Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Yesterday, Taylor gave us some new information about a phone call where Tiny talked about investigations into the Bidens.

He said that Sondland and one of his staffers were on the call and heard what Tiny said.

Both Sondland and the staffer are scheduled to testify.

But now it has come out that a third staffer heard the call also.

If they can bring her in to testify then that will be three first-hand accounts of Tiny discussing his bribery plot.

Democrats hate Christians wrote:

12:41 P.M. — Rev. Franklin Graham slams the impeachment hearing in a Facebook post:

It’s a day of shame for America. The media is calling the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry “historic;” and it is—historically shameful. That our politicians would bring this kind of harm to our country over a phone call, with the world watching, is unbelievable. As Christians, as those who follow and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, let us pray throughout the day and all of these proceedings. Pray for our nation, pray for our leaders, and pray for President Donald J. Trump.

Democrats hate Christians.

The impeachment proceedings add up to nothing. Everyone knows he will not be removed from office. Opinion among his base remains steady. There is no incentive for GOP lawmakers to move on Trump, at this point.

Trumps only real threat remains his tax records.

Sally Vix wrote:

Quick recap of yesterday's impeachment proceeding which offered up 2 of the star witnesses, witnesses who have never had direct contact with the president, and witnesses whose testimony Dems are hoping will be the first in United States history to impeach, convict and remove a sitting president: Nothing. They offered up nothing. Normally the big newspapers would be blaring headlines that would shock the American public after the first day of an impeachment proceeding and cause the American public to demand that the president resign. Instead, all is quiet. Yesterday produced nothing. Again, these 2 star witnesses have NEVER had direct contact with the president. And Dems are expecting their testimony will help do something that has never been done before in American president, and that is remove a sitting president. That is NUTS! Just absolute Nuts. You can NOT IMPEACH a president over some trivial phone call.

Yes sir!!!!

And the libs rather about Roger Stone's suit today. Really? Must be a slow news day.

Back to the matter at hand. The wheels are falling off for the dems.

Clown show.

KAG2020

You are not correct. Unspent funds expire unless they are identified as an explicit appropriation by Congress. Explicit appropriation are usually given for multiyear construction projects. They are not given out to pay for regular salaries or incidentals.

edit: rather talk...

Pelosi with some serious shade for Trump: "If the president has something that is exculpatory -- Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence -- then he should make that known ... so far we haven't see that."

Real condescending, talking to Trump like he's a kid.

Notice Pelois is not involved in the hearings.

Neither is Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.

I assume it's a procedural norm, for them to stay above it.

jesseriley wrote:

Stone’s future employers?

Prison wardens only pay pennies per hour, and you can’t wear street clothes. You’re missing the recent pics of manafort.

meh. He gets a couple years and then he walks out ready to f up the american political system all over again.

Fat hurts wrote:

Yesterday, Taylor gave us some new information about a phone call where Tiny talked about investigations into the Bidens.

He said that Sondland and one of his staffers were on the call and heard what Tiny said.

Both Sondland and the staffer are scheduled to testify.

But now it has come out that a third staffer heard the call also.

If they can bring her in to testify then that will be three first-hand accounts of Tiny discussing his bribery plot.

Fat Hurts - do you really want to remove a president from testimony from people who have NEVER had direct contact with the president? A "staffer" is scheduled to testify. Seriously? A staffer is being brought to testify to try to remove a sitting president? Are we in la la land?

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Yesterday, Taylor gave us some new information about a phone call where Tiny talked about investigations into the Bidens.

He said that Sondland and one of his staffers were on the call and heard what Tiny said.

Both Sondland and the staffer are scheduled to testify.

But now it has come out that a third staffer heard the call also.

If they can bring her in to testify then that will be three first-hand accounts of Tiny discussing his bribery plot.

Fat Hurts - do you really want to remove a president from testimony from people who have NEVER had direct contact with the president? A "staffer" is scheduled to testify. Seriously? A staffer is being brought to testify to try to remove a sitting president? Are we in la la land?

Betty, the part-time staffer from Accountemps, will appear before Congress and her testimony, even though she was only hired 3 weeks ago, will provide telling evidence that the president of the United States must be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Betty who resides in a double-wide just outside of DC since she obviously makes little salary and can't afford the sky-high rentals of DC.

XY wrote:

The impeachment proceedings add up to nothing. Everyone knows he will not be removed from office. Opinion among his base remains steady. There is no incentive for GOP lawmakers to move on Trump, at this point.

Trumps only real threat remains his tax records.

I disagree. This gives Dems an incremental advantage into next year. Ignoring this whistle blower report would have been worse (not to mention improper) than just pretending it didn’t happen. The public hearings are a chance to educate the public on what the issues, it will ensure at least some of the truths reach conservatives. Not all conservatives watching this will say yeah I knew it was just a witch hunt and many more democrats who wanted to see Congress go after him will be somewhat satisfied.

Ultimately this is the right thing to do regardless of the consequences. I cannot imagine the GOP would have let a fraction of anything trump has done slide if he were a Dem - they would have impeached him long ago and with good reason.

I agree on the potential impact of the tax returns. Trump will brush it off and accuse the deep state as expected but it will certainly impact him in a negative way.

Sally Vix wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat Hurts - do you really want to remove a president from testimony from people who have NEVER had direct contact with the president? A "staffer" is scheduled to testify. Seriously? A staffer is being brought to testify to try to remove a sitting president? Are we in la la land?

Betty, the part-time staffer from Accountemps, will appear before Congress and her testimony, even though she was only hired 3 weeks ago, will provide telling evidence that the president of the United States must be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Betty who resides in a double-wide just outside of DC since she obviously makes little salary and can't afford the sky-high rentals of DC.

Sounds like you are for letting those WH appointees with more direct knowledge testify then?

High Inside Fastball wrote:

agip wrote:

High and inside fastball from Pelosi

It is "High, inside fastball."

NEVER say "High and inside."

Sheesh!

You are WRONG. Did you just get out of your high school English class? I'll take CBS Sports and the Smithsonian Institution over you "grammer sckool" learning. You must be going to Trump High.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

Someone labeled this mess

"Arms for political dirt"

which is probably the best summary of it.

It echoes with Iran contra, and is understandable and true.

Too many syllables.

I'd go with just "Arms for dirt".

Problem is, Iran Contra didn't bring down the president or vice president like it should have. So it is remembered as a nothingburger.

Go with: "Arms for a personal favor." That is exactly what Trump did.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Yesterday, Taylor gave us some new information about a phone call where Tiny talked about investigations into the Bidens.

He said that Sondland and one of his staffers were on the call and heard what Tiny said.

Both Sondland and the staffer are scheduled to testify.

But now it has come out that a third staffer heard the call also.

If they can bring her in to testify then that will be three first-hand accounts of Tiny discussing his bribery plot.

Fat Hurts - do you really want to remove a president from testimony from people who have NEVER had direct contact with the president? A "staffer" is scheduled to testify. Seriously? A staffer is being brought to testify to try to remove a sitting president? Are we in la la land?

"If [Trump] has anything that shows [his] innocence, than he should make that known."- Botox Pelosi

Talk about a clueless "lawmaker." Under her twisted view of justice, the burden of proof falls on the accused.

Clown show.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Betty, the part-time staffer from Accountemps, will appear before Congress and her testimony, even though she was only hired 3 weeks ago, will provide telling evidence that the president of the United States must be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Betty who resides in a double-wide just outside of DC since she obviously makes little salary and can't afford the sky-high rentals of DC.

Sounds like you are for letting those WH appointees with more direct knowledge testify then?

Why not? I am certainly in favor of letting those in the know testify. I don't know why Dems are not pushing harder for John Bolton to testify. He knows where all the skeletons are. He knows just about everything. Why are the Dems not pushing harder for him to testify. Of course the time line doesn't work out probably. He may or may not resist any subpoenea. Pelosi wants a vote soon so his testimony may not fit in that time line.

It looks like they pretty much got it all in time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pentagon-ukraine/us-expects-about-30-million-in-ukraine-military-aid-may-be-delayed-sources-idUSKBN1WA2S7

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Sounds like you are for letting those WH appointees with more direct knowledge testify then?

Why not? I am certainly in favor of letting those in the know testify. I don't know why Dems are not pushing harder for John Bolton to testify. He knows where all the skeletons are. He knows just about everything. Why are the Dems not pushing harder for him to testify. Of course the time line doesn't work out probably. He may or may not resist any subpoenea. Pelosi wants a vote soon so his testimony may not fit in that time line.

I think Dems should be enforcing the subpoenas and since they are in control they should not allow Rs to subpoena anyone until the witnesses they requested show up. I don't know if you remember, but during the Clinton impeachment Rs went after Susan McDougall for refusing to testify and she spent a year and half in jail for that. As usual, Dems playing way too nice with scum.

I don't think anyone disagrees that it's the morally right thing to do. Trump abused and tried to take advantage of the system in this very obvious quid-pro-quo. Should he be held accountable? In a perfect world, yes, but the implications of the 2020 election must be taken into consideration and it's a difficult line to walk. Yes, you don't want to set a precedent for future presidents to think they can get away with anything, but if the cost of taking a moral stand here means a more difficult road for the Democrats in 2020 then I'd certainly want Democrat leadership to take that into consideration.

I'd rather win in 2020 personally