Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

BANNEDD wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

BANNED.

Poor baby Sally. The most obvious troll on these boards. And giving Jamin and Hardloper a run for most ignorant poster on LRC.

Sally isn't a troll - he's the only trumper here who's *not* a troll.

Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:

Flagpole, what exactly has Trump been found guilty of? Last I check this is a prosecution report that has led to ZERO indictments.

Good luck on Congress possibly charging Trump with obstruction. Not a strong case especially if Meuller and DOJ can’t come to that conclusion. Both sides will just fight back and forth like high school girls.

Where have I ever said he has been "found guilty" of anything?

Mueller's report DOES clear him of collusion (conspiracy with Russia). It does NOT clear him of Obstruction of Justice. That has been punted to Congress that has two choices...1) Impeach, or 2) Wait until he is out of office and refer for indictment, or both.

Obstruction of Justice is the least of his problems anyway. He WILL be indicted for those two felonies he directed (and charged with felonies). He WILL go to prison for those unless he dies or is pardoned or aliens from space make it not so.

Even THAT is the biggest of his problems. He will face criminal financial charges from the SDNY and perhaps others.

If he weren't President right now he would already have been indicted for the two felonies like Cohen was, and many legal experts are saying he would have been indicted for Obstruction of Justice if he weren't President.

Time will tell. This is not an innocent man. The law will catch up to him. I just really hope he lives long enough to feel the wrath of Lady Justice. I wish for him a long life.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

Why do you think the only premise of the Mueller investigation was to investigate collusion when it was clearly not. Mueller was told to find any crimes that arose from the investigation. He found plenty, and prosecuted dozens of people.

And why, when Mueller listed ten instances of obstruction for you, do say all trump did was tweet obstructiony things?

You want me to answer...I now want you to answer.

But all I hear now from MSNBC experts/pundits is how Mueller had such limited areas to delved in to. How he could only look into very specific goings-on. On the obstruction issue - come on agip. That is all they have to impeach Trump? On something he never participated in you wan't to impeach him for obstructing a bogus investigation. Seriously?

It's true - Mueller found so many crimes investigating trump's campaign and white house that he had to farm them out to other investigators. I'm not sure how that helps your case at all.

I'm sure the Dems could drum up other charges for impeachment. They got bill on obstruction and perjury. I'm 100% sure that the Dems coudl come up with something else beyond obstruction.

And on the other thing...um...what was the 'underlying' crime for Bill's special counsel investigation? Whitewater. Which turned out not to be a crime. So by your logic, bill should not have been impeached either. No original crime, no obstruction, no perjury.

I didn't say to throw it out the window. I specifically mentioned it as a concern of mine. It's a big group of Democrats running for now...I have to see who is left at the end and what is said by each of them by then. Right now he is interesting. Like I said, he would perhaps be a better Vice President this time than President...but if it comes down to him and Gillibrand and maybe a couple others, I would pick him. Gillibrand is really the only one I really do not like at all so far.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Alan, you just laid out what a bogus investigation it was. It was all orchestrated by Dems who wanted to get rid of Trump. Russians attempted to affect the outcome of a US election (your words!). But did the Trump campaign allow it to? Was there any collusion? NO!!!! The whole investigation should have been shut down then! No collusion - no crime. But, the Dems are so hell-bent on getting rid of Trump they come up with this crackpot obstruction crap. Just a farce.

the investigation was started when a *republican* (Pappadopoulos) blabbed to an Australian that russians had dirt on HRC. Then a *Republican* (rosenstein) hired the *Republican* special counsel (Mueller) and a *Republican* Acting AG (Whitaker) oversaw the report's work, until a *Republican* AG (Barr) presented it.

Dems orchestrated nothing. They were bystanders. Stop with the right wing lies. Stop.

Trump has made flat out lying seem acceptable. Sally hasn't read the report and is just spewing White House and right-wing talking points. There is no way to read the Mueller Report and come to the conclusion that Trump did not commit Obstruction of Justice. The House is now going to interview a few people who will clarify for it that he did indeed obstruct justice, and assuming there is enough time before the next election, they will introduce articles of impeachment.

Sally, you have no integrity at all. I thought you were actually capable of learning and having an open mind. You aren't. The obstruction of justice is not "crackpot crap". How is this lost on you?

Let's say someone's posse is accused of burglarizing a hardware store. We will call the someone "Donald."

There is circumstantial evidence that Donald and/or his posse might have been involved in this.

Investigators begin to investigate.

Donald has some contacts in the police department and tries to get a few of them to stop the investigation. We do not know why Donald has tried to stop the investigation, only that he has. They say no.

Donald then asks his lawyer (we will call him Don) to try to get the police to stop investigating. Don refuses.

Word gets out that Donald asked Don to lie, and Donald asks Don to lie then about that. Don refuses.

There are a total of 10 documented times that Donald tried to obstruct justice, and the police department has punted to another authority on that issue.

There is not sufficient evidence to charge Donald with burglarizing the hardware store, but there is a lot of evidence that he tried to obstruct justice (by the way, there is no attempted Obstruction of Justice...there is only Obstruction of Justice, and the attempt is called "endeavor to Obstruction Justice".

Is Donald then exonerated of Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of Justice is a real thing, and it was created precisely to keep subjects and targets and anyone else really from trying to interfere with an investigation. It matters not if the investigation itself bears fruit, for guilty people get away with crimes all the time. You can not obstruct justice, and Mueller has determined that Trump did so 10 notable times. He has now punted to Congress. He made a point of reminding everyone that a President could be indicted after he is no longer in office. He did NOT need to say that. He went as far as he could have gone considering the OLC judgement that a sitting President can not be indicted. He all but said Trump should be indicted after he is out of office...he certainly has left the Obstruction of Justice charge up to Congress and/or another prosecutor. Mueller didn't even have to say he "could not exonerate" Trump. Prosecutors either indict or do not indict. This was a big step for Mueller to take, AND (just shows my ability to be open minded) it might have even been a step too far. The point though is that this was a clear indication from Mueller that he believes Trump is not innocent with regard to Obstruction of Justice.

Right now I am disappointed in you. I hope you are eventually blessed with discernment in this area.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

But all I hear now from MSNBC experts/pundits is how Mueller had such limited areas to delved in to. How he could only look into very specific goings-on. On the obstruction issue - come on agip. That is all they have to impeach Trump? On something he never participated in you wan't to impeach him for obstructing a bogus investigation. Seriously?

Tiny participated in lots of crimes. Those crimes were referred to other jurisdictions. That's what Tiny was afraid of, that's why he said he was f**ked, and that's why he obstructed justice.

CORRECT! Obstruction of Justice is a SERIOUS crime, even if Sally wants to say the investigation is "bogus". The law is clear...you can not obstruct justice. The argument Sally is giving there is beyond stupid. Of course that's what some right-wing talking heads are saying, because they really have nothing else to latch onto because the Mueller Report is damning of Trump and his Presidency.

Not only did he obstruct justice 10 notable times, but he has a Press Secretary who lied to the American people (a HUGE lie too) and he has a staff who doesn't follow his orders.

This is what Sally is defending. Nice.

This is where Sally and educated reasonable people differ. I not only though Bill should have been impeached as he was, I thought he should have been convicted by the Senate, and I was disappointed when he was not. You should not be able to lie and obstruct justice and get away with it.

agip wrote:

BANNEDD wrote:

Poor baby Sally. The most obvious troll on these boards. And giving Jamin and Hardloper a run for most ignorant poster on LRC.

Sally isn't a troll - he's the only trumper here who's *not* a troll.

I agree that Sally is not a troll. He's just uber ignorant on this subject and unwilling to put in the work to learn what really happened. And REALLY off track with saying you can't be charged with Obstruction of Justice on a "bogus" crime. Umm...yes you can. You can NOT obstruct justice or attempt to obstruct justice (endeavor to obstruct) no matter what the original crime was, whether it was started illegally or not, or whether that initial crime was proven or not. To say otherwise is unadulterated stupidity.

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

Sally isn't a troll - he's the only trumper here who's *not* a troll.

I agree that Sally is not a troll. He's just uber ignorant on this subject and unwilling to put in the work to learn what really happened. . . .

How can you be certain that your assessment is the correct one and that Sally has not been playing you?

We’re happy to educate trumpers.

mathss wrote:

Not Really My Name But It Could Be wrote:

1) Square miles do define an area. Not sure what your confusion is on that one.

-- Area has nothing to do with a fixed shape. Normal kids learn this in 7th grade.

2) Circles are indeed defined by radius and center point.

-- Or a diameter without a center point.

3) Your last sentence is not written in English.

-- You cannot figure it out on your own? In life you will always be that person who needs directions to get anything done. Problem solving is not one of your skills.

A radius means that a center point is WHERE THE measurement originates.

wtf is going on here?

Racket wrote:

mathss wrote:

-- You cannot figure it out on your own? In life you will always be that person who needs directions to get anything done. Problem solving is not one of your skills.

A radius means that a center point is WHERE THE measurement originates.

wtf is going on here?

There was a quote in a post that "Not Really My Name But It Could Be" chose to remove. Israel just signed an exclusion oil drilling deal in the contested Golan Heights with a company invested in by Murdock, which also has Dick Chaney as an advisor. It said something to the effect that the deal was a 150ish square mile radial distance. "Not Really My Name But It Could Be" claimed the deal made no sense because a square mile cannot be within a radius distance.

I should add that was mot important, that got dropped by someone arguing about the shape an area with square miles (feet, inches) cannot be round, is how quickly this deal was made after Trump approved Israel taking claim of the Golan Heights. It is obvious the oil deal was a factor in Trump's decision. That deal happens to benefit a major donor to, and support of Trump.

mathss wrote:

Not Really My Name But It Could Be wrote:

1) Square miles do define an area. Not sure what your confusion is on that one.

-- Area has nothing to do with a fixed shape. Normal kids learn this in 7th grade.

2) Circles are indeed defined by radius and center point.

-- Or a diameter without a center point.

3) Your last sentence is not written in English.

-- You cannot figure it out on your own? In life you will always be that person who needs directions to get anything done. Problem solving is not one of your skills.

A radius means that a center point is WHERE THE measurement originates.

1) Where did I say anything about area having something to do with a fixed shape? But now that you mention it, it might be somewhat difficult to measure the area of a shape that is continually changing.

2) So? Usually folks try to have some kind of point when they respond to someone else' point. It appears that you are an exception to this rule.

3) So, you are starting to get the hang of English. Congratulations!

This is what should be discussed. One of the people arguing wants the oil deal part ignored.

153 wrote:

I should add that was most important ... is how quickly this deal was made after Trump approved Israel taking claim of the Golan Heights. It is obvious the oil deal was a factor in Trump's decision. That deal happens to benefit a major donor to, and support of Trump.

153 wrote:

Racket wrote:

wtf is going on here?

There was a quote in a post that "Not Really My Name But It Could Be" chose to remove. Israel just signed an exclusion oil drilling deal in the contested Golan Heights with a company invested in by Murdock, which also has Dick Chaney as an advisor. It said something to the effect that the deal was a 150ish square mile radial distance. "Not Really My Name But It Could Be" claimed the deal made no sense because a square mile cannot be within a radius distance.

Your ignorance is profound and multi-dimensional.

1) I have never, in all of my time on LRC, in every thread I have ever read or posted in, never once requested a post to be removed.

2) I have zero power to remove a post.

3) Nobody on this thread (and certainly not me) EVER said that "a square mile cannot be within a radius distance." I dare you to try to show otherwise. To be fair, you do appear to have trouble with the English language. So perhaps I should not judge you too harshly as you struggle with basic language concepts.

Is there anything else that you would like to advertise your ignorance on?

153 wrote:

I should add that was mot important, that got dropped by someone arguing about the shape an area with square miles (feet, inches) cannot be round, is how quickly this deal was made after Trump approved Israel taking claim of the Golan Heights. It is obvious the oil deal was a factor in Trump's decision. That deal happens to benefit a major donor to, and support of Trump.

Holy Shikes, but you are ignorant!

Someone argued that "the shape an area with square miles (feet, inches) cannot be round"?!? Please do show us the post in which this claim is made. Or just have a moment of integrity and come back and admit that you have understood nothing this entire time and apologize for your ignorance.

153 wrote:

This is what should be discussed. One of the people arguing wants the oil deal part ignored.

153 wrote:

I should add that was most important ... is how quickly this deal was made after Trump approved Israel taking claim of the Golan Heights. It is obvious the oil deal was a factor in Trump's decision. That deal happens to benefit a major donor to, and support of Trump.

The oil was recently discovered. From 2017.

"But there is another element Dayan was not aware of in the Syrian Golan Heights. What no one is openly discussing is the treasure that Israel's Netanyahu is lusting after in the Golan Heights-Oil, huge, recently-discovered reserves of black gold in the Golan Heights."