Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

The Mueller investigation was initiated by Republicans, overseen by Rod Rosenstein and the DOJ that reports to Trump.

The senate had a bipartisan investigation of the election cosponsored by Republican Richard Burr.

This inquiry, that only recently started, over Trump's abuse of power over Ukraine is the first official investigation launched by Democrats.

And several of the key witnesses are Republicans.

I want to join. Where do we meet and what are the membership fees? Is there a Deep State softball team?

Its official now, Rs voted unanimously for a formal impeachment inquiry. With this vote they are all saying they do not think his abuse of power was an impeachable offense. Glad they have crystallized their allegiance is with Trump and not the constitution. They don't like separation of powers when it doesn't suit them.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I want to join. Where do we meet and what are the membership fees? Is there a Deep State softball team?

They meet at the Harvard club and there is only a chess team ;)

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I try to be honest. Yet, not one Dem/Lib here has said what Biden did was possibly criminal. No, you don't do that kind of stuff. You can trash Trump til the cows come home, but talk bad of your own ilk - that baby a'int happening.

You have yet to explain what you believe is criminal about Biden's actions. We can respond after you do that.

Are you kidding me? There is video of him bragging how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. Biden used US loan guarantees as hostage while demanding Skokin, the prosecutor, (Hunter got paid $3 million for doing nothing and having ZERO qualifications for the job) be fired. That is EXTORTION. He admitted extortion but you would never see this on MSNBC or CNN. Oh no, they are propagandists operations masquerading as news organizations.

Agip - simple question ... very simple - did Hillary and the DNC try to dig up dirt on Trump by using a foreign agent? Yes or No?

present, esq. wrote:

One point that perhaps bears repetition, because so many people seem to lose sight of it: An "impeachable offense" is anything for which the House of Representatives impeaches someone. Impeachment is a fundamentally political and not legal process.

As an extreme example, if 50+% of the House simply disliked a president, the House could impeach him/her. (And if 67+% of the Senate also had personal animus against that president, s/he could be convicted and removed, for that personal dislike and no other reason.)

NO ONE--other than the House--determines what is "impeachable." SCOTUS has no say in the matter. Only the voters, indirectly, do--by voting the rascals out, if they felt an impeachment hadn't been warranted.

OR, and this is hugely important, the House decides to impeach the president of a different party for political reasons. They can claim "impeachable offenses" but that matters little if they just want to get rid of the president. We have already gone from collusion to conspiracy to obstruction and now we are on quid pro quo. The Democrats in the House WILL get Trump because they are relentless. They don't care about "impeachable offenses" - they just care about getting the Mu@ther Effer out of office.

present, esq. wrote:

One point that perhaps bears repetition, because so many people seem to lose sight of it: An "impeachable offense" is anything for which the House of Representatives impeaches someone. Impeachment is a fundamentally political and not legal process.

As an extreme example, if 50+% of the House simply disliked a president, the House could impeach him/her. (And if 67+% of the Senate also had personal animus against that president, s/he could be convicted and removed, for that personal dislike and no other reason.)

NO ONE--other than the House--determines what is "impeachable." SCOTUS has no say in the matter. Only the voters, indirectly, do--by voting the rascals out, if they felt an impeachment hadn't been warranted.

Yes, but there has been some precedent in impeachment process which has been to look for abuse of power. The GOP has agreed this is a measure in the past as well, although now that trump did it they are crying foul.

Sally Vix wrote:

OR, and this is hugely important, the House decides to impeach the president of a different party for political reasons.

Were Nixon's and Clinton's impeachments warranted?

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

I remember in 2016 posting on FB that trump voters seemed to believe the craziest nonsense about HRC...I naively thought they'd use fact checkers and common sense to get to the truth. But they never did. I sort of plaintively cried out 'but if Republicans only knew the truth and stopped believing lies we could have a fair election.' But they never stopped believing the lies. They had no interest in truth.

I really hope Facebook follows twitter and bans all political advertising. I know there would be workarounds and fake accounts...but they wouldn't be able to buy their way into the election that way anyway.

Agip - simple question ... very simple - did Hillary and the DNC try to dig up dirt on Trump by using a foreign agent? Yes or No?

'agent'? that is a loaded word that shouldn't be used in this context.

Did they indirectly hire a solid research firm to dig up dirt on Trump overseas? Yes. Was it all shown on campaign finance forms? Yes. Was it legal? Yes. Was it ethical? Yes. Was the info appropriately turned over to the FBI when it turned into a national security issue? Yes.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

I remember in 2016 posting on FB that trump voters seemed to believe the craziest nonsense about HRC...I naively thought they'd use fact checkers and common sense to get to the truth. But they never did. I sort of plaintively cried out 'but if Republicans only knew the truth and stopped believing lies we could have a fair election.' But they never stopped believing the lies. They had no interest in truth.

I really hope Facebook follows twitter and bans all political advertising. I know there would be workarounds and fake accounts...but they wouldn't be able to buy their way into the election that way anyway.

Agip - simple question ... very simple - did Hillary and the DNC try to dig up dirt on Trump by using a foreign agent? Yes or No?

Predictably, agip refusing to answer this.

present, esq. wrote:

One point that perhaps bears repetition, because so many people seem to lose sight of it: An "impeachable offense" is anything for which the House of Representatives impeaches someone. Impeachment is a fundamentally political and not legal process.

As an extreme example, if 50+% of the House simply disliked a president, the House could impeach him/her. (And if 67+% of the Senate also had personal animus against that president, s/he could be convicted and removed, for that personal dislike and no other reason.)

NO ONE--other than the House--determines what is "impeachable." SCOTUS has no say in the matter. Only the voters, indirectly, do--by voting the rascals out, if they felt an impeachment hadn't been warranted.

Thank you for the explanation.

Sally Vix wrote:

Are you kidding me?

No, you're kidding yourself. You may be kidding others as well, but there are people on this thread interested in good faith dialog and you don't appear to be one of them.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

OR, and this is hugely important, the House decides to impeach the president of a different party for political reasons.

Were Nixon's and Clinton's impeachments warranted?

Honestly, I think Watergate was overblown but Nixon needed to exit the Oval Office. I have mixed emotions on Clinton. Perjury and obstruction of justice. I guess he had to be removed.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Agip - simple question ... very simple - did Hillary and the DNC try to dig up dirt on Trump by using a foreign agent? Yes or No?

'agent'? that is a loaded word that shouldn't be used in this context.

Did they indirectly hire a solid research firm to dig up dirt on Trump overseas? Yes. Was it all shown on campaign finance forms? Yes. Was it legal? Yes. Was it ethical? Yes. Was the info appropriately turned over to the FBI when it turned into a national security issue? Yes.

Kudos to you, agip. Am highly impressed with the honest answer.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

I remember in 2016 posting on FB that trump voters seemed to believe the craziest nonsense about HRC...I naively thought they'd use fact checkers and common sense to get to the truth. But they never did. I sort of plaintively cried out 'but if Republicans only knew the truth and stopped believing lies we could have a fair election.' But they never stopped believing the lies. They had no interest in truth.

I really hope Facebook follows twitter and bans all political advertising. I know there would be workarounds and fake accounts...but they wouldn't be able to buy their way into the election that way anyway.

Agip - simple question ... very simple - did Hillary and the DNC try to dig up dirt on Trump by using a foreign agent? Yes or No?

That is totally different from what HRC's campaign (not her) did.

You may be misinterpreting the data, which I think backs up my thesis.

In that race, Warren was running to represent Massachusetts. So running as an Oklahoman would be a non-starter. She had no choice but to run on her record in that state. So Warren was seen only as a Harvard professor. It's not a surprise that this didn't play well in rural parts of the state.

But a national race is a whole different ball game. We have yet to find out how Warren will be defined.

If she's the Oklahoma school teacher, she does well. If she's the Harvard professor she does poorly.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

You have yet to explain what you believe is criminal about Biden's actions. We can respond after you do that.

Are you kidding me? There is video of him bragging how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. Biden used US loan guarantees as hostage while demanding Skokin, the prosecutor, (Hunter got paid $3 million for doing nothing and having ZERO qualifications for the job) be fired. That is EXTORTION. He admitted extortion but you would never see this on MSNBC or CNN. Oh no, they are propagandists operations masquerading as news organizations.

1) Bragging about getting the prosecutor fired is not against law, try again.

2) Acting on behalf of the US government (POTUS and Congress-approved) to hold back loan guarantees to get results expected by the US and its allies in Europe is not criminal, it was official authorized policy. Now acting on your OWN behalf to hold back Congress-approved funds to an ally in order to get a foreign power to investigate your political opponent, yeah that is criminal.

3) Hunter getting paid any sum of money by a Ukrainian energy company is not illegal, and is certainly not illegal for Biden. Was it inappropriate? Yes. Illegal? No

4) Exortion? Nope, how about official US government policy.. try again. In fact, a total of ZERO republicans accused him of breaking any law, because he didn't.

5) Would never see it on MSNBC or CNN - incorrect, I saw it mentioned in both, including CNN which aired the video. You can do a quick google search. You lie.

Again, explain to us what was criminal about Biden's actions? Also please explain why no Republicans filing a complaint or accusing him back then when he was doing it in the open acting in the capacity of VP.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Were Nixon's and Clinton's impeachments warranted?

Honestly, I think Watergate was overblown but Nixon needed to exit the Oval Office. I have mixed emotions on Clinton. Perjury and obstruction of justice. I guess he had to be removed.

Hold on, are you even pondering whether a president should be impeached for committing a felony?