Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

this whole thing sounds like a good faith/ fog of war situation. Something was said, then corrected, and it took a day to get the final true version out.

1) Hillary was investigated and all things ended with no furtherance and no convictions. Trump is still BIG TIME under investigation, so the two are not equivalent.

2) What Hillary did or didn't do has nothing to do with Trump. He is the President. She is not. Focus and questioning should always be given to the one in power. As I have said several times, Hillary could be proven to be a serial killer who eats her victims, and that would not absolve Trump of his crimes or suddenly make him a good person.

3) I'm not backpedaling anything. I have made several predictions. I say that one of them is likely now not to come true. That is an admission that I am likely wrong about one of my predictions. It would be backpedaling if I suddenly said, "yes he will finish his term" and in so saying so try to be RIGHT about that position. That is not what I am doing. I am declaring that it appears my position that he will not make it to the end of his first term is wrong. That is called integrity, something I have 100% of 100% of the time.

Any victory for Trump is a defeat for America.

There are only two types of people (other than elected officials...and to clarify, they ALSO could be JUST stupid or racist, but they can also be selfish and believe that supporting Trump will let them keep their jobs) who still support Trump:

1) JUST stupid.

2) Racist.

There are no other possibilities.

Nadler did himself a disservice in that interview with Tapper.

Are you also overlooking the exchange between Mueller and Ken Buck (R-CO)?

Straight from the transcript:

BUCK:

OK, but the -- could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BUCK:

You believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office.

MUELLER:

Yes.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

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.

OK, not found innocent. Found, "not guilty". Happy?

I was trying to set up a law joke in the last line, which went completely over your head.

groupofseals wrote:

Are you also overlooking the exchange between Mueller and Ken Buck (R-CO)?

Straight from the transcript:

BUCK:

OK, but the -- could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BUCK:

You believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office.

MUELLER:

Yes.

That was a ridiculous thing for Buck to bring up.

To be clear and fair (which I ALWAYS am), Mueller is a by the book guy and is staying completely out of any politics here at all. He is being just factual and answer the question posed to him.

Let's look at the questions Buck asked and KNOW what Mueller's answer means.

1) Buck question - "could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Yes he could. This means the president, even this particular president, could be charged with a crime after he is out of office. It does NOT mean that there is something laying in wait that Trump can be charged with once he is out of office.

2) Buck question - "You believe that he committed (if you watched the Mueller testimony as any true American should have, you would be aware that the part in italics was sort of discarded)-- you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" So, REALLY the question was, "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office." Mueller said "yes" to this. As is the case with #1 above, Mueller is simply saying that technically this president (or any president) could be charged with obstruction of justice after being out of office. It does NOT mean Mueller believes there is a case for that to happen...he might actually BELIEVE that, but that is NOT what he's saying here.

Oh...why was it ridiculous for Buck to bring up? He did not think Mueller would say "yes" to those questions.

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.

It's #1.

Don't try to parse any single statement from the hearing. Look at the totality of the hearing and what is stated in the report itself.

It is very clear that Mueller refused to make a decision. And furthermore, he does not want to answer the hypothetical question about what he would have done if the OLC opinion did not exist.

Everything he said in the hearing was an attempt to not answer that hypothetical question. Don't read any more into it than that.

You should look at the actual positions of the candidates who support free college. I know that at least some of them address your concerns head on by implementing your #2.

Nobody mention this here, but I found it interesting.

California just passed and signed into law a requirement that all candidates for president and governor release their tax returns. The law is in effect starting with the 2020 primary.

If you don't release your returns, you don't get on the ballot.

Ok let me jump in on this and this just supports what has been said before.

Mueller felt he wasn't allowed to make a determination as to whether Trump is guilty and should be charged. He clarified his comment made before break which suggested that he made a determination and would have charged Trump but wasn't allowed.

Now here is the interesting part. Mueller was allowed to make a determination that Trump was innocent, but he couldn't make a determination that he is guilty.

So really the actual determination that Mueller made was that based on evidence he could not say that he was innocent of obstruction of justice. But he wasn't allowed to make the further determination to say he was guilty. (Kind of implied though isn't it,.....I have evidence that Trump is not innocent so I can't say he is innocent, but I am not allowed to say he is guilty!? )

(Mueller did say Trump was innocent of conspiring (treason) with a foreign government to affect our election.....uhm ........that's wonderful right?)

Conundrum and others - Mueller DID NOT say Trump was innocent of conspiracy. Here's what he actually said to Peter Welch (D-VT) via the transcript:

WELCH:

... And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation where unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt you wouldn't make a charge, correct?

MUELLER:

Generally that's the case.

WELCH:

But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.

MUELLER:

Absolutely correct.

As Mueller says here, they conspiracy evidence they turned up did not rise to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" but could've been impacted by the second part (obstruction). After all, the government was only able to get Al Capone on tax fraud, not any of the other stuff he was guilty of.

Fat hurts wrote:

Nobody mention this here, but I found it interesting.

California just passed and signed into law a requirement that all candidates for president and governor release their tax returns. The law is in effect starting with the 2020 primary.

If you don't release your returns, you don't get on the ballot.

I think NJ might have passed a similar bill, and maybe others? This will force some of his fraud to be exposed, as in defrauding voters by pretending to be much wealthier than he is. Will it matter to enough people that he might be worth less than a billion, or even way less? Or it will matter that he’s got a lot more liabilities against his assets than anyone imagined? It will probably matter to enough people, and most importantly compound the hate for this fraud.

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Nobody mention this here, but I found it interesting.

California just passed and signed into law a requirement that all candidates for president and governor release their tax returns. The law is in effect starting with the 2020 primary.

If you don't release your returns, you don't get on the ballot.

I think NJ might have passed a similar bill, and maybe others? This will force some of his fraud to be exposed, as in defrauding voters by pretending to be much wealthier than he is. Will it matter to enough people that he might be worth less than a billion, or even way less? Or it will matter that he’s got a lot more liabilities against his assets than anyone imagined? It will probably matter to enough people, and most importantly compound the hate for this fraud.

You could be right, but I think this is more likely to be a net gain for DJT.

.

1) He's absolutely not going to release his tax returns.

2) He's not going to win CA (or NJ?) anyway.

3) He's going to use this to play the victim card, talking about how The Libs are rigging the system against him. (Can't you just hear RFH now?)

4) His base (in other states) will eat that up and be *more* motivated to go to the polls. Remember, fear and hate are the two biggest motivators to get people to vote.

5) As a result he may end up with a higher popular vote overall and maybe one or two states that he otherwise wouldn't have won.

.

Now, I think this is a good law long-term--it really just codifies what had been the norm for decades (before DJT in 2016)--but I don't necessarily see it as a hindrance *at all* for Trump.

Fat hurts wrote:

Nobody mention this here, but I found it interesting.

California just passed and signed into law a requirement that all candidates for president and governor release their tax returns. The law is in effect starting with the 2020 primary.

If you don't release your returns, you don't get on the ballot.

California can’t exclude Trump from the ballot. It’s unconstitutional. Even the liberal LA Times is against this bill.

The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

OK, not found innocent. Found, "not guilty". Happy?

I was trying to set up a law joke in the last line, which went completely over your head.

My bad! I will be on the look-out for your law jokes in the future! LOL.

groupofseals wrote:

Conundrum and others - Mueller DID NOT say Trump was innocent of conspiracy. Here's what he actually said to Peter Welch (D-VT) via the transcript:

WELCH:

... And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation where unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt you wouldn't make a charge, correct?

MUELLER:

Generally that's the case.

WELCH:

But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.

MUELLER:

Absolutely correct.

As Mueller says here, they conspiracy evidence they turned up did not rise to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" but could've been impacted by the second part (obstruction). After all, the government was only able to get Al Capone on tax fraud, not any of the other stuff he was guilty of.

Mueller would never say that Trump was innocent of conspiracy. Our judicial system does not work that way. You have a presumption of innocence. Trump is innocent already. He has no duty to prove his innocence. The judicial system can indict him of a crime and attempt to prove his guilt. But Trump is PRESUMED INNOCENT. Enough with this nonsense of him having to prove his innocence. HE IS INNOCENT unless proved otherwise.

More welfare from Grump, promises made, promise broken.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade-war-farmers-trump-markets-154935903.html

Great to see some real conservatives, people with a spine.

https://news.yahoo.com/serving-under-trump-embarrassing-fifth-104531664.html