling the truth about what actually happened and he has forgotten that it ever took place because he was drunk at the time and it was "no big deal" to him - hence, less memorable.

PIO! wrote:

Duane wrote:

It is entirely possible they are both telling the truth. She was at a party and someone who she believes was Kavanaugh tried to force himself on you. But was it really Kavanaugh? She supposedly first remembered this 6 years ago I think. But she did not remember where, or during what year it happened. Since she believes everything she says, she passes the polygraph. That does not mean what she remembers (meaning who) is accurate.

A far, far more likely scenario for your "they are both telling the truth" hypothesis is that she is telling the truth about what actually happened and he has forgotten that it ever took place because he was drunk at the time and it was "no big deal" to him - hence, less memorable.

And more likely still is that he knows damn well it happened but is blatantly lying about it, just like Clarence Thomas did

Awsi Dooger wrote:

PIO! wrote:

A far, far more likely scenario for your "they are both telling the truth" hypothesis is that she is telling the truth about what actually happened and he has forgotten that it ever took place because he was drunk at the time and it was "no big deal" to him - hence, less memorable.

And more likely still is that he knows damn well it happened but is blatantly lying about it, just like Clarence Thomas did

It is more than likely Kavanagh is not telling the truth. Let's see if Republicans allow their interrogation of the woman to be 100% public, and not classified by them as top secret. Body language experts will rip Kavanaugh to shreds.

Trump has some 20 other judges in his pool to pick from. He can dump Kavanaugh--Trump has already said he is willing to wait--and then nominate someone else. He can then Tweet how respectful he is towards women, because as he previously stated, "No one has more respect for women than I do." He can then play that one again to incite his people to the polls in November to vote Republican, and hope that many undecided swing his way.

Oh, look what we have now. Rather than a public hearing involving JUST Kavanugh and the woman, guess what the Republican plan is? To turn the hearing into a farce. They plan to parade a bunch of women during the "staged" event to claim how wonderful Kavanaugh has been since he was a child. Because, a guy who tried to rape an underage woman must obviously have tried to rape every woman he has ever known. Yup.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-white-house-supreme-court-nominee/index.html