Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

And you can get 5000 former federal prosecutors to say he should have not been indicted. Come on dude, this 900 figure is a bunch of liberals. If you polled 5000 law professors at American universities 99% would say he should be indicted - because they are all effing Liberals! Seriously agip. Think some.

You can bet your stupid @ss that if there were that many former federal prosecutors standing behind Trump then they would have released their own statement by now (that especially underscored how much more in numbers they are then the 900 who think Trump should be indicted) and it would be on Fox News non-stop until probably 2025.

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

And you can get 5000 former federal prosecutors to say he should have not been indicted. Come on dude, this 900 figure is a bunch of liberals. If you polled 5000 law professors at American universities 99% would say he should be indicted - because they are all effing Liberals! Seriously agip. Think some.

You can bet your stupid @ss that if there were that many former federal prosecutors standing behind Trump then they would have released their own statement by now (that especially underscored how much more in numbers they are then the 900 who think Trump should be indicted) and it would be on Fox News non-stop until probably 2025.

You were banned. Everything you say is garbage. Please never respond to me again.

Sally Vix wrote:

Racket wrote:

You were banned.

If you banned him, why did you reply to him?

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

And you can get 5000 former federal prosecutors to say he should have not been indicted. Come on dude, this 900 figure is a bunch of liberals. If you polled 5000 law professors at American universities 99% would say he should be indicted - because they are all effing Liberals! Seriously agip. Think some.

You can bet your stupid @ss that if there were that many former federal prosecutors standing behind Trump then they would have released their own statement by now (that especially underscored how much more in numbers they are then the 900 who think Trump should be indicted) and it would be on Fox News non-stop until probably 2025.

This ^ is CORRECT.

if banned wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

You were banned.

If you banned him, why did you reply to him?

Not sure why. Sometimes you do stuff you later regret.

Why is Trump so big on making us pay import taxes?

Sally Vix wrote:

if banned wrote:

If you banned him, why did you reply to him?

Not sure why. Sometimes you do stuff you later regret.

You have lost the ability to control yourself. Maybe you never learned that skill.

Doesn't there need to be a crime first for there to be obstruction?

VaderBane wrote:

Doesn't there need to be a crime first for there to be obstruction?

Nope.

Sally Vix wrote:

Racket wrote:

You can bet your stupid @ss that if there were that many former federal prosecutors standing behind Trump then they would have released their own statement by now (that especially underscored how much more in numbers they are then the 900 who think Trump should be indicted) and it would be on Fox News non-stop until probably 2025.

You were banned. Everything you say is garbage. Please never respond to me again.

What's that, can you speak up? It's hard for me to hear when you're so far beneath me.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

And you can get 5000 former federal prosecutors to say he should have not been indicted. Come on dude, this 900 figure is a bunch of liberals. If you polled 5000 law professors at American universities 99% would say he should be indicted - because they are all effing Liberals! Seriously agip. Think some.

no it wasn't sally

it was a bipartisan group of former DOJ prosecutors. Repubs, Dems, apolitical types. 900 of them.

bipartisan.

bipartisan.

Stop with your guesses. Just stop. Do some reading or research before you make your claims. it's really easy with google.

you are insulting yourself every time you make a baseless claim that shows you don't take even the easiest path to do any research.

For reference the total at posting is 1005

1) Sally needs to read a lot of stuff or really anything at all. He is so uninformed it is ridiculous that he chimes in at all here.

2) I am not aware of any of those people he mentioned predicting that the Mueller Report would bring Trump down. I'm not a fan of Rachel, so I rarely watch her (because she takes too long to get to the point), so I can't say she didn't predict Trump would be brought down by the Mueller report, but I do often listen to what Lawrence and Chris Cuomo and Chris Matthews say, and of the three Cuomo has been the most down the middle, even saying he does NOT see impeachable offenses in the Mueller Report. So, Sally, if you would like to educate me, give me some clips of these people predicting the end of Trump. I've never seen it. It has actually made news when someone predicted Trump would be impeached or have to resign...Allan Lichtman has done it. Some contributors to cable news stations have done it. Judge Napolitano on Fox News said Trump committed multiple impeachable offenses. Sally, if you have examples of those people you mentioned or official statements from any of those cable networks that predicted Mueller's report would take Trump down, please provide.

You were banned - please quite replying to me.

Sally Vix wrote:

You were banned - please quite replying to me.

You need to start your own, personally-controlled, 'Trump is God' blog so that you can eliminate all posts you do not like. That way you can prove that 100% of the posters love Trump.

Now, leave this website and start your own.

1) What do you read? You don't read about the investigation. You didn't read the Mueller Report.

2) Regarding the Mueller report saying there wasn't conspiracy, well...I submit that that is basically true, but it also said EXACTLY, that evidence was "not sufficient to establish or sustain criminal conspiracy."

3) We actually do NOT all know that the obstruction charges were bogus. Again, you haven't read the report. Go read it. There are 11 instances of Obstruction of Justice that now more than 1000 former federal prosecutors have said would amount to an indictment for anyone other than a sitting president. Fox News' Judge Napolitano agrees. Those of us who have read the report are not in fantasy land. We are in educated land. You are in ignorance land and firmly so.

4) No need for me to even comment on your example of the "Barr summary" as if that holds any weight.

I honestly don't know how you can come spew this ignorant crap. You don't know what you're talking about and all of us here know it. You are giving a book report without having read the book.

Shame on you.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

So you are aware that more than 900 former federal prosecutors said that trump would have been indicted for obstruction if he were not president? Are they all being paid off by soros?

The NYT does not let reporters on opinion shows. This is solid policy. Neither left nor right opinion shows. This you don't know either?

The Mueller report found conspiracy, but nothing to rose to a crime. You did not know this either?

Come on man. Binary. Woman, whatever.

And you can get 5000 former federal prosecutors to say he should have not been indicted. Come on dude, this 900 figure is a bunch of liberals. If you polled 5000 law professors at American universities 99% would say he should be indicted - because they are all effing Liberals! Seriously agip. Think some.

You have sunk from the level of just being stupid and ignorant to full of sh!t. You currently are 100% full of sh!t.

if banned wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

You were banned.

If you banned him, why did you reply to him?

Sally has no integrity, that's why.

VaderBane wrote:

Doesn't there need to be a crime first for there to be obstruction?

Good freakin' Lord...NO!!!

I will do as I please. If I BAN YOU, then I will not respond to you. If YOU BAN ME, that means you should not be responding to me. You just did, so clearly you have no integrity.