Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

nontrumper wrote:

just dropping in wrote:

Hey libtwats! How's your Russia thing going? What are your new reasons for impeachment today?

Actually, I'm an independent, but thanks for the concern. In terms of the 'Russia thing,' it's going well. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that this isn't going to end well for Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, Pence, ____, etc.

It will be a very interesting turn of events if Congress abdicates it's role to support fascism even though the crux of the story could be as manufactured as the email server story.

Agreed. The burden of proof is on the accuser. That pretty much nullifies anything that guy said in his long-winded, incoherent rant about not liking to be wrong. LOL!!

There is proof everywhere and it's emerging hourly. He painted an excellent straw man argument to strengthen his point. He kicked your asses. You guys are just too damn stupid to "get" abstract concepts, lending further credence to the fact that Trump voters are highly unintelligent people with low integrity and bad morals.

eric a blair wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Let's keep this straight.

Back channels are not illegal in and of themselves.

The back channels Kushner and Flynn were asking for are almost definitely illegal. Just asking the Russians for the back channel is probably illegal in this case. If the story is true, they are probably both guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act, the Logan Act, and others depending on the details.

Omitting their Russian contacts on their security clearance forms is also a felony.

I'm not so sure the backchannel would have been illegal - do you have a serious source who says it would have been?

and also collusion is probably not illegal either, unless it was some sort of conspiracy to commit a crime.

There are lots of serious people, lawyers and such, who are saying that if true, Flynn and Kushners actions are illegal. Just do a bit of research.

Omitting Russian contacts on security clearance forms seem to be the easiest to prove. It is a felony. We know for certain that both Flynn and Kushner did that. The only defense is that it was an innocent mistake. I don't think a jury would buy it.

Fat hurts wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

I'm not so sure the backchannel would have been illegal - do you have a serious source who says it would have been?

and also collusion is probably not illegal either, unless it was some sort of conspiracy to commit a crime.

There are lots of serious people, lawyers and such, who are saying that if true, Flynn and Kushners actions are illegal. Just do a bit of research.

Omitting Russian contacts on security clearance forms seem to be the easiest to prove. It is a felony. We know for certain that both Flynn and Kushner did that. The only defense is that it was an innocent mistake. I don't think a jury would buy it.

I poked around for an expert who thought teh backchannel would have been illegal, couldn't find it.

obvi lying on disclosure forms is illegal.

but collusion...probably not.

NYT story on whether a sitting president can be indicted, outside the impeachment process.

the conventional wisdom is no, but the constitution never deals with the question.

(another blow to the 'originalists' who don't think the Constitution needs interpretation)

This would be a massive constitutional crisis - if say Trump okd a cash infusion from a foreign country to his campaign via some money laundering scheme, then a grand jury indicts him.

That would be an ugly time for the nation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

eric a blair wrote:

NYT story on whether a sitting president can be indicted, outside the impeachment process.

the conventional wisdom is no, but the constitution never deals with the question.

(another blow to the 'originalists' who don't think the Constitution needs interpretation)

This would be a massive constitutional crisis - if say Trump okd a cash infusion from a foreign country to his campaign via some money laundering scheme, then a grand jury indicts him.

That would be an ugly time for the nation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

There's an awful lot of "ifs" and "woulds" coming from you guys lately, Agip.

Burden of proof wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

NYT story on whether a sitting president can be indicted, outside the impeachment process.

the conventional wisdom is no, but the constitution never deals with the question.

(another blow to the 'originalists' who don't think the Constitution needs interpretation)

This would be a massive constitutional crisis - if say Trump okd a cash infusion from a foreign country to his campaign via some money laundering scheme, then a grand jury indicts him.

That would be an ugly time for the nation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

There's an awful lot of "ifs" and "woulds" coming from you guys lately, Agip.

The LEAKS!!!!!! Focus on the LEAKS!!!!! They are all you should care about! Didn't you here how upset my pro-Brexit friend....er, I mean the PM of Great Britian was about the recent LEAKS!!! Or, you could focus on VOTER FRAUD! Just look at the results of the lasts presidential election and tell me there isn't something seriously wrong with at least half of the voting public in the US. Focus on ANYTHING other than the Trump-Russia thing...because that's a witch hunt! FAKE NEWS!!!!!

Burden of proof wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

NYT story on whether a sitting president can be indicted, outside the impeachment process.

the conventional wisdom is no, but the constitution never deals with the question.

(another blow to the 'originalists' who don't think the Constitution needs interpretation)

This would be a massive constitutional crisis - if say Trump okd a cash infusion from a foreign country to his campaign via some money laundering scheme, then a grand jury indicts him.

That would be an ugly time for the nation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

There's an awful lot of "ifs" and "woulds" coming from you guys lately, Agip.

well maybe

but we know a lot, especially how obstruction of justice works. And that the senate has asked for every record from the trump campaign and that the FBI and House investigations roll on. And oh yeah did I forget the special counsel?

Sorry did I forget other things we know? Like Trump being the least popular new president in modern times? And how he yells at his staff, threatening to fire them? And that on memorial day his daughter tweeted how to make champaigne popsicles?

these clips are funny wrote:

These clips of Trump's utterly ridiculous handshakes are very funny.

What wrong with that guy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-handshake_us_592adb83e4b0df57cbfc23fd?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&section=politics&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Any clips of Donald shaking hands with Putin?

Serious issue wrote:

Any clips of Donald shaking hands with Putin?

Serious issue wrote:

Any clips of Donald shaking hands with Putin?

Ouch said Trump's ego

Small Hands wrote:

Serious issue wrote:

Any clips of Donald shaking hands with Putin?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5bOYSAWAAE9nAG.jpg

exthrower wrote:

Well, the FBI investigation is almost one year old and still no sign of collusion or wrongdoing.....What are you losers gonna 'hang your hat on" next?

I think you mean no has been arrested yet.

And tell me how long have we had an independent counsel looking into this?

Oh, less than two weeks, and no arrests yet, wow.

Trump supporters remind me of the mothers of delinquents. Oh my boy, he would never do anything like that!.....You can't prove anything!

Just as the delinquent's mother is blinded by love, so is the Trump supporter.

Exthrower, be honest. Regardless of whether or not you support his policies, don't you think he is a huge jerk.

Answer if you are man enough.

eric a blair wrote:

I poked around for an expert who thought teh backchannel would have been illegal, couldn't find it.

obvi lying on disclosure forms is illegal.

but collusion...probably not.

Wait, I thought that Flagpole has assured us with 100% certainty that collusion IS illegal!

ISIS raises the black flag in Philly right under the nose of the get tough Trump Administration. "Lock her up" is now a real threat to many in his own administration, with the main culprit being the "lock her up cheerleader" Flynn.

The wall is no where to be seen and paying for it is attached to the federal budget. Ban on Muslims by Donald J Trump gets shot down, AGAIN. Dumping Obama care is surprising the man-boy Trump as being "harder than he thought". Uptick in crime in the very cities where he said he would restore law and order. VP pence has proven to be nothing more than a ineffective Trump Kiss A**, selected for nothing more than to capture votes. The POTUS is proving to be a thin skin weakling, who has to respond to via Twitter to all those that critique, lowering the dignity of the office. Policy of enrich the rich, let it trickle down to the poor didn't work before, wont work this time either. Trump actually wants to roll back environmental protections with no explanation as to why except saving a few coal mining jobs. Meanwhile rolling back environmental regs will cause a loss of jobs. This administration has no clear vision and the mechanics are out of it's league. Face it ... This POTUS has done NOTHING for the Nation or World. He's a DISASTER

exthrower wrote:

Well, the FBI investigation is almost one year old and still no sign of collusion or wrongdoing.....What are you losers gonna 'hang your hat on" next?

No sign of collusion?

The signs are everywhere. That's why we now have a special prosecutor.

There are also plenty of signs of crimes committed by Trump and his cronies. But when you are going after the president, you don't do it hastily. Mueller will get his ducks in a row and then it will all hit the fan. These things take time.

exthrower wrote:

Well, the FBI investigation is almost one year old and still no sign of collusion or wrongdoing.....What are you losers gonna 'hang your hat on" next?

Didn't we have like 12 Beghazi investigations over 4-5 years? With that sort of precedent, there's still years remaining before all this gets sorted out!