Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions.

His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”

Subscribe to our expanded print magazine for more politics, deeper culture, better access

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump.

Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”

What Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public.

In a New York Times op-ed Monday, Nadler wrote: “We — the members of the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives, and the entire American public — are still waiting to see that report… We have an obligation to read the full report, and the Department of Justice has an obligation to provide it, in its entirely, without delay.”

Twenty-one years ago, Nadler said that the Starr Report was inherently biased against Clinton: “'We should always remember this is a prosecutor's report — by its nature it's a one-sided report.” He complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”

In October 1998, Nadler attacked the legitimacy of the independent counsel investigation: “Starr thinks he is going to be investigating things in four years … I find that astonishing and appalling. Is this a permanent inquisition against the president?” The language Nadler used was reminiscent of the “witch hunt” language used by Trump in reference to Mueller’s investigation.

In a February 1999 article in the New York Times, Nadler called the Starr Report and impeachment efforts by Republicans a “partisan coup d'etat.” He said he didn’t think Clinton had obstructed justice and that even if he had, it would not be an impeachable offense. “An impeachable offense is an abuse of Presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,” Nadler said.

Last month, before Mueller had finished his investigation, Nadler was already claiming that “it’s very clear that the president obstructed justice.” He said impeachment was a possibility: "We have to do the investigations and get all this … We do not now have the evidence all sorted out to do an impeachment … Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen.”

Special counsel Mueller declined to charge anyone associated with the Trump campaign of coordination with the Russians, but did not reach a decision on obstruction. Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Trump had not obstructed justice.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said Tuesday that the influx of migrants currently flooding over the southern border represents the “worst crisis” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents have confronted since the agency was formed in 1924.

“This is the worst crisis the Border Patrol has ever faced in the history of the Border Patrol and we’re going back to 1924,” Judd told WMAL radio host Vince Coglianese.“In my 21-year career as a Border Patrol agent, I’ve never seen it like this and I’ve worked in the busiest locations. . . . In the history of the Border Patrol it’s never been like this before. This is the worst it’s ever been and if we don’t do something it’s going to continue to get worse.”

Either you choose to believe the lying libs in Congress or the actual Border Patrol agents on the ground.

Sally Vix wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

The Starr Report included grand jury testimony.

Alan

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions.

His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”

Subscribe to our expanded print magazine for more politics, deeper culture, better access

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump.

Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”

What Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public.

In a New York Times op-ed Monday, Nadler wrote: “We — the members of the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives, and the entire American public — are still waiting to see that report… We have an obligation to read the full report, and the Department of Justice has an obligation to provide it, in its entirely, without delay.”

Twenty-one years ago, Nadler said that the Starr Report was inherently biased against Clinton: “'We should always remember this is a prosecutor's report — by its nature it's a one-sided report.” He complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”

In October 1998, Nadler attacked the legitimacy of the independent counsel investigation: “Starr thinks he is going to be investigating things in four years … I find that astonishing and appalling. Is this a permanent inquisition against the president?” The language Nadler used was reminiscent of the “witch hunt” language used by Trump in reference to Mueller’s investigation.

In a February 1999 article in the New York Times, Nadler called the Starr Report and impeachment efforts by Republicans a “partisan coup d'etat.” He said he didn’t think Clinton had obstructed justice and that even if he had, it would not be an impeachable offense. “An impeachable offense is an abuse of Presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,” Nadler said.

Last month, before Mueller had finished his investigation, Nadler was already claiming that “it’s very clear that the president obstructed justice.” He said impeachment was a possibility: "We have to do the investigations and get all this … We do not now have the evidence all sorted out to do an impeachment … Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen.”

Special counsel Mueller declined to charge anyone associated with the Trump campaign of coordination with the Russians, but did not reach a decision on obstruction. Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Trump had not obstructed justice.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Mueller ended his investigation having indicted ZERO Americans for colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Then he proactively rejected that "members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."

Get this through your thick TDS infected skulls.

Mueller never

http://www.graphic-buffet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Character_Clown-example.jpg

- forever

Just because there’s not enough evidence to indict doesn’t mean there’s zero evidence.

Also, early on I questioned the whole conspiracy thing. I’m not Flagpole.

Whatever you wanna call it the Trump Tower Meeting was shady and borderline illegal. What do you think they were talking about? Puppies.

Same with Manafort and polling data.

Same with Stone and Wikileaks.

It all rather stinks.

Ultimately I believe they all simply wanted to make a ton of money and increase the relevance of the Trump brand. That’s the whole reason he ran in the first place. He REALLY wants his Moscow Tower. His whole relationship with Russia is completely about doing business. He’s using the presidency to line his pocketbook.

So, we will all eventually see the whole report. It still won’t matter. It still won’t be a smoking gun. Notice his poll numbers after the Barr Summary? Haven’t moved. That’s telling. Those on the fence are off it. The swing voters have already made up their mind. Now it’s going to be a race of....as I’ve continued to say....TURN OUT. Even a rabid 40% will result in a Trump win IF they all show up to the polls.

Tick, tick, tick, tick....

The economy will start to buckle before 2020. Probably not a recession, but maybe just so/so numbers. Why? It’s just the natural cycle of things.

As I’ve predicted before...Trump will lose in a landslide. If Beto is the nominee he will lose TX.

My best guess:

He loses AZ, FL, NC, then of course PA, WI, MI. That would represent about a 3% shift as he won those states by about 3% or less. OH, even though he won by 8%, could also be a L because of the affects the tariffs have had.

Alan

agip wrote:

Because you know, conservatives are the law and order types.

Hah. Giggle giggle.

Career officials are horrified by law and rule breaking in the trump administration and are working with congress to stop it.

This is truly an outlaw administration, found again and again and again to be continuously breaking laws, rules and norms. You 'conservatives' don't care about laws, rules and norms, sadly, When Spanky is your leader anyway. Bow down deeply to your corrupt lord, 'conservatives.' No, bow more deeply. More. More.

:

The House Oversight Committee is currently working with “dozens” of government employees who have flagged rule-breaking throughout the Trump administration, an aide to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) told The Atlantic.

The number of whistleblowers coming to lawmakers has reportedly spiked under President Donald Trump, the first reports of malfeasance coming right after his inauguration. A handful of them work in the White House.

Tricia Newbold, the former White House personnel security office employee, stands out from the pack because most whistleblowers won’t go on the record with their accusations. Newbold brought to light White House advisor Jared Kushner’s initially denied security clearance due to foreign influences and business entanglements.

agip wrote:

Because you know, conservatives are the law and order types.

Hah. Giggle giggle.

Career officials are horrified by law and rule breaking in the trump administration and are working with congress to stop it.

This is truly an outlaw administration, found again and again and again to be continuously breaking laws, rules and norms. You 'conservatives' don't care about laws, rules and norms, sadly, When Spanky is your leader anyway. Bow down deeply to your corrupt lord, 'conservatives.' No, bow more deeply. More. More.

:

The House Oversight Committee is currently working with “dozens” of government employees who have flagged rule-breaking throughout the Trump administration, an aide to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) told The Atlantic.

The number of whistleblowers coming to lawmakers has reportedly spiked under President Donald Trump, the first reports of malfeasance coming right after his inauguration. A handful of them work in the White House.

Tricia Newbold, the former White House personnel security office employee, stands out from the pack because most whistleblowers won’t go on the record with their accusations. Newbold brought to light White House advisor Jared Kushner’s initially denied security clearance due to foreign influences and business entanglements.

trumpster fires wrote:

agip wrote:

Because you know, conservatives are the law and order types.

Hah. Giggle giggle.

Career officials are horrified by law and rule breaking in the trump administration and are working with congress to stop it.

This is truly an outlaw administration, found again and again and again to be continuously breaking laws, rules and norms. You 'conservatives' don't care about laws, rules and norms, sadly, When Spanky is your leader anyway. Bow down deeply to your corrupt lord, 'conservatives.' No, bow more deeply. More. More.

:

The House Oversight Committee is currently working with “dozens” of government employees who have flagged rule-breaking throughout the Trump administration, an aide to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) told The Atlantic.

The number of whistleblowers coming to lawmakers has reportedly spiked under President Donald Trump, the first reports of malfeasance coming right after his inauguration. A handful of them work in the White House.

Tricia Newbold, the former White House personnel security office employee, stands out from the pack because most whistleblowers won’t go on the record with their accusations. Newbold brought to light White House advisor Jared Kushner’s initially denied security clearance due to foreign influences and business entanglements.

Can you be a little more specific on what rules were broken?