Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Do you people not know what a lie is? I have said Trump would not run for President again in 2020 (actually I said he wouldn't be legally on the ballot in 2020) because he would not finish his first term. As of now, that prediction seems likely not to come true. It is not a LIE. And, when it gets to the point that I was wrong about that, I will say so. It is a fools errand to try to pin a lie on me.

Since you obviously don't know the meaning of this kindergarten-level word, here it is for you:

Lie: verb

...to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Making a prediction that does not come true is not that.

Your ignorance makes Flagpole sad.

Southern district of New York judge appointed by Clinton makes ruling highly in favor of Trump.

Flagpole said Mueller farmed out much of his work to SDNY and other outlets but that now appears to be falling flat.

Mueller is NEVER going to be coming.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/30/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-email-hack-1441166

CORRECTOR, THE wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Once again...agip, you are CORRECT!

CORRECT!! Mueller said they could not find any crime by Trump.

Nope. That is not what he said.

I honestly like the nonames. They were rational and realistic. I know the chances of anyone of them getting the nomination is a long shot. But I am not going to say that its not possible. If Biden falters tonight, moderates will be looking for someone to take his place.

I agree 100% about push back to the other extreme. Trump has given rise to the influx of active diversity (positive) along with the prominence of the more leftist agenda (negative). To further support your theory of push back, 8 years of Obama likely resulted in the increase of the open racism that we see now.

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECTOR, THE wrote:

CORRECT!! Mueller said they could not find any crime by Trump.

Nope. That is not what he said.

Mueller specifically said that Mueller, if not a sitting president, would not have been indicted. Quit with you lies.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. That is not what he said.

Mueller specifically said that Mueller, if not a sitting president, would not have been indicted. Quit with you lies.

FATS! CONUNDRUM!

Either of you out there?

Could you give a ruling on this?

Given the quote bolded above,

Did Mueller say:

1) He made no decision on whether Trump would have been indicted if the DOJ memo didn't exist

2) Trump would not have been indicted even if the DOJ memo did not exist.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Mueller specifically said that Mueller, if not a sitting president, would not have been indicted. Quit with you lies.

FATS! CONUNDRUM!

Either of you out there?

Could you give a ruling on this?

Given the quote bolded above,

Did Mueller say:

1) He made no decision on whether Trump would have been indicted if the DOJ memo didn't exist

2) Trump would not have been indicted even if the DOJ memo did not exist.

Here are his exact words, agip, read them and weep:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee, after testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier Wednesday. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Earlier in the day, Democrats thought Mueller had delivered a bombshell during his exchange with Ted Lieu. “The reason that you did not indict the president is because of the OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Lieu asked Mueller. He responded, “Correct."

But Mueller, in his clarification, sought to convey that the OLC opinion kept him from even deciding if an indictment would be warranted in the first place.

I also prefer a more moderate candidate. I am vehemently against free college for everyone for example and have said so many times here. There are two main reasons for that:

1) Most people do not have the intelligence to go to college and really should not attempt it. We already have cheap ways to attempt college (community colleges for first two years, cheaper in-state state colleges, great financial help for the really poor, etc.). The graduation rate at community colleges and the rate at which some of those students go on to 4-year colleges and actually end up with a 4-year degree is atrocious. At the biggest Community College in Ohio, in a town that values higher education, Columbus State Community College has a 21% graduation rate (2-year degree) and a 17% transfer out rate. Insane! We make college free, and those numbers will be greatly driven lower. Free college will scrape the bottom of the academic barrel. Just not enough bang for the buck there.

2) Instead of providing free college to those who are destined to be upper middle class and up already, we should as a society value the work done by skilled tradesmen and women. More people should be encouraged to go into trades and service industries. I would be for government incentives (tax or otherwise) for this to happen.

All that said, I will vote for whomever is the Democrat candidate in 2020. That would NOT necessarily have been the case in 2016. I would have given serious consideration to voting for John Kasich had Republicans nominated him.

Time for the emboldening of racists to come to an end.

sally honeslty I think you are confused and we are arguing the same thing.

There is no possible way to misinterpret Mueller's clarification. HE DID NOT MAKE A DECISION. that's it. That's all of it.

Your claim that Mueller is saying 'no way man trump did not deserve indictment' is absurd. It doesn't exist anywhere in Mueller's statement. Nowhere.

Fair enough - he and his team never reached a determination of Trump's guilt. So, Trump would not have been indicted if not for the fact that he is a sitting president is a true statement. Mueller and his team never determined that. So Lieu was wrong and Nadler was wrong. I think we can agree on that.

agip wrote:

sally honeslty I think you are confused and we are arguing the same thing.

There is no possible way to misinterpret Mueller's clarification. HE DID NOT MAKE A DECISION. that's it. That's all of it.

Your claim that Mueller is saying 'no way man trump did not deserve indictment' is absurd. It doesn't exist anywhere in Mueller's statement. Nowhere.

agip, you are CORRECT!

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

sally honeslty I think you are confused and we are arguing the same thing.

There is no possible way to misinterpret Mueller's clarification. HE DID NOT MAKE A DECISION. that's it. That's all of it.

Your claim that Mueller is saying 'no way man trump did not deserve indictment' is absurd. It doesn't exist anywhere in Mueller's statement. Nowhere.

Fair enough - he and his team never reached a determination of Trump's guilt. So, Trump would not have been indicted if not for the fact that he is a sitting president is a true statement. Mueller and his team never determined that. So Lieu was wrong and Nadler was wrong. I think we can agree on that.

I can't follow your double negatives.

I'm not sure what Nadler and Lieu said so I have no comment on them.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. That is not what he said.

Mueller specifically said that Mueller, if not a sitting president, would not have been indicted. Quit with you lies.

did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime

nothing about Trump commiting a crime and nothing about whether Trump could have been indicted if not a sitting POTUS.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole, you know sh^t about the American legal system. This is what you wrote: "Trump hasn't been found innocent of anything. " Trump doesn't have to be "found innocent" of anything. He has a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. The burden is not on him to be found innocent. He is innocent (has a presumption of innocence) unless it can be proved that he is indicted and convicted of a particular crime.

Flaggy is correct. Tiny has not been found innocent and can not be found innocent until there is a trial and a verdict.

Just because he is presumed innocent doesn't mean he IS innocent.

In Tiny's case, the presumption of innocence is what's known in law as a "legal fiction".

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

put up or shut up, is all I can say.

the text of Mueller's clarification specifically said he made no decision. None.

You have this dumb claim but refuse to prove it.

put up or shut up.

agip, you are INCORRECT!

AGREE 100%. agip is INCORRECT like flagpole 4 out of 5 guesses/predictions, as they have no facts.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole, you know sh^t about the American legal system. This is what you wrote: "Trump hasn't been found innocent of anything. " Trump doesn't have to be "found innocent" of anything. He has a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. The burden is not on him to be found innocent. He is innocent (has a presumption of innocence) unless it can be proved that he is indicted and convicted of a particular crime.

Flaggy is correct. Tiny has not been found innocent and can not be found innocent until there is a trial and a verdict.

Just because he is presumed innocent doesn't mean he IS innocent.

In Tiny's case, the presumption of innocence is what's known in law as a "legal fiction".

Fat Hurts, aka the real tiny old man, is wrong as usual. It's over. He's been found guilty of nothing.

Remember Benghazi? She's innocent as they've already "not convicted her", Fat Hurts said it.

Oh wait, don't go back over 3 years to the lady that I voted for, you can't do that because she, well she, well she lost the election, so her lies don't count and it's 2019. You and flagpole need to hook up at a cheap motel as you seem like you'd really enjoy each other. Freaks! Fat Hurts loves to go back in time, when it's convenient for him and fits his agenda.

You're both wrong, deal with. Trump wins! Flagpole claims he won't run for re-election, now he's back peddling, aka lying.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole, you know sh^t about the American legal system. This is what you wrote: "Trump hasn't been found innocent of anything. " Trump doesn't have to be "found innocent" of anything. He has a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. The burden is not on him to be found innocent. He is innocent (has a presumption of innocence) unless it can be proved that he is indicted and convicted of a particular crime.

Flaggy is correct. Tiny has not been found innocent and can not be found innocent until there is a trial and a verdict.

Just because he is presumed innocent doesn't mean he IS innocent.

In Tiny's case, the presumption of innocence is what's known in law as a "legal fiction".

Do you not care about our legal constructs? You are woefully ignorant of our legal systems just as Flagpole is. A trial NEVER finds someone "innocent." Do you not know this Fat? This is US LAW 101. A trial and a verdict NEVER finds someone innocent. A trial determines if one is charged with a crime and is guilty of that crime. Or is acquitted of that crime. No defendant is ever found "innocent." Fat Hurts - you need to go back to US LAW 101. You are really woefully ignorant.

Did not wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Mueller specifically said that Mueller, if not a sitting president, would not have been indicted. Quit with you lies.

did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime

nothing about Trump commiting a crime and nothing about whether Trump could have been indicted if not a sitting POTUS.

Like Bill and Hillary whom you voted for? Oh, that doesn't count, she lost so look over there....SQUIRREL!!!!

agip wrote:

I can't follow your double negatives.

I'm not sure what Nadler and Lieu said so I have no comment on them.

The bottom line is that Ted Lieu got Mueller to agree that had Trump not been President that he would have been indicted.

Ted Lieu/Mueller exchange:

“I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) asked Mueller.

Mueller’s response was straightforward: “That is correct.”

Later in the day, Mueller thought better of that answer and stated:

“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in his statement. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Later, in an interview with Jake Tapper, Nadler referred to the former exchange between Lieu and Mueller, and Tapper excoriated him for it. That is CNN's Jake Tapper for those Trumpers who don't believe any fairness comes out of CNN.

So...what's the takeaway:

1) Ted Lieu CORRECTLY laid out the three criteria that needed to be met to determine Obstruction of Justice.

2) Ted Lieu then went a step further and tried to get Mueller to agree that if not for the OLC opinion that Trump would have been indicted. Mueller initially agreed with that and then later said that wasn't the right way to say it.

3) Nadler was either being disingenuous or was ill-prepared (probably the former) when talking to Jake Tapper.

So...

1) Nadler was wrong. A hit to his integrity.

2) Ted Lieu wasn't wrong because he was asking a question/asking for clarity of/from Mueller.

3) Mueller gave an answer to Lieu that he later regretted and so he rightfully corrected his statement later. This correction was in keeping with his attitude in the report and his reported penchant for adhering to rules and laws. He clearly punted to Congress in the report, and he was not about to be taken down a road he didn't want to travel.