Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Excellent Argument wrote:

Alan Ladd Hale wrote:

Sure Alan, and you probably think Hillary Clinton was innocent, LOL! It doesn't matter what the investigation ended with, she was guilty as Hell. If you can say it about Trump, we can say it about Clinton. Only a moron would believe she was innocent. As for how long the investigation went on for with Hillary, look it up yourself Alan.

I have to admit you put forth a very compelling argument.

"Hillary was guilty as Hell." "Only a moron would believe she was innocent."

Truly compelling.

But truth be told, it's more compelling than anything that I've ever put together using my 14th handle in 2 days. I'm just a... well, a loser.

agip wrote:

But 90% approval from Republicans. is the GOP an outlaw party? A political organization by and for criminals?

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1098310067508707328

The 90% fails to take into account the large number of real republicans who have abandoned the party. Basically, what you have left are 90% of hardcore Trumpers supporting Trump 100%. Trumpers have a lot of work to do--more republicans to kick out of the Trump party--to boost their 30% of the US to a Trumper approval rating of 100%. Trumpers might have to settle for shrinking their party to 20% of the US to they their numbers that high.

Susan Collins says she will support a resolution of disapproval of the vanity wall.

We only need three more Republicans to join in.

Individual-1 would veto it, but this would be quite a blow to the administration.

Fat hurts wrote:

Susan Collins says she will support a resolution of disapproval of the vanity wall.

We only need three more Republicans to join in.

Individual-1 would veto it, but this would be quite a blow to the administration.

The president can only veto bills. The president cannot veto a resolution; they have no say in those.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think Flagpole is wrong.

I think people in the Trump campaign and Trump organization conspired to earn favor with Russians because of their previous contacts or in order to further the goals of the Trump organization. I think it’s plausible they did this without direction from Trump. I think the SDNY will indict Trump, Jr and/or Kushner.

However, I do think Trump has committed felony campaign finance violations and multiple instances of obstruction only because he sees himself as infallible and doesn’t think he can commit obstruction since it’s his DOJ.

That being said.....no direct conspiracy link to Trump, no impeachment and no indictment. Clinton obstructed and perjured and he’s still a free man.

Alan

I'm Switzerland and I know 100%, Trump is not being convicted of anything. Look at Clinton's antics and nothing happened. Same will happen with Trump. A lot of you are just pissed that he won because it was Hillary in a Landslide, then the impossible happened. Now you scrutinize every move that he makes, nothing will be looked upon favorably. All polls are nonsense unless they show the numbers that you want to see. Talk about deplorable. Hillary was a scammer to the max, regardless of what she "wasn't" convicted of. The rules are the same for both parties. This Flagpole character is totally nuts and his silly prediction to impress others is going to backfire. Trump is innocent unless he's convicted, just like Hillary, Bill, etc...Same rules, both parties.

Quality posters only wrote:

I'm Switzerland and I know . . .

You do not live in the US, so you don't know anything.

PS. Quality posters only! You failed.

Quality posters only wrote:

I'm Switzerland.…

Wow. We are now being trolled by an entire country.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think Flagpole is wrong.

I think people in the Trump campaign and Trump organization conspired to earn favor with Russians because of their previous contacts or in order to further the goals of the Trump organization. I think it’s plausible they did this without direction from Trump. I think the SDNY will indict Trump, Jr and/or Kushner.

However, I do think Trump has committed felony campaign finance violations and multiple instances of obstruction only because he sees himself as infallible and doesn’t think he can commit obstruction since it’s his DOJ.

That being said.....no direct conspiracy link to Trump, no impeachment and no indictment. Clinton obstructed and perjured and he’s still a free man.

Alan

I mostly agree and have stated previously that I don't think there will be any direct link that is supportive of collusion and thus no impeachment. This doesn't mean he would not have unintentionally gotten himself into that kind of trouble. I think he is not smart enough to have tried and been able to cover his tracks. However, when it comes to criminal conspiracy I think there might be enough meat there and he wont be able to claim ignorance, but it will be heavily debated because it is a political trial after all.

I cannot imagine that given his mob-shady history and the proven criminality of those in his circle, that he is somehow an innocent man and had no hand in anything unlawful. The difference with Clinton is that there will be all sorts of indictable criminal evidence on Trump while Bill carried simple perjury charges with him on his way out. I think trouble is going to come Trump's way, the volume of bad stuff has just grown exponentially. I think Trump knows his gig is close to being up and the only chance he has to bury it or at least kick the can is to win again. That will give him enough political cover to avoid charges in 2024, maybe. If it's between impeachment and the report being so damaging that he doesn't get elected, he should hope for impeachment which is a chance for him to go out more quietly, because a wall of criminal charges will drop on him as soon as he loses in 2020. And it will be very well deserved and just.

Anti-Veto wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Susan Collins says she will support a resolution of disapproval of the vanity wall.

We only need three more Republicans to join in.

Individual-1 would veto it, but this would be quite a blow to the administration.

The president can only veto bills. The president cannot veto a resolution; they have no say in those.

We are not talking about a non-binding resolution.

This is a joint resolution to terminate the president's action under the National Emergencies Act. It has the power of law, and therefore the president can veto, and congress can override the veto.

Fat hurts wrote:

Anti-Veto wrote:

The president can only veto bills. The president cannot veto a resolution; they have no say in those.

We are not talking about a non-binding resolution.

This is a joint resolution to terminate the president's action under the National Emergencies Act. It has the power of law, and therefore the president can veto, and congress can override the veto.

Not true. But I can see that Trump's team is trying to create that illusion. Trump goal is to confuse the issue and try to spend money to build part of his wall in the meaning. An important thing to remember is that Trump does not have to power to reallocate spending approved by Congress. The president does not have the power of the purse.

Anti-Veto wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

We are not talking about a non-binding resolution.

This is a joint resolution to terminate the president's action under the National Emergencies Act. It has the power of law, and therefore the president can veto, and congress can override the veto.

Not true. But I can see that Trump's team is trying to create that illusion. Trump goal is to confuse the issue and try to spend money to build part of his wall in the meaning. An important thing to remember is that Trump does not have to power to reallocate spending approved by Congress. The president does not have the power of the purse.

That is the flaw in Trump emergency declaration. The declaration is one thing. The money for anything associated with his declaration is an entirely different matter.

nontrumper wrote:

IMO, I think this report will focus on obstruction: Flynn, Russia investigation, Cohen. Hell, there has been enough in his tweets to prove obstruction. These charges, in themselves, are serious and enough to warrant impeachment hearings. Mueller (others?) will continue the investigation into 'collusion' since more evidence continues to come to light. Very complicated case. And 2 years is nothing for a criminal investigation of this matter. This initial report also makes pardons very difficult as Trump will be named as a co-conspirator. Unfortunately, much of the report will be redacted due to national security issues. But, this will mark another significant turning point in the downfall of Trump.

Country over party.

Very likely, accurate observations, and you show you understand how things work unlike the Trumpers.

Awsi Dooger wrote:

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

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

Nice post!

I don’t think the Meuller report will show anything against Trump since Mueller ultimately reports to Trump.

Congress can use charges and evidence that came out of the Mueller investigation to go forward with an impeachment.

The DOJ can file charges against Trump when he no longer is president.

L L wrote:

I don’t think the Meuller report will show anything against Trump since Mueller ultimately reports to Trump.

Congress can use charges and evidence that came out of the Mueller investigation to go forward with an impeachment.

The DOJ can file charges against Trump when he no longer is president.

The DOJ can file charges against a president for illegal acts which are not related to the job.

What amazes me is that it takes a guy from Holland to see through the likes of Tucker Carlson and the other Fox hosts. Millionaires representing billionaires and somehow average working class people fall for it again and again and again.

Charged wrote:

L L wrote:

I don’t think the Meuller report will show anything against Trump since Mueller ultimately reports to Trump.

Congress can use charges and evidence that came out of the Mueller investigation to go forward with an impeachment.

The DOJ can file charges against Trump when he no longer is president.

The DOJ can file charges against a president for illegal acts which are not related to the job.

But do you think that realistically would happen?

L L wrote:

Charged wrote:

The DOJ can file charges against a president for illegal acts which are not related to the job.

But do you think that realistically would happen?

So much hand wringing and speculation. Someday your wildest dreams may come true. Probably not, but hey- they're your dreams.

Meanwhile, I think I'll focus on something more realistic... Like winning a Powerball jackpot!