Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

Read the Report wrote:

What specifically did Barr say that led you to believe he did not show integrity nor is he independent? What can Mueller testify to that will be different than Barr?

Barr wrote an op-ed before he was appointed saying that the president could not obstruct justice.

He was appointed by Trump to oversee the investigation of Trump. That is not an independent person.

As far as integrity, he testified that Mueller did not have issue with his summary while at the same time Mueller wrote a letter that he did have issues with his summary.

Mueller is "Independent" Council.

And through the whole process he never spoke to give his opinions. He just gave facts.

That shoes integrity.

Was Barr ever "appointed?" He was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate (with Dems voting to confirm).

Bob Mueller was not "independent" counsel. He was special counsel.

The bi-partisan senate vote to confirm Barr you speak of had only 3 Democrats.

They were from West Virginia, Alabama and Arizona.

He's still Trump's pick and acts as his defense attorney. Should be recused under the circumstances.

Mueller was appointed by Republican Rosenstein.

Mueller had true wide spread bipartisan support.

But specifically, Mueller has not injected opinions.

The optics of Mueller speaking in a formal situation to clear Trump would do wonders for Trump.

And he has been through the whole investigation.

Why hear Barr's view of Mueller's report when Mueller can answer all questions?

If you don't see a conflict with Trump picking the person to oversee his investigation then you are either obtuse, ignorant or trolling.

Don't exist wrote:

so dumb wrote:

Trumpers are an entirely new low level of stupid.

They can't list them because they don't exist.

Trumpers cannot see them because their tiny Trump bubble excludes internet search.

Perjurererer wrote:

L L wrote:

Barr wrote an op-ed before he was appointed saying that the president could not obstruct justice.

He was appointed by Trump to oversee the investigation of Trump. That is not an independent person.

As far as integrity, he testified that Mueller did not have issue with his summary while at the same time Mueller wrote a letter that he did have issues with his summary.

Mueller is "Independent" Council.

And through the whole process he never spoke to give his opinions. He just gave facts.

That shoes integrity.

Do think Barr committed perjury yesterday?

Obviously.

Sally Vix wrote:

Was Barr ever "appointed?" He was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate (with Dems voting to confirm).

All of whom now realize Barr perjured himself to get their vote.

They smeared him, called him a liar and said he should resign. The same Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who tried to assassinate the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh last year pulled the same stunt on Bill Barr — with the same result.

They failed because, once again, they were throwing mud while shooting blanks.

Despite the Dems’ desperate efforts to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination with false accusations, he is now on the Supreme Court. Barr was obviously prepared for his mud bath and was unflappable in the face of Wednesday’s mean-spirited assault, proving himself to be a rock-solid attorney general.

As he said at his confirmation hearing, “I won’t be bullied,” and he wasn’t.

On one level, the hearing on the report of special counsel Robert Mueller was predictable in its partisan divide. Republicans wanted to emphasize Mueller’s findings that no American, including those in President Trump’s 2016 campaign, conspired with Russia to meddle and Barr’s determination that there had been no obstruction of justice.

Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.

Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and countered the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.

It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt ­president.

It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.

“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

SEE ALSO

Kamala Harris calls on William Barr to resign

No better, more concise statement has been made about the bankrupt nature of the Democratic Party and its leaders. They bet everything on Mueller validating their Big Lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, and now they have nothing.

Their threats of impeachment are hollow and their resistance movement is breaking into factions about how much socialism they should offer to voters in 2020.

Party voters should direct their fury at leaders who led them to this bitter dead end.

The nation will soon forget the bad political theater, especially with another development moving toward center stage as Barr promised again to investigate the conduct of law enforcement and the intelligence agencies during and after the 2016 campaign, including the massive numbers of leaks.

At one point, he talked of possible “overreach” by top officials, then added: “But what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.”

At another point, he said, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

The references are unmistakable and the strongest sign yet that Barr suspects wrongdoing in very high places. It’s also a sign that the worm is turning.

Dems got the special counsel investigation they demanded and were able to play offense against Trump since 2016. Now the focus shifts to the other side of the story — the plot to steal the election and then undermine a duly elected president.

Finally, we are getting to the history that matters most.

Are you arguing that we should not hear Mueller testify regarding his investigation?

L L wrote:

Are you arguing that we should not hear Mueller testify regarding his investigation?

That is the Faux News / Breitbart demand. Sally is one of their parrots.

Faux Gnus wrote:

L L wrote:

Are you arguing that we should not hear Mueller testify regarding his investigation?

That is the Faux News / Breitbart demand. Sally is one of their parrots.

I have not watched Fox News in 5 years. I mainly watch MSNBC and to a much lesser extent CNN. Both are clown shows.

Depends on how you define success. If working full time and making a lot of money is your definition of success, then yes, she has underachieved. Just because you have a great talent doesn't mean you want to use that talent all the time or even at all. She has greatly succeeded at everything she has ever attempted...school, work, wife, mother. Her goals have always been to do what she wants to do. She works less than full time now because that is what she wants to do. She has volunteered at the elementary school helping slower kids with reading and helping gifted kids with gifted-type stuff (including both of my children of course). How many people out there work full time but wish they didn't have to? She doesn't have to, and so she doesn't. Has nothing to do by the way with feeling uncomfortable outside of "schooling". Also, what is wrong with working in the public "sector"? She was instrumental in getting the kids health care policy passed (look up Donna Shalala and health care for children), something she was very passionate about at that time. Not everything is about money, brother.

L L wrote:

The bi-partisan senate vote to confirm Barr you speak of had only 3 Democrats.

They were from West Virginia, Alabama and Arizona.

He's still Trump's pick and acts as his defense attorney. Should be recused under the circumstances.

Mueller was appointed by Republican Rosenstein.

Mueller had true wide spread bipartisan support.

But specifically, Mueller has not injected opinions.

The optics of Mueller speaking in a formal situation to clear Trump would do wonders for Trump.

And he has been through the whole investigation.

Why hear Barr's view of Mueller's report when Mueller can answer all questions?

If you don't see a conflict with Trump picking the person to oversee his investigation then you are either obtuse, ignorant or trolling.

He wrote a memo a year ago on how sitting presidents can't obstruct justice. He was picked to the job he's currently doing

Sally Vix wrote:

Faux Gnus wrote:

That is the Faux News / Breitbart demand. Sally is one of their parrots.

I have not watched Fox News in 5 years. I mainly watch MSNBC and to a much lesser extent CNN. Both are clown shows.

A lie. If you did watch MSNBC and CNN you would know that both believe Mueller should testify to "clear the air" of the stink Barr has made of the investigation.

Racket wrote:

L L wrote:

The bi-partisan senate vote to confirm Barr you speak of had only 3 Democrats.

They were from West Virginia, Alabama and Arizona.

He's still Trump's pick and acts as his defense attorney. Should be recused under the circumstances.

Mueller was appointed by Republican Rosenstein.

Mueller had true wide spread bipartisan support.

But specifically, Mueller has not injected opinions.

The optics of Mueller speaking in a formal situation to clear Trump would do wonders for Trump.

And he has been through the whole investigation.

Why hear Barr's view of Mueller's report when Mueller can answer all questions?

If you don't see a conflict with Trump picking the person to oversee his investigation then you are either obtuse, ignorant or trolling.

He wrote a memo a year ago on how sitting presidents can't obstruct justice. He was picked to the job he's currently doing

And Barr claimed he would uphold the law to get confirmed. His refusal to release the full report to Congress and his refusal to testify both prove he LIED to get the job.

Faux Gnus wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I have not watched Fox News in 5 years. I mainly watch MSNBC and to a much lesser extent CNN. Both are clown shows.

A lie. If you did watch MSNBC and CNN you would know that both believe Mueller should testify to "clear the air" of the stink Barr has made of the investigation.

Not a lie. I watch these "news" shows just to see how absurd they are. Not one covered the attempted coup in Venezuela. They are really pathetic. They abhor Trump and are attempting to bring him down. Just clown shows.

Sally Vix wrote:

Faux Gnus wrote:

That is the Faux News / Breitbart demand. Sally is one of their parrots.

I have not watched Fox News in 5 years. I mainly watch MSNBC and to a much lesser extent CNN. Both are clown shows.

So you spend your time watching "clown shows"? That explains quite a bit.

Sally Vix wrote:

L L wrote:

Barr wrote an op-ed before he was appointed saying that the president could not obstruct justice.

He was appointed by Trump to oversee the investigation of Trump. That is not an independent person.

As far as integrity, he testified that Mueller did not have issue with his summary while at the same time Mueller wrote a letter that he did have issues with his summary.

Mueller is "Independent" Council.

And through the whole process he never spoke to give his opinions. He just gave facts.

That shoes integrity.

Was Barr ever "appointed?" He was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate (with Dems voting to confirm).

Bob Mueller was not "independent" counsel. He was special counsel.

PROPS! 100% accurate!

Trump’s one of the best leaders Russia has ever elected. It’s so unfair to compare him to presidents that Americans actually voted for.

Flagpole wrote:

Just no credibility whatsoever in what Sally says. Can't chime in on a topic you know nothing about. Even when we try to learn Sally something, he is incapable of learning. This idea that Trump won "fair and square" is bogus. He directed two felonies to help him win. He knew Russia was doing things to help him win and he welcomed and encouraged it. Second thing not a crime, but not really playing fair either. That's just gravy. The felonies alone make it not fair and square.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

HAHA! I just saw this one. Off the charts silly.

Clownpole has been reduced to using the *supposed* "directed" hush payments as Trump's cheating. Hush payments, of course, are NOT illegal. It just keeps getting better and better from Clownboy as he flails to find *something* to be "right" about.

Meanwhile, here's the actual, PROVEN cheating that took place associated with the Clinton campaign (list comprised off the top of my head, and of only events that took place up through election day)...

FACT: The investigation was named "Midyear Exam" for the Clinton email investigation.

FACT: Loretta lynch demanded that the investigation not be called an investigation, but a "matter" instead.

FACT: The FBI Director authored an exoneration letter before they even interviewed Clinton.

FACT: Many FBI agents thought it was perfectly clear that Clinton should have been indicted.

FACT: Five of Clinton's closest advisors/managers that traded emails with her were given immunity.

FACT: They were then ALLOWED TO SIT IN ON THE INTERVIEW WITH CLINTON!! (Unbelievable.)

FACT: The interview lasted just 3 hours. During with Clinton said she didn't recall 40 times.

FACT: The mysterious server that was "hacked" was WIPED CLEAN using Bleachbit.

FACT: The mysterious "hacked" server was never turned over to the FBI.

FACT: Several of Clinton's devices were literally destroyed with a hammer. A damn hammer (what is this, the 80s?- HA)!!

FACT: AG Lynch deferred her authority to James Comey on the Clinton “matter”.

FACT: James Comey then did not indict because there was "no intent" by Clinton to break the law (after previously stating that the requirements for an indictment had nothing to do with intent).

FACT: CNN's Donna Brazille gave Clinton questions before one of the Democratic debates.

FACT: The same Donna Brazille later came out and told the public that the DNC was essentially acting like an arm of the Clinton campaign, and that the Clinton campaign was managing the funds.

FACT: The Steele Dossier was largely funded by the Clinton campaign funneling payments to Perkins-Coie (very evil people) law firm, and then to Fusion GPS (also evil). This IS illegal, and of course never has been denied to this day.

FACT: The FBI names the investigation into Trump, "Crossfire Hurricane".

FACT: The Steele Dossier employed foreign agents and/or officials to gather their "intel".

FACT: Peter Strzok tells Lisa Page that "we will stop him", and think of the plan coming out of "Andy's office" as a "insurance policy in the unlikely event [that Trump wins]."

FACT: The uncorroborated Steele Dossier was used as the main piece of Intel to get FISA approval to spy on Carter Page (which was the first step into spying on and framing the Trump campaign).

FACT: The CIA and FBI used "informants" (spies) to frame a couple individuals (i.e. Papadopoulos) in the Trump campaign.

FACT: The bulk of the Steele Dossier has proven to be false.

FACT: In testimony now revealed, all of the major actors in the FBI (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, and others) have admitted that they DID NOT HAVE EVIDENCE of Russia-Trump collusion at the time of the Special Counsel appointment, so they certainly didn't have evidence on election day, either.

FACT: The DNC and NBC colludes to release a private discussion of Donald Trump from 11 years earlier. It is intended to be the beginning of a series of woman claiming Trump harassed/assaulted them, and be the nail in the coffin of the Trump campaign.

FACT: Despite all of the above- and MUCH, MUCH more collusion, smears and lying from the DNC-MSM establishment on a daily basis- Donald J Trump wins the election and DEVASTATES the Liberal media and their sheep.

Like I said, I just threw this together off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm missing some other blatant cheating by the Clinton campaign.

Cheaters never win.

Mueller did NOT come.

The Clown has always been and will always be, Flagpole.

Barr IS COMING.

Sally Vix wrote:

I mainly watch MSNBC and to a much lesser extent CNN. Both are clown shows.

I'm curious what you get out of this.

You can take "this" to mean either "watching news you find uninformative", "obvious trolling", or both.