Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

nontrumper wrote:

Do you realize Nixon had a Republican-controlled Senate? How did that turn out in the end? The evidence of Trump's wrongdoings are becoming more and more evident and Mueller is just getting starting with the serious charges. At some point, Republicans, at least enough of them, will have no choice and impeachment will be on the table. Or Trump will resign. 2019 is going to be a bumpy, rocky ride, but I'm confident Trump will not complete his first term. The wheels of justice are gaining steam and will be unstoppable. Every day there seems to be something new and significant in the media. Not really new if you've been paying attention though. As it was reported in the last day or so, Mueller's investigation is global. This will end up as the biggest criminal investigation in history.

CORRECT!

Trump will either resign OR be convicted by the Senate after Impeachment by the House. I can't choose which one it will be because that presumes that I know how Trump will behave, and he is irrational, so I don't know if he will resign or make the Senate convict him. I agree with you that he will NOT finish his first term.

nontrumper wrote:

Do you realize Nixon had a Republican-controlled Senate? How did that turn out in the end? The evidence of Trump's wrongdoings are becoming more and more evident and Mueller is just getting starting with the serious charges. At some point, Republicans, at least enough of them, will have no choice and impeachment will be on the table. Or Trump will resign. 2019 is going to be a bumpy, rocky ride, but I'm confident Trump will not complete his first term. The wheels of justice are gaining steam and will be unstoppable. Every day there seems to be something new and significant in the media. Not really new if you've been paying attention though. As it was reported in the last day or so, Mueller's investigation is global. This will end up as the biggest criminal investigation in history.

The GOP was a real political party back in Nixon's day. Plenty of flaws and certainly one could disagree with their platform at the time - but the concepts like truth, decency, patriotism were not wholly absent from the party. We're in a whole different world now.

Conviction is highly unlikely at this point, because the state has not shown any evidence. Just because Cohen has accepted their account of events, that's not an established fact. When the defendant pleads guilty, the state does not need the same level of certainty to present any "evidence" as in the case of a trial.

So far, the leaked tape is the only physical evidence. The two were discussing the payment, but not it's objective. Trump could still claim that the payment was made to save his marriage and he didn't know it was illegal. You cannot use Cohen as a witness because his credibility is so seriously damaged. So unless the state has any other physical evidence, it will come down to Trump's words vs, words or Pecker, Weisselberg or anyone else the state brings as a witness. It's still a "he said, he said" situation, and the burden of proof is 100% on the side of state. They have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that Trump was "knowingly and willfully" violating the law.

John Edwards got away with his case. There is no reason to think that Trump cannot.

Make America Great Again wrote:

Conviction is highly unlikely ... John Edwards got away with his case. There is no reason to think that Trump cannot.

^ LOOK! SQUIRREL! multiplied by TRUMPEE DELUSION SYNDROME

Ok. Denial is strong with you. The Edwards case is not equivalent for many reasons. I was going to list the reasons, but I suggest you go research it on your own. I tire of trying to educate you for today. You just know way too little. I may gain strength for another day to try again to help you see the truth, but for now, I will have to allow you to remain in your current state of darkness.

Hhhhmmmmm, I wonder what the top story is right now on foxnews.com?

Oh, yeah that makes sense....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-examine-accusations-of-pay-to-play-at-clinton-foundation-amid-plunge-in-donations

LOOK SQUIRREL!!!!

Typical Trumpette wrote:

agip wrote:

Your monthly reminder of what utter frauds the legislators of the Republican Party are. They are giving the store away.

Is this what they promised when they sold Rs the tax plan? Record deficits every month?

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1073305640985092097

The REAL reason that the deficits are exploding is SPENDING. Spending is OUT OF CONTROL. The problem has NOTHING to do with the tax cuts.

Hey, if you want to pay more taxes go ahead. In understand that the IRS is open to contributions at any time.

;-)

Yasss!!! Let’s cut taxes so we HAVE to make cuts to entitlement spending (just don’t make cuts to the military!!!!)

Alan

He's like a big, fat, orange onion, and peeling back layers just reveals more and more crimes. The only question is whether he'll resign, or face his own party dumping him.

"Does Google now know the full extent to which its online platforms were exploited by Russian actors in the election two years ago?" Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the search engine's chief executive during Tuesday's hearing.

​"We have - we undertook a very thorough investigation, and, in 2016, we now know that there were two main ad accounts linked to Russia which advertised on Google for about $4,700 in advertising," Pichai responded.

"A total of $4,700?" Nadler asked to confirm.

"That's right," the Google executive replied.

Breaking News!!!!! wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-11544736455?mod=mhp

Hhhhmmmmm, I wonder what the top story is right now on foxnews.com?

"Fox News Poll: Pelosi, McConnell face ratings in the tank heading into new term"

Second story: "Republicans examine accusations of ‘pay to play’ at Clinton Foundation"

Ctrl+F for "inau" on the whole page: no hits

Runningart2004 wrote:

Typical Trumpette wrote:

The REAL reason that the deficits are exploding is SPENDING. Spending is OUT OF CONTROL. The problem has NOTHING to do with the tax cuts.

Hey, if you want to pay more taxes go ahead. In understand that the IRS is open to contributions at any time.

;-)

Yasss!!! Let’s cut taxes so we HAVE to make cuts to entitlement spending (just don’t make cuts to the military!!!!)

Alan

I love how Republicans love to spend insane amounts on the military but when it comes to VA issues, meh.

kibitzer wrote:

Breaking News!!!!! wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-11544736455?mod=mhp

Hhhhmmmmm, I wonder what the top story is right now on foxnews.com?

"Fox News Poll: Pelosi, McConnell face ratings in the tank heading into new term"

Second story: "Republicans examine accusations of ‘pay to play’ at Clinton Foundation"

Ctrl+F for "inau" on the whole page: no hits

Why would Fox News care about wooden sticks?

Just kidding of course, I know you mean inauguration and the reason that story isn't there is because it's obviously

*deep inhale*

FAKE NEWS

Darkness? DARKNESS?!? Them's fighting words, fella! I'm as white as my momma's behind!

Runningart2004 wrote:

Typical Trumpette wrote:

The REAL reason that the deficits are exploding is SPENDING. Spending is OUT OF CONTROL. The problem has NOTHING to do with the tax cuts.

Hey, if you want to pay more taxes go ahead. I understand that the IRS is open to contributions at any time.

;-)

Yasss!!! Let’s cut taxes so we HAVE to make cuts to entitlement spending (just don’t make cuts to the military!!!!)

Alan

Also, not to MY entitlement benefits! Keep your dirty gov'ment hands off MY Social Security!!!

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

We have talked about this before. There is no legal mechanism that includes resignation as part of any deal. The parties wouldn't even be able to talk about it.

That's why he won't resign. Tiny would have nothing whatsoever to gain from it.

A formal legal mechanism in place or not, as I have said, some well-respected lawyers are saying this is a path for him. As you are not a lawyer (at least not to my knowledge), I will have to side with their view on this until there is at least a respected legal opinion that differs, and then we will have to see what the result is.

Who are these lawyers?

Are they saying that resignation would be part of a deal?

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

A formal legal mechanism in place or not, as I have said, some well-respected lawyers are saying this is a path for him. As you are not a lawyer (at least not to my knowledge), I will have to side with their view on this until there is at least a respected legal opinion that differs, and then we will have to see what the result is.

Who are these lawyers?

Are they saying that resignation would be part of a deal?

You could probably challenge the Constitutionality of forcing a president to step down as part of a deal. Actually, the whole thing is going to be challenged to the Supreme Court (if indictments come) where it will get drawn out past January 2021 and so Flagpole will be WRONG

Hmmm, spoke too soon. Has this been posted here yet?

https://hillreporter.com/republican-lawmakers-considering-dumping-donald-trump-save-the-party-17481

Fat Hurts, all you EV nonsense has actually led me to a rather attractive investment opportunity in the form of platinum and palladium ETFs. You will receive no commission for this finding but I will congratulate you in 1 year's time if I end positive on the shares.