OFFICIAL LRC President Donald Trump SECOND TERM Thread

"I like his policies"

Where is the proof that he is a pedo? Solid proof only, please.

We should be investigating Bill Clinton's treasury sec. Larry Summers ...

Ex-Clinton Cabinet secretary exchanged emails regularly with Epstein after conviction, new docs reveal

Former President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Larry Summers maintained regular contact with Jeffrey Epstein years after he was convicted on prostitution-related charges, documents released by House Republicans on Wednesday revealed.
Among the over 20,000 pages of documents released by House Republicans was a series of email exchanges ranging from 2016 to 2019 between Epstein and Summers that suggest a cozier relationship between the two than previously known. The email exchanges include banter about an unknown woman as well as discussions about politics and President Donald Trump.

On March 3, 2019, just months before his arrest, Epstein and Summers, who was also president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006 and served as the director of former President Obama's National Economic Council from 2009 to 2011, exchanged emails in which they discussed Summers’ correspondence with an unknown woman.
In an email to Epstein, Summers wrote of his interaction with the woman, saying: "We talked on phone. Then ‘I can't talk later’. Dint (sic) think I can talk tomorrow". I said what are you up to. She said ‘I'm busy’. I said awfully coy u are. And then I said. Did u really rearrange the weekend we were going to be together because guy number 3 was coming’ She said no his schedule changed after we changed our plans. I said ok I got to go call me when u feel like it. Tone was not of good feeling. I dint want to be in a gift giving competition while being the friend without benefits."

BILL CLINTON LETTER IN EPSTEIN 'BIRTHDAY BOOK' AMONG NEW FILES RELEASED BY HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Christmas came early as this response to both Comey's and James' motions to dismiss has been out since Nov 3. I didn't see it here, apologies if it was posted, and here goes:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/consolodated-response-comey-james.pdf

Posting this because MSNBC just said two high-powered lawyers are on their way to argue the matter on behalf of Comey in front of a judge and that it "does not look good" for the prosecution. I would expect no less from them. Brief summary of the points and lengthy discussion of what I feel the merits are below (for the record, I don't think Comey's motion--or motions--will succeed).

Ok, this motion claims that the 120 day period that the judiciary has to appoint interim prosecutors is irrelevant. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General (who appointed prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, not Trump) has the authority to appoint whomever she wants when the position is vacant. The judiciary does not have sole authority to appoint; the authority should be considered "parallel," with the executive branch (Bondi) having equal authority.

That is the argument in the motion, not my argument.

Moreover, the response claims that the indictment is not nullified even if Halligan was improperly appointed. And Bondi signed the indictments, too (they were "cured," or made legitimate, when she did so).

Again, that's me summarizing what the document says.

Final point, because I'll expand on it below and explain why I think it's compelling (or use my own argument, based on my understanding of the law and making a prediction about how the judge will rule): even if Lindsey Halligan were improperly appointed, the indictment itself is not invalid (that's a double negative, so to clarify, the argument here is: the grand jury still handed down a valid indictment based on their deliberations and the question of whether or not Halligan had the legal authority to sign that indictment is irrelevant. Comey's argument is that it *does* matter, for the record.)

OK, this last point is really interesting. I started to read up on motions to dismiss and came across the following case...

A man was accused of pointing a gun at two people that he got into an argument with. In most jurisdictions, that is a felony (usually felony assault with a dangerous weapon). When the police arrived, they questioned the man. The sheriff and the man got into an argument. The man brought up a case where the Sheriff was accused of misconduct (I can't remember the details....but the case was widely reported in the media.)

This upset the Sheriff. He threatened to hold the man without bail when he was arrested (and to clarify, if the police think you are guilty of committing a violent felony and have enough evidence to charge you...then you are going to jail). The sheriff does not have the authority to set terms of bail, that is determined by a judge, at the arraignment, which is a hearing where the charges are read, the judge usually consults guidelines to set bail terms, and a dollar amount is given.

On the way to jail, another officer told the man that bail would likely be in the $200-$300 range. From jail, the man called his girlfriend and asked her to bring at least $300 dollars so she could bail him out.

The Sheriff then contacted the judge without the man bring present and told the judge that he felt bail should be set at $1000. This is a violation of the suspect's civil rights. He has a right to be present (with an attorney) at any meeting where this matter is discussed.

It gets worse. The judge didn't make a ruling and there was no arraingement before the girlfriend arrived at the jail. Usually the arrangement needs to happen within a "reasonable" amount of time. It varies by state, but since most courts aren't open on the weekend, it's usually 72 hours at maximum. To clarify, the arraignment was not postponed, it just hadn't happened yet.

The girlfriend shows up at the jail with $300 in cash. A deputy at the jail checks the records for the man and discovers that it says "held without bail" in the jail computer system. That was not the judge's ruling. Again, the judge hasn't made a ruling yet. That is another violation of the man's civil rights.

The man's attorney files a motion to dismiss, using the argument that the man's civil rights have been violated, which they have been without question. The police are part of the executive branch. They can make arrests and gather evidence to support the case for conviction. They cannot make arguments about how bail should be set without the man or his attorney being present, nor can they tell someone "he's being held without bail" when no such ruling exists. Those elements are determined by a judge, who belongs to the judicial branch.

The judge reviews the motion to dismiss and determines that the man's attorney is correct: his civil rights *have* been violated (not once, but twice). But...the judge also denies the motion to dismiss.

If there is a clear and convincing case that official misconduct has occurred, how can the judge let the charges stand? Well...the judge rules that the man has remedies for the misconduct. He can file a lawsuit and recover damages. But his argument that the police were biased against him and acted on that bias to infringe upon his civil rights is irrelevant to the charge. The questions, posed by the indictment, is: did the man point a weapon at someone else and, if so, what evidence is there to support the claim that it rises to the level of a crime? That's either true and there is enough evidence to support the claim that the man broke the law, or it isn't true and there isn't enough evidence to show that a crime occurred. The defendant's attorney has failed to prove that the misconduct made the charge irrelevant.

That's the government's key argument in a nutshell.

I have no issue with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Donald Trump all sharing cells at FCI Danbury.

I would agree with you on that. Maybe throw in Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.

I thought the Epstein birthday book was 'FAKE NEWS!!!'?

That was yesterday.

backing off a bit, all this shows what a great president Obama was. Trump is a dumpster fire like a respectable country has never seen, Bush 2 was a warmonger luke-warm cup of water with a scandal ridden admin, Clinton was er not a family man...

Obama...not a blemish. Good on him, and good on this country for electing him. Even nasty OH, IN, NC voted for the guy.

What recently released document(s) show(s) that?

Don’t get ahead of yourself there. Trumps corrupt DOJ has found another inept lackey in the Miami office that has initiated investigations into ex CIA officials and even Obama himself. What’s it about? You guessed it. The Russia,Russia, Russia hoax.

Never mind that this has now been investigated 4 times and found nothing. Trump needs to rewrite history.

And guess which judge was chosen to assist with the subpoenas. Aileen Cannon who resides 60 miles to the north and happens to be the only judge in her office thereby guaranteeing that she will preside over this sham.

Banana Republic

Larry Sinclair?

The Russiagate hoax is a tremendous stain on America.

Bad Hombre
@joma_gc

Some people are so addicted to being offended and outraged about absolutely everything that they’ll twist words just so they can stay angry.
No, Trump never called Americans stupid, and he never said they were untalented.
He made an objective observation: the American labor force lags behind other countries in certain specialized skills. Why? Because the K–12 education system has been broken for decades and has failed generations of Americans. It’s not their fault.
The infiltration of woke garbage into the curriculum over the past decade hasn’t helped either.
Multiple things can be true at once:
- Americans can and should be retrained to acquire the skills needed for high-demand jobs — and many are. But catching up takes time.
- The H-1B visa system is rife with abuse and fraud. Trump’s $100,000 application fee aimed to curb that abuse and incentivize companies to prioritize hiring Americans.
- Congress needs to step up and do its part to enact reforms INTO LAW.
- The Department of Education should be dismantled, returning authority over education to the states. Trump began that process on day one. But again, Congressional action is required.
- DEI must be killed and meritocracy restored. Trump has done that.
- Republican governors, like DeSantis for examples, have spent the past few years cutting woke propaganda out of the curriculum and refocusing on teaching.
Seeing the results of these efforts takes time. Instead of getting angry and rage-baiting for engagement, be part of the solution.

as has been said by many...this will be a very bad week to be a Venezuelan fisherman.

After falsely claiming for years that consumer prices aren’t affected at all by tariffs, President Trump said this week that he’ll quickly lower consumer coffee prices by lowering his tariffs:

MAGA: I see no contradiction there. Trump deserves immense credit for helping consumers by removing the thing he did that caused pain.

We can't grow coffee in the US (except small amounts in Hawaii and a couple of other areas). Eliminating a tariff on coffee - except for Brazil, as they're a hostile country - makes sense.