Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

B.S. + wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

No way...WORLD'S different...and the most important fact is, The Lovely Mrs. Flagpole did not know how much money I made or had saved until after she agreed to marry me. I also incidentally didn't know how much money SHE had until she said yes. So, nice try, but NOPE!

Nice try.

There is no way that you did not constantly spout off to her about all the money you had. You really expect us to believe that. LMAO

; )

I can't believe that crook President Hil.. I mean Hillary destroyed those emails. North Korea, if your listening I'm sure people would be happy to get those emails. Wink wink nod nod.

Racket wrote:

x-Perience wrote:

You seem to have a lot of meth use experience. Just saying.

Yeah I binge watched Breaking Bad in like 3 days a few years ago.

Making excuses now?

Melania can ‘fess up anytime about being an illegal immigrant; she deceives only herself. Subsequently she could advocate for others like her.

Integrity CALLS for the truth to be told even when that truth is not pretty. I say what is low class is BEING a gold-digging whore. The ability to recognize what someone is based on their behavior does not show low moral character.

This is funny.

Over the weekend, Trump tweeted, "Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!"

Now

"I'm going to leave that up to our very great attorney general. He'll make a decision on that,"

Hmm

What decision do you think Barr will make?

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Nice find. If he doesn't call his lovely wife a gold-digging whore, then his mantra of 100% integrity 100% of the time needs to be revoked and rescinded.

No way...WORLD'S different...and the most important fact is, The Lovely Mrs. Flagpole did not know how much money I made or had saved until after she agreed to marry me. I also incidentally didn't know how much money SHE had until she said yes. So, nice try, but NOPE!

So, Flaggy has a Melania of his own?

Of course, she could have married him for his height.

Racket wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

She can be a great mother and still be a gold-digging whore.

You cannot be compassionate yet use derisive language against her because you still don't know the details of her personal life (perhaps her and Trump have a mutually beneficial quid-pro-quo arrangement) and sleeping with a married man, while generally regarded as immoral, does not make her a whore.

The worst part about this (and probably why I keep coming back to it) is that you're clearly demeaning her on the basis of being a woman and slut shaming her.

We will have to disagree.

Baby barr will say it would be prejudicial to trump to have any testimony. Or an election, ha ha. All bow down.

Enough on melania.

To me the big, big question is what does Trump do when he starts losing in the courts. Does he submit to congressional subpoenas? Or does he continue to stonewall?

Right now we don't quite have a constitutional crisis. But if Trump decides he doesn't have to obey federal court decisions, then we do.

I have no idea. So far he has not dared to ignore court decisions, so that is good. But in the past he hasn't had a Democratic Congress pushing him around. He's always had R House and Senate to protect him.

Will Barr quit if Trump starts ignoring court orders? I don't know. But that's the big crisis ahead of us.

Flagpole wrote:

Racket wrote:

You cannot be compassionate yet use derisive language against her because you still don't know the details of her personal life (perhaps her and Trump have a mutually beneficial quid-pro-quo arrangement) and sleeping with a married man, while generally regarded as immoral, does not make her a whore.

The worst part about this (and probably why I keep coming back to it) is that you're clearly demeaning her on the basis of being a woman and slut shaming her.

We will have to disagree.

You can disagree. You are still wrong.

Where’s sally to call the head of the Russian Orthodox Church & bless trump as Czar?

B.S. + wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

No way...WORLD'S different...and the most important fact is, The Lovely Mrs. Flagpole did not know how much money I made or had saved until after she agreed to marry me. I also incidentally didn't know how much money SHE had until she said yes. So, nice try, but NOPE!

Nice try.

There is no way that you did not constantly spout off to her about all the money you had. You really expect us to believe that. LMAO

Ha! In many places in this thread including recently, people have told me that I never made any decent money and that I must be poor, yet when it suits you I suddenly was very rich while still in college to the point that The Lovely Mrs. Flagpole was a gold-digger. Ha!

I love the Melania debate. Hardly coincidental that she’s an illegal immigrant marrying into a crooked family.

agip wrote:

Enough on melania.

To me the big, big question is what does Trump do when he starts losing in the courts. Does he submit to congressional subpoenas? Or does he continue to stonewall?

Right now we don't quite have a constitutional crisis. But if Trump decides he doesn't have to obey federal court decisions, then we do.

I have no idea. So far he has not dared to ignore court decisions, so that is good. But in the past he hasn't had a Democratic Congress pushing him around. He's always had R House and Senate to protect him.

Will Barr quit if Trump starts ignoring court orders? I don't know. But that's the big crisis ahead of us.

Am not taking credit for this. I copied from another source but found interesting ... Congress has three methods at its disposal to seek compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, according the Congressional Research Service. Each has problems.

Under the doctrine of "inherent contempt," the House or Senate could send members of its security force to arrest and detain the witness. There is precedent for this in U.S. history, but not recent precedent — it hasn't been used since 1935.

In the modern world, the House sergeant-at-arms isn't going to be able to arrest the attorney general, who is protected by an armed FBI security detail. As one former White House official once put it, only half in jest, "They have a lot of guns over there."

The second method involves seeking to hold a witness in criminal contempt under federal criminal statutes 2 U.S.C. §§192 and 194. The statutes make it a crime to fail to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena, and call for the House or Senate to refer a criminal contempt citation to the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which can seek an indictment from a grand jury.

The problem with this in the current case: All federal prosecutors, including all 90-plus U.S. attorneys, work for Barr, and would be under no obligation to pursue a contempt charge.

That leaves a third option — Congress can seek a civil contempt citation from a judge. The Judiciary Committee, for example, could sue Barr in district court, providing a simple majority of the full House voted to authorize such an action.

"If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce their compliance," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2017 paper.

A recent precedent for this happens to involve the House Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats under the George W. Bush administration.

Flagpole wrote:

B.S. + wrote:

Nice try.

There is no way that you did not constantly spout off to her about all the money you had. You really expect us to believe that. LMAO

Ha! In many places in this thread including recently, people have told me that I never made any decent money and that I must be poor, yet when it suits you I suddenly was very rich while still in college to the point that The Lovely Mrs. Flagpole was a gold-digger. Ha!

Just because you spouted off to her about having money doesn't mean you DID have money. You have to admit you don't have a great record of being the most truthful person here. (and no, I'm not going track down the places you've lied)

agip wrote:

To me the big, big question is what does Trump do when he starts losing in the courts. Does he submit to congressional subpoenas? Or does he continue to stonewall?

Of course he'll stonewall and the Republican controlled Senate won't care. Nothing substantial is going to happen between now and Election day and if all you boobs really want Trump out of office then you'll start thinking about making 2020 a successful Democrat victory. That means volunteering locally, knocking on doors, handing out flyers, and talking to people in real life instead of sh!tposting on an anonymous message board about how much integrity you have and how smart you think you are.

Sorry agip that wasn't necessarily directed at you, just tired of the typical faux intellectual Democratic slacktivism and I see all the same ingredients that got Trump elected in 2016 stewing. None of the "issues" that he got elected on have gotten any better and I see no reason for his supporters in 2016 to turn away from him in 2020 unless the economy bombs hard. They don't care about Russia and the people that "disapprove" of him will still vote for him

Sally Vix wrote:

Again, she was sending CLASSIFIED EMAILS OVER AN UNSECURED SERVER. THOSE ARE CRIMES. Those were THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES. NOt her emails. Come on agip. Enough.

So I take it that Jared and Tiny should be arrested? They did the same thing.

interesting stuff. I hope trump obeys a federal court.

on review, my guess right now is that Trump takes the Ds to the brink and then finds a compromise. Trump is, of all things, a survivor. He knows where the line is and stays one inch away from it. To survive all those bankruptcies and years of tax cheating and money laundering and dealing with mobsters, he knows when to back off to survive to fight another day.