Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

X-Runner wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

"Hearsay "

Do you believe that Trump did ask for public investigations of the Bidens?

The hearsay defense is bogus. LOTS of investigations begin with hearsay, and in this case, we see the whistle blower was right with the readout of the call and then the admission from Trump and Mulvaney and Giuliani and corroboration from many witnesses. And then of course, we have Trump doing in on camera for the world to see.

ALSO, if this were a legal case, hearsay isn't just summarily dismissed. It's just a word that Trumpers are using to try to cast doubt on this whole thing, but it is clear that Trump broke the law here.

The ONLY reasonable defense would be to say that yes he did this but Republicans don't believe it is impeachable. That's a tough sell, because it is clearly Bribery, and that is specifically listed in The Constitution, but there's really no other reasonable defense. Of course they will likely go with unreasonable.

Trollimnator - there is no time to enforce the subpoenas. Pelosi wants to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Refusing subpoenas can drag on for years. All you have is these two lame guys and the lady testifying today. Just frightening little.

I would have agreed that it might be more damaging for Dems before this clear cut case, but certainly not now. Lets assume trump's base is going to vote for him anyway. Key here is that this helps to bring more disgruntled Dems on board. It's been important to show that the party is united in tending to the biggest priority for Dem voters. It's death by a thousand cuts in this game, the constant bombardment of negative trump press does make enough of a difference in the end. I really don't think this hurts Dems. Yeah Rs are going to claim victory when they acquit him, that's a given. To the left all that means is yep the GOP let him get away with it. It fires people up.

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?

OF COURSE! You don't need to have direct contact with a person to know they did something criminal. WTF is wrong with you? Think of all the people, including those who cross our borders illegally and got away with it who you KNOW to be criminals. Have you ever met them? WTF does meeting him have to do with anything?

You are so stupid. It is unbelievable how stupid you are.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

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.

Trollimnator - there is no time to enforce the subpoenas. Pelosi wants to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Refusing subpoenas can drag on for years. All you have is these two lame guys and the lady testifying today. Just frightening little.

And our winners are bettors who took the 72 hour response time at 2:1 odds! Congrats to all our winners, don't spend it all at one place!

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.

This latest post is just another in a long example of why you are not only stupid but also an a$$hole. First of all, you are trying (unsuccessfully) to diminish the credibility of the witnesses, and then you state that if you have a low-paying job you need to just keep your mouth shut. WTF is wrong with you? You are outrageously stupid.

Flagpole 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?

OF COURSE! You don't need to have direct contact with a person to know they did something criminal. WTF is wrong with you? Think of all the people, including those who cross our borders illegally and got away with it who you KNOW to be criminals. Have you ever met them? WTF does meeting him have to do with anything?

You are so stupid. It is unbelievable how stupid you are.

HOLD ON A SECOND! You have not been reading my posts. You even post that my posts are "unread." But one that you can insult me and call me stupid, and seriously stupid - is the only post you have read? Are you really seriously this much of a fraud? You are short, balding and a fraud? Trifecta for Flaggy!. I am tall, Flagpole, very handsome and have all my hair! Game over! Sally Game, set and match!

Possibly. There's a lot of different angles. Does impeach rally the base and drive more fundraising? Maybe a lack of impeachment would be worse, as the Democrat base would feel betrayed and more likely to vote for fringe candidates or stay at home. It's a lot to consider and as usual timing will be key

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

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.

Trollimnator - there is no time to enforce the subpoenas. Pelosi wants to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Refusing subpoenas can drag on for years. All you have is these two lame guys and the lady testifying today. Just frightening little.

So if in a couple of weeks Pelosi says sorry not enough people testified as requested, we are going to have to stall this to enforce the subpoenas in court. What do you think the GOP response will be, and yours?

Flagpole ... we will capsulize everything here ...

Flagpole:

Short

Balding

Calls women whores (revels actually in it)

Lives in Ohio (trailer park capital)

Predicted Trump would lose

Not sure he attended school that was not a technical school

Sally:

Former Model

D1 runner

Much faster than Flagpole ever was

Does not live in Ohio

3.99 GPA

Flagpole - who is the lady going to go with?

It seemed clear after the Mueller report people felt very betrayed the party wasn't going after him. IMO we forget how much of the masses on both sides just don't tune in at all to politics, so these hearings can only help. It's hard to say though what if any boost Dems will get. I cannot imagine any conservative who has been turned off by trump will suddenly be for him after these hearings though, so it's probably a low-risk strategy by Dems.

If I HAD to pick either or, I would choose winning in 2020 also, but we COULD have both, and while there are arguments to be made that it is bad for Democrats to pursue this impeachment (arguments the other way too), IF they are to honor their oath of office, they HAVE to do this. Just no choice.

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?

Sally has such problems with reading comprehension.

We are talking about the possibility of two state department employees and an ambassador who will testify about Tiny discussing his bribery plot. This is direct contact. This is first-hand accounts.

The Constitution says a president should be removed from office for bribery. So yes, he should be removed.

That sounds about right, 2 years for Stone.

We caregivers know that someone going into prison as old & senile as Stone is unlikely to come out intact.

Yep. That's how I see it too. Still a long way away from a Senate vote, but they may let him get away with it. I don't care too much about this firing up Democrat voters. It's a nice plus, but I'm really only about the rule of law and what is ethical and right, and in this case, to be true to their oath of office, Trump's actions forced their hands here. They HAVE to not only have this hearing, but they have to and will impeach him. Rigged said they would be too afraid to do so. He's wrong. The House WILL impeach him FOR sure.

Also, contrary to what the idiot Rigged said, NO, the burden of proof isn't being put on Trump. Pelosi is giving him clear instructions here...if you have exculpatory evidence, let's see it. If you are being investigated for murder, it behooves you to provide an air tight alibi. That doesn't mean the burden of proof is put on you to show you are innocent. Right now, all the evidence shows he did it. The call says so, Mulvaney says so, Giuliani says so, and then Trump broke the law on camera. If he has something that shows he's innocent, now's the time to provide it. Maybe he has an evil twin?

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollimnator - there is no time to enforce the subpoenas. Pelosi wants to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Refusing subpoenas can drag on for years. All you have is these two lame guys and the lady testifying today. Just frightening little.

And our winners are bettors who took the 72 hour response time at 2:1 odds! Congrats to all our winners, don't spend it all at one place!

I won!!! I won!!! I won!!!

Racket wrote:

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

I certainly don't think they are mutually exclusive.

In fact, Republicans argue that the Democrats are only doing this to help themselves in the next election.

The hearings are being presented.

The people in Congress will vote. First the House to impeach. Then likely less than half of the senate will vote to acquit, which is enough.

Then next year, the public will get to vote on what they think of the votes of those in Congress.

Talk about one issue voters.

When picking their senator and their representative, many will vote solely on how their incumbent voted.

People who vote Trump out will be voting their Republican acquitters out, too.

Conversely, if people buy the witch hunt story, Trump will win and Republicans will hold the Senate and win back the House.

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollimnator - there is no time to enforce the subpoenas. Pelosi wants to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Refusing subpoenas can drag on for years. All you have is these two lame guys and the lady testifying today. Just frightening little.

And our winners are bettors who took the 72 hour response time at 2:1 odds! Congrats to all our winners, don't spend it all at one place!

Well, I didn't BET as I don't do that because it is low class, but I am of course a winner here because I said Dumbas$ Sally (I think that's a song by Wilson Pickett) would respond to Trollminator. I am also a winner, of course, because I'm...well, I'm Flagpole.

[your post unread]