Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole, you said Don Jr. and Kusher would be indicted. They haven't been and will never be. STOP with you phony scenarios. Just a tip to someone I consider a friend, you are looking more and more foolish every time you make these ridiculous pronouncements especially considering your past record. NOTHING you have predicted in the past has come true. NOTHING. Dude, give it a rest. You are looking comical. Like a dullard who is way over his head. History repeats itself for those who are too foolish to learn from their past mistakes. Earth to Flagpole, just hang low for a bit. You really are not looking very sound.

1) Don Jr. and Kushner will be indicted over some financial crimes. Yes, they might not be indicted for conspiracy, but that's just one of a bunch of predictions I've made. Time will tell.

2) Um...a LOT of things I have predicted have come true. I predicted Manafort and Stone would be indicted. I said Manafort would be found guilty. I said the investigation would turn up a LOT of financial things and that Trump would indeed be investigated for those financial things even though he said it was a red line. I said Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2016 unless there was cheating or aliens made us vote for him, and THERE WAS CHEATING! FELONY cheating! TWO COUNTS of FELONY CHEATING! So, I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I also have said the dumbest thing Trump ever did other than run for President was to fire Comey, and that is crystal clear true. All of the other predictions I've made are still up in the air, INCLUDING conspiracy (or collusion depending on what the House calls it). Once we see the Mueller Report, we will see what the House does. There doesn't NOT need to be a criminal prosecution of conspiracy for the House to decide there is enough to draw up an article of impeachment with that or a similar name. I'm not saying that for sure will happen now, but the book is not closed on that. Even more likely that they will draw up one for Obstruction of Justice.

3) What is comical is that when one of 18 investigations is over that we even know about (especially when we don't yet know the results of that one investigation) that you Trumpers declare victory. Ask yourself if you would like to be in Trump's shoes today with 17 investigations going on into his financial dealings including one where he has already been named as a co-conspirator to TWO FELONIES.

4) Mueller is still coming (via the investigations he pawned off), and the clown is still done. Unless he dies first or the aliens or crime thing, he WILL go to prison. The biggest threat to me being wrong is on the timing...it's just SOOO much to investigate that he might not be forced to leave office before his term is over. I still think there is time to get it done though.

He remains in BIG trouble, and but for the exceptions I have noted, he WILL go to prison.

Splattered wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Don Jr. and Kushner will be indicted over some financial crimes. Yes, they might not be indicted for conspiracy, but that's just one of a bunch of predictions I've made. Time will tell.

2) Um...a LOT of things I have predicted have come true. I predicted Manafort and Stone would be indicted. I said Manafort would be found guilty. I said the investigation would turn up a LOT of financial things and that Trump would indeed be investigated for those financial things even though he said it was a red line. I said Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2016 unless there was cheating or aliens made us vote for him, and THERE WAS CHEATING! FELONY cheating! TWO COUNTS of FELONY CHEATING! So, I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I also have said the dumbest thing Trump ever did other than run for President was to fire Comey, and that is crystal clear true. All of the other predictions I've made are still up in the air, INCLUDING conspiracy (or collusion depending on what the House calls it). Once we see the Mueller Report, we will see what the House does. There doesn't NOT need to be a criminal prosecution of conspiracy for the House to decide there is enough to draw up an article of impeachment with that or a similar name. I'm not saying that for sure will happen now, but the book is not closed on that. Even more likely that they will draw up one for Obstruction of Justice.

3) What is comical is that when one of 18 investigations is over that we even know about (especially when we don't yet know the results of that one investigation) that you Trumpers declare victory. Ask yourself if you would like to be in Trump's shoes today with 17 investigations going on into his financial dealings including one where he has already been named as a co-conspirator to TWO FELONIES.

4) Mueller is still coming (via the investigations he pawned off), and the clown is still done. Unless he dies first or the aliens or crime thing, he WILL go to prison. The biggest threat to me being wrong is on the timing...it's just SOOO much to investigate that he might not be forced to leave office before his term is over. I still think there is time to get it done though.

He remains in BIG trouble, and but for the exceptions I have noted, he WILL go to prison.

Basically what you do is throw a whole lot of predictions against the wall, see what sticks, and claim victory over the 5% that come true.

EPlC Flagpole wrote:

EPlC Flagpole wrote:

Remember Avenatti? Guess he’s over on R Kelly now. LOL!

Remember Colluuuusion? LOL!! After 2.5 years of "investigating" Trump, zero indictments. ZERO.

Mueller isn’t coming.

The clown continues to be Flagpole.

Current status of Flagpole's Flagpole streak: 37+ months

Well, well, well. This crow certainly tastes horrible! It looks like Flagpole was right all along. President Trump has finally been exposed as the criminal that we have long known that he is. Not sure where he gets his information, but boy was Flagpole calling it perfectly. Us skeptics should have listened. Mueller’s 135 new indictments against Trump and his campaign associates has DEVASTATED the country, and is sure to drive Trump from office in the coming weeks, just as Flagpole had been warning us for the last two years. He nailed every crime that Trump and his associates have now been indicted for:

Conspiracy against the United States (could end up being bribery or aiding and abetting instead OR in addition)

Obstruction of Justice

Money Laundering

Perjury (this one I have said and still maintain is a certainty if he talks to Mueller, and likely even if not)

Suborning perjury

Bank fraud and/or wire fraud

Insurance fraud (this is a new one)

Emoluments clause violation

Witness tampering or intimidation, whichever the official name is (relatively newly added)

RICO

Some sort of computer hacking or privacy violation

Something to do with chattels

Something none of us have heard of yet

So, without further ado, we are obligated to nullify, retract, and stop maintenance of Flagpole’s EPIC Flagpole Streak. For he was correct in his predictions for the last three years. We all owe him an apology for mocking what we saw as incessant hope and speculation. His opinions were- as he claimed- apparently all based on facts and logic after all. Well done, Flagpole. Well done.

.

..

...

....

.....

…...APRIL FOOL’S!!!!! LOL!!! HAHAHA!!

What. A. Month.

Clownpole goes home DEVASTATED.

ZERO Collllluuuuussssssion.

ZERO Obstruction (of the fake investigation- LOL).

ZERO additional indictments for ANYTHING ELSE Clownpole and his pals were hoping would come to be.

All these posts over the last 2-3 years- literally tens of thousands- and what do you guys have to show for it? ZERO.

ZERO. ZERO. ZERO.

Aaaaand, a little icing on the cake, one time 2020 Democratic hopeful (supported here by Clownpole and his pals), Michael Avenatti, gets ARRESTED for embezzlement, wire fraud, and extortion!! LOL

Seems like a beautifully appropriate anology for Clownpole on this thread, doesn’t it? LOL!

Mueller DID NOT COME.

As usual, the clown PROVED to be Flagpole.

Current status of Flagpole’s Flagpole streak: 38+ months

Silly Willy wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are wrong. They did not say that.

Actually, I'm exactly right. They did say that. So you are once again simply uninformed because you obviously only follow one side of the news. Which in this case, means the "made up" side.

Lisa Page:

""It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point."

Jim Comey:

""Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified."

Peter Strzok:

"And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance.

Strzok added that, while he raised the idea of impeachment in some of his texts to Page, “I am, again, was not, am not convinced or certain that it will,” he told the inspector general.

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special counsel probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special counsel?"

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Splattered wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Don Jr. and Kushner will be indicted over some financial crimes. Yes, they might not be indicted for conspiracy, but that's just one of a bunch of predictions I've made. Time will tell.

2) Um...a LOT of things I have predicted have come true. I predicted Manafort and Stone would be indicted. I said Manafort would be found guilty. I said the investigation would turn up a LOT of financial things and that Trump would indeed be investigated for those financial things even though he said it was a red line. I said Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2016 unless there was cheating or aliens made us vote for him, and THERE WAS CHEATING! FELONY cheating! TWO COUNTS of FELONY CHEATING! So, I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I also have said the dumbest thing Trump ever did other than run for President was to fire Comey, and that is crystal clear true. All of the other predictions I've made are still up in the air, INCLUDING conspiracy (or collusion depending on what the House calls it). Once we see the Mueller Report, we will see what the House does. There doesn't NOT need to be a criminal prosecution of conspiracy for the House to decide there is enough to draw up an article of impeachment with that or a similar name. I'm not saying that for sure will happen now, but the book is not closed on that. Even more likely that they will draw up one for Obstruction of Justice.

3) What is comical is that when one of 18 investigations is over that we even know about (especially when we don't yet know the results of that one investigation) that you Trumpers declare victory. Ask yourself if you would like to be in Trump's shoes today with 17 investigations going on into his financial dealings including one where he has already been named as a co-conspirator to TWO FELONIES.

4) Mueller is still coming (via the investigations he pawned off), and the clown is still done. Unless he dies first or the aliens or crime thing, he WILL go to prison. The biggest threat to me being wrong is on the timing...it's just SOOO much to investigate that he might not be forced to leave office before his term is over. I still think there is time to get it done though.

He remains in BIG trouble, and but for the exceptions I have noted, he WILL go to prison.

Basically what you do is throw a whole lot of predictions against the wall, see what sticks, and claim victory over the 5% that come true.

Pooer wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are referring to a bogus study that came up with numbers out of thin air. Seriously. That's what you were fed. Did you really believe it?

The Green New Deal as written today costs $0. There is no spending attached.

The Green New Deal I advocate will be a huge boon to the economy. We will get rid of fossil fuel and start using cleaner, super-cheap energy. Our homes and cars will eventually get free electricity.

And it won't cost much at all because making the switch will be paid for by polluters.

AKA middle and lower classes.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the terms"free." Just because you don't pay for it at the time of use doesn't mean it's free. My kids go to a "free" public school. However, I pay for the school through taxes and bonds. It is "free" for me to go to my local park. However, I paid for the creation and maintenance of the park through taxes and bonds. When I go to the coffee shop, I can access their "free" WIFI. However, I pay for the WIFI is higher cost of goods.

What happens when there are no more "polluters"? Will it still be "free"?

Fat hurts wrote:

Pooer wrote:

AKA middle and lower classes.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the terms"free." Just because you don't pay for it at the time of use doesn't mean it's free. My kids go to a "free" public school. However, I pay for the school through taxes and bonds. It is "free" for me to go to my local park. However, I paid for the creation and maintenance of the park through taxes and bonds. When I go to the coffee shop, I can access their "free" WIFI. However, I pay for the WIFI is higher cost of goods.

What happens when there are no more "polluters"? Will it still be "free"?

I think we both understand the word "free" just fine.

You have to realize that the switch to renewable energy requires a large upfront cost, but only a tiny cost to keep the system running. So polluters will cover the cost of making the switch.

After that, there are any number of ways to fund whatever ongoing maintenance there might be. I'm suggesting that the cost of electricity will be so low that it won't make sense to bill ordinary rate payers any more. So electricity will be free for those customers. It is free in the same sense that today we refer to our "free public libraries".

Silly Willy wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are wrong. They did not say that.

Actually, I'm exactly right. They did say that. So you are once again simply uninformed because you obviously only follow one side of the news. Which in this case, means the "made up" side.

Lisa Page:

""It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point."

Jim Comey:

""Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified."

Peter Strzok:

"And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance.

Strzok added that, while he raised the idea of impeachment in some of his texts to Page, “I am, again, was not, am not convinced or certain that it will,” he told the inspector general.

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special counsel probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special counsel?"

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller