Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Again, Trumpers fail to argue that he's innocent. They know he's guilty.

So we have more desperate logic: "If something hasn't happened yet, if follows that it will never happen."

The day Mueller and SDNY issue reports exonerating Individual-1, I might be willing to say he won't go to prison.

But let's look at the scenario that is far more likely.

If Mueller and SDNY knew the president was innocent, they would want to say so as soon as possible. It would be legal malpractice to keep a cloud over someone's head any longer than necessary. It would be a very serious offense.

Therefore, they must be building a case. It could still turn out that there isn't enough evidence to indict. But given the length of time, the other close associates indicted, and the seriousness of crimes we know were committed, there is only one likely scenario.

The cases are building and indictments are coming.

Individual-1 is going to prison.

Seriously, now long do they need to build a case? Mueller and his crackpot team of the best investigators in the world have spend more than 2 years looking in depth at all of Trump's dealings and they so far have nothing to show for it? Really? They are privvy to everything Trump. Trump is ruining the country yet they still have nothing? Laughable that you Libs are still hoping Trump will be brought down.

Flagpole wrote:

So, once you make a political choice, you go with that to the ends of the Earth? Turning on Trump now, or at anytime in his Presidency, doesn't mean you like Hillary or Bernie. If you made a car purchase after careful consideration and it turned out to be a lemon, would you not take it back?

Hillary doesn't get to become President if Trump is impeached or resigns...you get Pence who has kissed Trump's butt the whole time, so you should like that.

I didn't know Trump was the criminal we have now found out that he is until later on after he was elected...which is why I didn't care too much initially (and some here mistakenly thought I was hiding). I didn't know he was the serial liar he is until a while into his presidency. I didn't know his awful rhetoric would continue until a while into his presidency (typically once elected, officials just get down to the business of doing the work, not continuing with petty differences like they did during the election).

He is a confirmed serial liar and a criminal. How can you support that? And, deny that you are a Trumper if you want, but you are supporting him still, so you ARE a Trumper. You don't get an out because you admit he is a despicable person.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

So, once you make a political choice, you go with that to the ends of the Earth? Turning on Trump now, or at anytime in his Presidency, doesn't mean you like Hillary or Bernie. If you made a car purchase after careful consideration and it turned out to be a lemon, would you not take it back?

Hillary doesn't get to become President if Trump is impeached or resigns...you get Pence who has kissed Trump's butt the whole time, so you should like that.

I didn't know Trump was the criminal we have now found out that he is until later on after he was elected...which is why I didn't care too much initially (and some here mistakenly thought I was hiding). I didn't know he was the serial liar he is until a while into his presidency. I didn't know his awful rhetoric would continue until a while into his presidency (typically once elected, officials just get down to the business of doing the work, not continuing with petty differences like they did during the election).

He is a confirmed serial liar and a criminal. How can you support that? And, deny that you are a Trumper if you want, but you are supporting him still, so you ARE a Trumper. You don't get an out because you admit he is a despicable person.

I will admit he is a serial liar but so are pretty much every politician. As far as being a criminal, Mueller and Co. have spent two-plus years sifting through everything Trump has ever done. He is a clean as a baby's butt after a bath. Nothing on him. You already conceded that Mueller is not the one who will bring him down. Flagpole, he is my president and he is YOUR president for the next 6 years. Just look forward to 2024 when Bernie or Hillary will be running again and may win.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yep. Good that it is wrapping up, but Trumpers had better read that article before they get too excited. Mueller has already pawned off work to other offices, and the DC US Attorney's office is reportedly taking up the reins on cases which were borne of the Mueller investigation, so this is all ongoing even once Mueller is not the Special Counsel...and the phrase "Mueller is coming" is still appropriate even once he is done working because his work is being continued by these other offices.

Bottom line is that Trump is not in the clear once this wraps up and he hasn't immediately been either indicted or impeached. It's all coming, and I have patience to wait.

Flagpole has just admitted that Mueller is not going to bring Trump down. Read his words above clearly. He has just admitted that Trump will not be brought down by Mueller but is hoping that other entities may bring Trump down. Flagpole, you just came clean and admitted that Mueller has nothing on Trump. LOL!

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Again, Trumpers fail to argue that he's innocent. They know he's guilty.

So we have more desperate logic: "If something hasn't happened yet, if follows that it will never happen."

The day Mueller and SDNY issue reports exonerating Individual-1, I might be willing to say he won't go to prison.

But let's look at the scenario that is far more likely.

If Mueller and SDNY knew the president was innocent, they would want to say so as soon as possible. It would be legal malpractice to keep a cloud over someone's head any longer than necessary. It would be a very serious offense.

Therefore, they must be building a case. It could still turn out that there isn't enough evidence to indict. But given the length of time, the other close associates indicted, and the seriousness of crimes we know were committed, there is only one likely scenario.

The cases are building and indictments are coming.

Individual-1 is going to prison.

Your last two sentences are true. I actually don't know if your comment about it being malpractice is true or not, further showing that I am NOT a know-it-all. Do you have more info on that so that I can be educated there?

(c) When deciding whether to initiate or continue an investigation, the prosecutor should consider:

(i) whether there is evidence of the existence of criminal conduct;

(ii) the nature and seriousness of the problem or alleged offense, including the risk or degree of harm from ongoing criminal conduct;

(iii) a history of prior violations of the same or similar laws and whether those violations have previously been addressed through law enforcement or other means;

(iv) the motive, interest, bias or other improper factors that may influence those seeking to initiate or cause the initiation of a criminal investigation;

(v) the need for, and expected impact of, criminal enforcement to:

(A) punish blameworthy behavior;

(B) provide specific and/or general deterrence;

(C) provide protection to the community;

(D) reinforce norms embodied in the criminal law;

(E) prevent unauthorized private action to enforce the law;

(F) preserve the credibility of the criminal justice system; and

(G) other legitimate public interests.

(vi) whether the costs and benefits of the investigation and of particular investigative tools and techniques are justified in consideration of, among other things, the nature of the criminal activity as well as the impact of conducting the investigation on other enforcement priorities and resources

(vii) the collateral effects of the investigation on witnesses, subjects, targets and non-culpable third parties, including financial damage and harm to reputation

(viii) the probability of obtaining sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution of the matter in question, including, if there is a trial, the probability of obtaining a conviction and having the conviction upheld upon appellate review; and

(ix) whether society’s interest in the matter might be better or equally vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

We already know that Mueller is coming and Trump is done. You and others have said that for years now. So, no need to say it anymore. From here on out DO NOT SAY THAT STUPID PHRASE and just include in your comment stuff of substance. We already know that Mueller is coming and Trump is done. Just include new stuff. Okay? We all will never forget that Mueller is coming an dTrump is done. It saves you from typing some and makes us all happy. AGreed?

Nah...I type well over 100 words a minute, so it takes me next to no time to type that. Not my fault that you don't like the truth...also, you said I conceded that Mueller would not be the one to take Trump down (which of course I did not), so apparently those phrases must continue...pretty much your fault there. I'm not in this to make anyone happy...that's not my responsibility. I just report the truth, and the truth is...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nah...I type well over 100 words a minute, so it takes me next to no time to type that. Not my fault that you don't like the truth...also, you said I conceded that Mueller would not be the one to take Trump down (which of course I did not), so apparently those phrases must continue...pretty much your fault there. I'm not in this to make anyone happy...that's not my responsibility. I just report the truth, and the truth is...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Flagpole, Fat Hurts, Trollminator, etc...I still think it will be two weeks or so because President Trump will probably have time to write a rebuttal. But, we Trumpers get accused of hiding when something happens; I won’t once the report gets made public. I just can’t get on the boards everyday because of raising kids and work. You have my word.

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Trump won with 46%. That number was far more relevant than the electoral verdict. Somehow the genius Republicans didn't understand that heading into 2018. They thought they could push an electoral button all across the country and magically turn 2% defeat into victory.

There is no question Trump can win in 2020. But he'll have to do it via the same formula with virtually no margin for error. He'll have to sweep those upper midwestern states again even if they prefer the other side at base instinct. And this time the Democrat will campaign there and operations will be in place, instead of taking it for granted with an occasional visit by Chelsea Clinton.

Anyway, here is a classic case of a conservative pundit absolutely overwhelmed when the historian guest wouldn't succumb to his simplistic talking points. Tucker Carlson was so unnerved he resorted to profanity, and preposterous claims that the guest couldn't possibly watch Fox News because he doesn't like in the United States.

As always...Never Prevent a Conservative From Sounding Like a Conservative.

Fox was too petrified to run the segment, as forecast by the Dutch guest.

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1098289381096402946

Trollminator wrote:

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Trump won with 46%. That number was far more relevant than the electoral verdict. Somehow the genius Republicans didn't understand that heading into 2018. They thought they could push an electoral button all across the country and magically turn 2% defeat into victory.

There is no question Trump can win in 2020. But he'll have to do it via the same formula with virtually no margin for error. He'll have to sweep those upper midwestern states again even if they prefer the other side at base instinct. And this time the Democrat will campaign there and operations will be in place, instead of taking it for granted with an occasional visit by Chelsea Clinton.

Anyway, here is a classic case of a conservative pundit absolutely overwhelmed when the historian guest wouldn't succumb to his simplistic talking points. Tucker Carlson was so unnerved he resorted to profanity, and preposterous claims that the guest couldn't possibly watch Fox News because he doesn't like in the United States.

As always...Never Prevent a Conservative From Sounding Like a Conservative.

Fox was too petrified to run the segment, as forecast by the Dutch guest.

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1098289381096402946

We definitely have bias across all MSM but you just don’t see this $hit on other networks. FOX is the network of deplorables, 100%