Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Just da Facts wrote:

WOW- you guys are dense!

Obstruction of an investigation initiated by a hoax?! Are you mad, man? Both Comey and Page have stated in testimony that they had no evidence of collusion when the Special Counsel began. Special Counsels are for investigating a crime of which evidence exists! If Trump declassifies and un-redacts everything, it would become clear (even to those of you ignoring all evidence thus far, which is ridiculous) that the entire thing was to lag over Trump and hurt him for the 2018 midterms.

Mueller never.

Clownpole forever.

You are the dense one. Obstruction of justice does not rely on the ultimate findings of the investigation. Even if it was all a hoax then there can still be obstruction of justice.

If Tiny did nothing wrong except that he impeded the investigation then he has still committed a high crime.

WOW. Now Trump says he doesn’t want to appoint another judge to Supreme Court. He prefers putting a businessman on the court.

At yesterday's Montana dog whistle campaign show.

“I have a list of 23 people or so,” Trump told the audience. “They’re phenominal. Top students, top everything, top judges, all judges, I think. All judges. Doesn’t have to be a judge, by the way but there’s something nice about putting judges on the Supreme Court, right? I don’t know, somehow I think putting a businessman or woman — how about a businesswoman? But something nice about a judge. Doesn’t have to be a judge, do you believe it?”

Fat hurts wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

WOW- you guys are dense!

Obstruction of an investigation initiated by a hoax?! Are you mad, man? Both Comey and Page have stated in testimony that they had no evidence of collusion when the Special Counsel began. Special Counsels are for investigating a crime of which evidence exists! If Trump declassifies and un-redacts everything, it would become clear (even to those of you ignoring all evidence thus far, which is ridiculous) that the entire thing was to lag over Trump and hurt him for the 2018 midterms.

Mueller never.

Clownpole forever.

You are the dense one. Obstruction of justice does not rely on the ultimate findings of the investigation. Even if it was all a hoax then there can still be obstruction of justice.

If Tiny did nothing wrong except that he impeded the investigation then he has still committed a high crime.

Yeah I think we can infer from what others have reportedly said, and what will likely come out from the Mueller investigation, is that Trump Jr at least attempted to conspire with Russian agents seeking dirt to use to influence the election. I also again think we can infer from what others have said, and what will likely come out from the Mueller investigation, is that Trump has attempted to obstruct justice. Also, looking at who has already plead out or given hours and hours of testimony to Mueller’s team some financial or tax crimes are also highly likely to have occurred. What does all of this mean? I very well doubt any of this will lead to actual criminal charges unless it comes from another court. It needs to be a much stronger case and publicly supported to go the impeachment route.....if the Dems want to win in 2020....if the Dems actually care about doing the “right” thing then yes if there’s enough for that in the Mueller report then go ahead.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

WOW- you guys are dense!

Obstruction of an investigation initiated by a hoax?! Are you mad, man? Both Comey and Page have stated in testimony that they had no evidence of collusion when the Special Counsel began. Special Counsels are for investigating a crime of which evidence exists! If Trump declassifies and un-redacts everything, it would become clear (even to those of you ignoring all evidence thus far, which is ridiculous) that the entire thing was to lag over Trump and hurt him for the 2018 midterms.

Mueller never.

Clownpole forever.

Does it matter how it’s initiated if results show conspiracy, obstruction, etc? Even if it started on false pretenses it’s still an investigation correct?

Alan

You're somehow missing the point(s).

First, CRIMES are supposed to be investigated, not PEOPLE. They stated that there was no evidence of a crime at the point of the Special Counsel being appointed.

You could *maybe* say "does it matter?" if blatant collusion was proven despite the investigation being started under false pretense. Still really wouldn't be "right". But since it was not proven (most people are now accepting that no evidence exists of Russian collusion), you're left with a) an investigation that was initiated illegally AND b) didn't produce the desired speculative result. No one in their right mind is going to charge someone with obstructing justice of a fake investigation that didn't prove what the goal was at the outset. What justice was being obstructed? It's not like he tried to get in the way of them charging Manafort for his crimes (all pre-2014, mind you).

This is now a negotiation between Trump and Rosenstein/Mueller. With zero evidence of collusion, and the facts continuing to seep out that the FBI was working with the HRC/DNC to undermine Trump pre- and post-election, Trump still just wants what he's always wanted: "Tell everyone there was no collusion, so this fake cloud of doubt is removed." That's all he ever wanted. But they've let it go on for so long, that if and when they do finally "admit" they found nothing, the public backlash is going to be real bad for the FBI.

So he's gave Rosenstein the option: "Give me that public statement and I don't push for declassification/unredact all documents, orrrr... you keep this charade going and I declassify and un-redact everything, fully exposing the conspiracy against the Trump campaign/admin."

What do you think Rosenstein will choose?

This was never about finding Russian collusion. It was funny right after the election and its still funny to this day. This was all about sowing doubt to the public that there might have been some wrongdoing to pull off the HUGE UPSET election, in order to hurt him in 2018. Manafort, Flynn, etc were already being monitored/investigated before Trump ran for office. The FBI can now hang their hat on catching some wrongdoers to justify the investigation. But none of it was related to the objective of the investigation. The IRS could/should have caught Manafort themselves. This was all about being a drag on Trump.

Mueller never.

Clownpole forever.

RIP SCOTUS wrote:

Doesn’t have to be a judge, do you believe it?”

Sounds like Trump just learned that a Supreme Court Justice does not have to be an actual judge or even have a law degree.

I wonder if our president could pass a basic civics test required to become a US citizen.

Just da Facts wrote:

You're somehow missing the point(s).

First, CRIMES are supposed to be investigated, not PEOPLE. They stated that there was no evidence of a crime at the point of the Special Counsel being appointed.

You are dead wrong on that point, so the rest of your argument is moot.

We know without any doubt that crimes were committed. For one thing, documents were stolen and then given to Wikileaks to help elect Tiny. That's just one crime we know about with 100% certainty, and it needed investigation. Plus, there was evidence of many more crimes when the investigation started.

If Tiny impeded that investigation then he has committed obstruction of justice, which is a high crime that deserves impeachment.

RIP SCOTUS wrote:

WOW. Now Trump says he doesn’t want to appoint another judge to Supreme Court. He prefers putting a businessman on the court.

At yesterday's Montana dog whistle campaign show.

“I have a list of 23 people or so,” Trump told the audience. “They’re phenominal. Top students, top everything, top judges, all judges, I think. All judges. Doesn’t have to be a judge, by the way but there’s something nice about putting judges on the Supreme Court, right? I don’t know, somehow I think putting a businessman or woman — how about a businesswoman? But something nice about a judge. Doesn’t have to be a judge, do you believe it?”

Your interpretation of what he was saying is not consistent with the very statement you quoted.

This is a great example of how his words get twisted into something he never even said.

Your TDS is clouding the reasoning portion of your brain.

Fat hurts wrote:

Just da Facts wrote:

You're somehow missing the point(s).

First, CRIMES are supposed to be investigated, not PEOPLE. They stated that there was no evidence of a crime at the point of the Special Counsel being appointed.

You are dead wrong on that point, so the rest of your argument is moot.

We know without any doubt that crimes were committed. For one thing, documents were stolen and then given to Wikileaks to help elect Tiny. That's just one crime we know about with 100% certainty, and it needed investigation. Plus, there was evidence of many more crimes when the investigation started.

If Tiny impeded that investigation then he has committed obstruction of justice, which is a high crime that deserves impeachment.

Ha ha- Dude, you're losing it.

What part of my two sentences were "dead wrong"?

Sentence 1- Crimes are what should be investigated. This is TRUE.

Sentence 2- They [Comey and Page] stated that there was no evidence of a crime at the point of the Special Counsel being appointed. This is TRUE.

1) Umm...Comey isn't running the investigation. Doesn't matter what he knows or doesn't know at this point.

2) Umm...Page isn't running the investigation. Doesn't matter what she knows or doesn't know at this point.

3) Umm...there was an investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election, and it included looking into whether or not anyone in the Trump Campaign did any help with that due primarily to the actions of Papadoplous, but also reports from other countries. Trump then fired Comey and said he did it because of the Russia investigation. So, evidence to kick off the investigation initially and then evidence of possible Obstruction of Justice to kick off the Special Counsel.

4) "In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority." We have suspected wrongdoing.

Biggest mistake of Trump's life was firing James Comey. He will pay dearly.

the point is wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Posters like Flagpole have convicted Trump while questions concerning the Trumps and the Clintons are still open ended. Flagpole justice is colored by his partisanship. Like other SJW posters his vote is smarter and more virtuous then those he opposes. Of course he does get the trend that his view of the world is unanchored and losing ground.

The point is that most democrats have moved on from Hillary, they don’t want her to run again and wouldn’t leap to her defense if she was indicted for corruption. It’s been said hundreds of times on this thread but it doesn’t seem to matter. Two years later it’s Trump supporters who are still fixated on Hillary. Ask yourself why that is?

This is it, while surely a vast majority of trumpers will vote for him again regardless of implications, and not only that, the GOP will continue to fully endorse him.

Also- not surprisingly here- missing the point(s).

1) I said nothing about what James Comey "knows at this point", I said he stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

2) I said nothing about what Lisa Page "knows at this point", I said she stated they had zero evidence of collusion at the start of the Special Counsel. (TRUE)

3) It's clear Papadopulous was set up now (nice try guys). Trump fired Comey because he knew the Russia investigation was all BS and was intended to be a cloud over him, so along with Rosenstein's RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE COMEY, he did so. (Still no evidence.)

4) You have yet to provide any suspected wrongdoing. If suspected wrongdoing can be subjectively applied to any person without any evidence, we are all in trouble. (Since COMEY AND PAGE have since stated there was no evidence at the time of the Special Counsel appointment, which was at least 6 months after the investigation by Comey began, why would we feel there was "suspected wrongdoing"?)

Oh, that's right- Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Flagpole wrote:

Biggest mistake of Trump's life was firing James Comey. He will pay dearly.

Biggest mistake of his life was winning the presidency. He could be ripping off small town investors with bankrupt casinos and making money by peddling conspiracy theories to the elderly and mentally ill through Trump TV.

Black Rifles Matter wrote:

Facebook just shut down a triple amputee Iraq veteran's page which had over 3 million followers because he posted some pro-Trump stuff. Just in time for mid-terms, but not before Cuckerberg pocketed $300,000 in ad revenue.

It's a Brave New World™ indeed.

https://i.redd.it/4msm6vpdi2t11.jpg

I don’t see the problem, this private citizen agreed to terms and conditions when he registered his FB account. If he violated those then he’s at risk of getting his account shut down. Is FB the Democratic Party? Last time I checked no. And btw - having your political views stay on FB is a constitutional right. That data doesn’t belong to the user.

Just da Facts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are dead wrong on that point, so the rest of your argument is moot.

We know without any doubt that crimes were committed. For one thing, documents were stolen and then given to Wikileaks to help elect Tiny. That's just one crime we know about with 100% certainty, and it needed investigation. Plus, there was evidence of many more crimes when the investigation started.

If Tiny impeded that investigation then he has committed obstruction of justice, which is a high crime that deserves impeachment.

Ha ha- Dude, you're losing it.

What part of my two sentences were "dead wrong"?

Sentence 1- Crimes are what should be investigated. This is TRUE.

Sentence 2- They [Comey and Page] stated that there was no evidence of a crime at the point of the Special Counsel being appointed. This is TRUE.

Sentence 2 is dead wrong. Comey and Page never said that there was no evidence of a crime.

WTH are you serious? wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Meanwhile more professionalism from the highly functional Trump admin. Bolton and Kelly getting into a shouting match in the WH over increased border crossings. Yeah, it’s all under control. Something like this would have been considered a major scandal for any other previous cabinet, but in Teumpland embarassing and dysfunction is a daily ritual.

You are grasping for straws, my friend. You think arguments don't happen in every administration? That arguments don't occur in the management of ANYTHING, let alone running the COUNTRY?! Jesus. Grow up, child.

The MSM makes it news because it's in the Trump administration, and they're obsessed with him.

You mean the daily dysfunction in the WH under Trump is not more important than Obama wearing a tanned suit?

Trollminator wrote:

Black Rifles Matter wrote:

Facebook just shut down a triple amputee Iraq veteran's page which had over 3 million followers because he posted some pro-Trump stuff. Just in time for mid-terms, but not before Cuckerberg pocketed $300,000 in ad revenue.

It's a Brave New World™ indeed.

https://i.redd.it/4msm6vpdi2t11.jpg

I don’t see the problem, this private citizen agreed to terms and conditions when he registered his FB account. If he violated those then he’s at risk of getting his account shut down. Is FB the Democratic Party? Last time I checked no. And btw - having your political views stay on FB is a constitutional right. That data doesn’t belong to the user.

*meant to say it’s NOT a constitutional right

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I C U wrote:

Of course the truth does not seem rational to your warped, perverted little mind.

So days the guy obsessed with Kavanaugh “booofing” and Devil’s Triangle.

Nope. Wrong guy.

But indeed, Igy's view of the world is one in which we should be sending in the marines to murder babies.

And I'll still take Flagpole's view any day.

Assuming the Mueller report comes out before the 2020 election and there is enough time to do so, the House WILL go forward with impeachment proceedings, and Trump WILL be impeached by the House...unless he resigns first or dies (he is an overweight 70+ year old after all) first. If only for political reasons, (and I don't agree with things that are done purely for political reasons, but I recognize that they are...on both sides of the aisle...because I am logical and reasonable at all times on all things) they will do it. Only hurts the Republican Party if they have added a Republican to the list of impeached Presidents, and Democrats will not give up a chance to do that...and WHILE there are definitely political reasons for doing this, there are ethical reasons for it also. Donald Trump has done things that are impeachment and removal worthy. We can not allow our President to behave in this manner, and we have to send a signal to all future Presidents that they can not do this...can not obstruct justice, can not abuse power. Most dictators were elected into office and then they changed the rules of the game afterwards. We do not want any future person to believe they can do that here.

Flagpole wrote:

Assuming the Mueller report comes out before the 2020 election and there is enough time to do so, the House WILL go forward with impeachment proceedings, and Trump WILL be impeached by the House...unless he resigns first or dies (he is an overweight 70+ year old after all) first. If only for political reasons, . . .

I am not particularly fond of Trump. But he won't be dying any time soon. Take a look at the guy. Sure he is 70+ and overweight but he's got a ton of energy - not exactly showing signs of feebleness. And as far as alzheimer's goes, yeah he does seem to be showing some signs. But that horrible disease takes a long time to kill - it's a terrible thing to witness.

At any rate, Trump will be alive 5 years from now for sure. I wouldn't be too surprised to see him still around in 10 -15 years. So you're going to have to beat him at the ballot box if you don't want 6 more years.