Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

The "staff" has no say in the matter. President Trump is the president and presides over the Department of Justice. The "staff" can not refuse to honor his wish to fire Mueller. If Trump says "fire Mueller" then Mueller gets fired. It is good to be king.

that is exaclty what happened. many times. Trump ordered mueller fired, and his staff didn't do it. Other times staff would actually take paper off trump's desk so he couldn't sign things to get him in trouble.

You are in complete denial here. Complete.

Trump is a old angry man, careening from one thing to the next. he hadnt' the courage to fire mueller himself so it didn't get done. He was too cowardly.

Probably not someone who should be president.

I am trying to see your side of things along with LLs. Trump can fire Mueller just like Kim jung un drop a cohort into a pool of pirahanas . If he wants Mueller fired, then Mueller is fired. But I agree that Trump is a terrible old man who should not be president. But he has not been a terrible president especially for us conservatives.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Bill Maher is a pretty objective character despite his liberal leanings. He tells it like it is. He is one of the VERY FEW liberals who tell it like it is. The obstruction of justice charges against Trump are a joke

Bill Maher never said "The obstruction of justice charges against Trump are a joke".

In fact, Maher said that what Trump did was much worse.

“She committed obstruction of justice” by “smashing up phones and hard drives,” Maher said, adding, “Now, Trump did, I think, in much worse fashion.” -- Bill Maher

So yes, I do agree that he's pretty objective.

if you look into the facts of HRC, there is no obstruction. You are supposed to wreck phones, to stop spying on you. It's what you are supposed to do.

The only fishy thing is that an IT guy cleared a server of info, after a subpoena had been issued. The story is that he was supposed to have cleared it months before, but forgot. When he realized he had messed up, he cleared it. You can believe that story or not, but that's the facts.

Thanks, agip. I appreciate your diligence. Am trying to digest all that you included here. Again, I really think Trump is not a good person, but he is much better than Hillary would have been.

sure, if you like destroying alliances, ending free trade, raising taxes, slowing the job machine, discouraging allies from sharing classified info, giving away classified info to hostile nations, welcoming illegal help from hostile nations in elections, committing multiple felonies, blowing wide open the deficit, open racism, open xenophobia, lying 12 times a day, losing the House to the Dems, the most jaw dropping corruption I've seen in 40 years...

those are conservative values? Good for the conservatives? Golly man,. Conservatives are really awful people and should never be let near the levers of power.

Oh come on. Hillary was asked to turn over 30,000 emails which were the property of the Us Government and you and I. INSTEAD, she smashed the hard drive to smitereens and attempted to bleach it. Those 30,000 emals were the property of the Dept. of State and of the Us government. How THE EFF is that not obstruction of justice??????

ok you're welcome.

for the record, HRC has a fine first lady, a good senator, a good secretary of state. It's basically russian propaganda that makes you believe she'd be a bad president.

no, the 30,000 emails were private. government workers are under no obligation to turn over private emails written on private servers. Thems the rules. HRC deleted private emails, which is what you are supposed to do.

the gray area is the IT guy snafu.

agip - One question. Why would the most important diplomat in the world, the most important diplomat in all man-kind, keep her State server in some bathroom closet? And when she was asked to turn it over, she bleached it, she attempted to smash it to smithereens, and did everything possible so the State Department - which request it - would not be able to view its contents? If that is not obstruction of justice, Obstruction of justice never existed.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Oh come on. Hillary was asked to turn over 30,000 emails which were the property of the Us Government and you and I. INSTEAD, she smashed the hard drive to smitereens and attempted to bleach it. Those 30,000 emals were the property of the Dept. of State and of the Us government. How THE EFF is that not obstruction of justice??????

no, the 30,000 emails were private. government workers are under no obligation to turn over private emails written on private servers. Thems the rules. HRC deleted private emails, which is what you are supposed to do.

the gray area is the IT guy snafu.

They were NOT private emails. She said they were wedding crap and other stuff. But that is not her responsibility to determine. The server was the property of the State Dept. - not the Hillary Dept. It was not her right to determine which were private and which were not. AND SHE SENT CLASSIFIED emails over the server. That is a felony.

Her story, which is believable, is that she erased her personal emails because she didn't want the FBI to review them. It would have been almost guaranteed that the most embarrassing ones would have been leaked to the media.

One thing I don't understand is that if things like lists of embedded spies in Russia, with addresses and phone numbers, were sent to her private email account, wouldn't they be recorded on the the government servers?

Sally Vix wrote:

Hillary was asked to turn over 30,000 emails which were the property of the Us Government and you and I. INSTEAD, she smashed the hard drive to smitereens and attempted to bleach it. Those 30,000 emals were the property of the Dept. of State and of the Us government. How THE EFF is that not obstruction of justice??????

Why Trump Ripping Up Presidential Documents Is Illegal

Donald Trump's companies destroyed or hid documents

Donald Trump's Shocking History of Shredding Documents

Sally Vix wrote:

agip - One question. Why would the most important diplomat in the world, the most important diplomat in all man-kind, keep her State server in some bathroom closet? And when she was asked to turn it over, she bleached it, she attempted to smash it to smithereens, and did everything possible so the State Department - which request it - would not be able to view its contents? If that is not obstruction of justice, Obstruction of justice never existed.

it was a mess up, no doubt.

other sec of states used private email for business. A whole bunch of Bushers used a private server for business. (and yeah, they deleted the emails). Why don't R's complain about that one too?

It wasn't illegal to use a private sever - everyone knew she was doing it. She made sure the state department got copies of all work emails, and the Clinton team thought that was that. In spirit, she was doing what other similar officials had done.

She deleted all the personal emails, handed over the work ones. Done. Fine.

The bleaching of the server is a possible problem. Depends on if you believe the HRC story or the R story.

The serious problem is that she sent some classified/confidential emails and stored them offsite. That is a problem, and most people who do that are punished in some way. Not jail - usually a note in the file or wrist slap.

Look, just read the Wikipedia entry - it will answer your questions.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

no, the 30,000 emails were private. government workers are under no obligation to turn over private emails written on private servers. Thems the rules. HRC deleted private emails, which is what you are supposed to do.

the gray area is the IT guy snafu.

They were NOT private emails. She said they were wedding crap and other stuff. But that is not her responsibility to determine. The server was the property of the State Dept. - not the Hillary Dept. It was not her right to determine which were private and which were not. AND SHE SENT CLASSIFIED emails over the server. That is a felony.

workers are supposed to decide what is private and what is governemtn. That's how it works. YIt was her responsibility to decide. You think someone goes through everyone's email, hundreds of thousands of email accounts, and sorts them for you? Huh?

the classified thing is a screw up. But almost no one is indicted for that. it's always wrist slap. for civilians anyway. Military is different.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

They were NOT private emails. She said they were wedding crap and other stuff. But that is not her responsibility to determine. The server was the property of the State Dept. - not the Hillary Dept. It was not her right to determine which were private and which were not. AND SHE SENT CLASSIFIED emails over the server. That is a felony.

workers are supposed to decide what is private and what is governemtn. That's how it works. YIt was her responsibility to decide. You think someone goes through everyone's email, hundreds of thousands of email accounts, and sorts them for you? Huh?

the classified thing is a screw up. But almost no one is indicted for that. it's always wrist slap. for civilians anyway. Military is different.

I don't think we will ever agree on this topic but I do respect your views as well as LLs. Nice to not always have the choir at your back.

Some thoughts....

I think the Far Right Conservative Base outnumbers the Far Left Conservative Base.

Biden should be the nominee. He's the most centralist major candidate (sorry Klobuchar).

TX may be shifting to the left quicker than previously noted because of immigration.

I still say Trump has a 0% chance of winning and the economy has a more than 50% chance of being in recession come Nov 2020. He might even lose TX.

Alan

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

workers are supposed to decide what is private and what is governemtn. That's how it works. YIt was her responsibility to decide. You think someone goes through everyone's email, hundreds of thousands of email accounts, and sorts them for you? Huh?

the classified thing is a screw up. But almost no one is indicted for that. it's always wrist slap. for civilians anyway. Military is different.

I don't think we will ever agree on this topic but I do respect your views as well as LLs. Nice to not always have the choir at your back.

cheers

L L wrote:

Point of Clarification wrote:

Question for clarification: What are you referring to when you use the phrase "cost controls"?

Budgeting for businesses.

Businesses try to control their costs for future budgets.

But this uncertainty makes it hard for them to know what may be profitable, what kind of headcount they will need, how to price their products, etc.

What will steel and aluminum cost?

What will food cost be?

Trump's at whim tariffs throw that into turmoil.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Some thoughts....

I think the Far Right Conservative Base outnumbers the Far Left Conservative Base.

Biden should be the nominee. He's the most centralist major candidate (sorry Klobuchar).

TX may be shifting to the left quicker than previously noted because of immigration.

I still say Trump has a 0% chance of winning and the economy has a more than 50% chance of being in recession come Nov 2020. He might even lose TX.

Alan

why would you ever say 0%? On anything? I mean at best this is a 70/30 proposition.

Anyway, my theory is this:

Biden is the best candidate because black people like him. That's pretty much it. Polls of AA voters put him out front by a mile. Dems can't win without big AA turnout in Milwaukee, Phila, Detroit. And maybe they'll win NC. So since they like biden, I'm fine with Biden. Make Harris Veep and it's a done deal.

I'm not so worried about the activist Ds...at this point they will crawl over broken glass to vote Trump out. So it's not going to matter a whole lot to them.

So Biden gets both groups, and that should resurrect the Obama coalition.

The other Ds, like warren and sanders....would probably still win, but getting black turnout for them would be less likely.

(this is all cribbed from nate silver)

L L wrote:

A comedian said something about Hillary and that means Trump did not obstruct justice?

I think that's how this works, right?