Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Turley wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Ahhh but why does he take this position Sally... he just said it himself... because all witnesses have not been allowed to testify, so the country hasn't heard trump's side yet. Do you then agree Trump needs to let them testify?

Turley is claiming that Trump should not be impeached unless he testifies. And Turley also supports Trump's claim he doesn't have to testify.

He's not going to touch any of the substance... just going to give his opinion on impeachment in general. Someone needs to ask him how he felt about impeachment when Clinton was the target.

Nunes doesn’t recall but “it’s possible”

Come on people, stop letting these crooks take advantage of you, they are mocking your intelligence daily.

https://news.yahoo.com/nunes-claims-doesn-t-recall-134645185.html

Ciro wrote:

Nunes doesn’t recall but “it’s possible”

Come on people, stop letting these crooks take advantage of you, they are mocking your intelligence daily.

https://news.yahoo.com/nunes-claims-doesn-t-recall-134645185.html

Who said anything about intelligence?

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Ahhh but why does he take this position Sally... he just said it himself... because all witnesses have not been allowed to testify, so the country hasn't heard trump's side yet. Do you then agree Trump needs to let them testify?

I think certain aides should be allowed to testify. But not all. A president needs to have the ability to discussing things with his closest aides without them being called before Congress.

Executive privilege: exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch.

So if the POTUS "discusses" committing a crime with his closest aides, they should be barred from being called before Congress? Is that the precedent you want? Remember, despite his efforts to go around the rule, Trump won't be President for very much longer in the grand scheme of things.

It was Russia, not Ukraine says Lindsey Graham.

https://news.yahoo.com/lindsey-graham-russia-ukraine-conspiracy-032855396.html

TTH wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I think certain aides should be allowed to testify. But not all. A president needs to have the ability to discussing things with his closest aides without them being called before Congress.

Executive privilege: exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch.

So if the POTUS "discusses" committing a crime with his closest aides, they should be barred from being called before Congress? Is that the precedent you want? Remember, despite his efforts to go around the rule, Trump won't be President for very much longer in the grand scheme of things.

Sally is willing to interpret the constitution to the extent trump can remain above the law.

TTH wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I think certain aides should be allowed to testify. But not all. A president needs to have the ability to discussing things with his closest aides without them being called before Congress.

Executive privilege: exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch.

So if the POTUS "discusses" committing a crime with his closest aides, they should be barred from being called before Congress? Is that the precedent you want? Remember, despite his efforts to go around the rule, Trump won't be President for very much longer in the grand scheme of things.

And a crime like treason. Sally wants Trump to "discuss" as privileged, top-top-secret, communication an overthrown of the U.S. government, a cancellation of the Constitution, and Trump appointing himself Dear Leader for life. ... Unbounded Executive Privilege.

Bvllshit, sally. Privilege doesn’t extend to criminal activities. For instance, your lawyer can’t claim attorney-client privilege about laundering your rubles illegally & translating encrypted communications from putin.

Sally it doesn’t matter how much I hate agent orange or how much you adore him... doesn’t even matter if 99% of the country believes he’s innocent. The fact that he’s violated the constitution and committed clearly impeachable offenses is what matters. You don’t believe in the constitution if you think biases, opinions and preference take priority.

Sally’s fictional trumper dad apparently went to war to fight for dictatorship.

If police really do support fat boy, all they have to do is arrest 200 million people.

Sally Vix wrote:

I think certain aides should be allowed to testify. But not all. A president needs to have the ability to discussing things with his closest aides without them being called before Congress.

Executive privilege: exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch.

OK Sally.

Note that:

1. No potential witness has cited executive privilege as their grounds for not appearing.

2. All witnesses are free to have a lawyer present and assert executive privilege as a basis for refusing to answer a question.

So given those two facts above, is there any reason for Mulvaney, Pompeo, and other administration officials to defy the lawful congressional subpoenas?

Murses United can milk anything with a nipple. If you saw Meet the Parents...

jesseriley wrote:

Murses United can milk anything with a nipple. If you saw Meet the Parents...

Rs and their witness are trying to focus solely on the politicization of the impeachment process... trying to suggest that it's pure Dem bias driving this and therefore never mind the actual accusations. I have news, ALL impeachment processes are political - Turley's point is therefore nonsense. Then he's saying we can't establish the crime because of lack of definition of the crime... he's nuts. He's also saying we haven't heard enough to make a determination, but he and GOPers will not acknowledge that it's the WH who has prevented it.

Turley's arguments are as relevant as trump ultimately releasing the funds.

Here is Turley in 1998:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK9k7W3WkAAYW8r?format=png&name=small

So despite this professor speaking calmly and collected and seeming to display mastery of the subject, he has contradicted himself completely.

the Rs will continue with their strategy:

'If I yell loudly in a southern accent and say the entire bit of impeachment is stupid. then our rube voters will stay with us.'

and they are probably right.

agip wrote:

the Rs will continue with their strategy:

'If I yell loudly in a southern accent and say the entire bit of impeachment is stupid. then our rube voters will stay with us.'

and they are probably right.

Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns!!!!

agip wrote:

the Rs will continue with their strategy:

'If I yell loudly in a southern accent and say the entire bit of impeachment is stupid. then our rube voters will stay with us.'

and they are probably right.

Turley has done a good job for them I must admit. And yes, as long as they stick to the same message they can keep trump's shield in tact.