Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

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.

Flagpole wrote:

Flagpole lies wrote:

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.

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.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

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.

Flagpole wrote:

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.

Mueller Never, Flagpole???? wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

Let's cherry pick what questions that I want to make myself feel good. You're only fooling yourself fool. Mueller is NOT gonna get Trump, yet you've been saying it for well over 2 years. Give up while you're behind.

present, esq. wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

California can’t exclude Trump from the ballot. It’s unconstitutional.

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

That's most probably not true.

-

It's an interesting question and almost certainly would end up in the courts. But it is by no means the case that everyone who meets the Constitution's eligibility requirements (to hold office) MUST appear on a state's ballot. In fact, in 2016 there were more than 150 people who met the FEC's financial-disclosure requirements . . . yet only three appeared on all 51 state-plus ballots.

-

California's requirement applies to all candidates for president/governor (question: vice president, too?), so it is not explicitly crafted to hinder any particular individual(s); and it has been promulgated early enough, allowing plenty of time for individuals to comply before the elections, to almost certainly pass constitutional muster. (Speaking of timing, SCOTUS's precedent in Anderson v. Celebrezze would likely not apply.)

-

Note that this law applies to the *primary* as well as the general elections--so not a question that will first come up in November 2020, but quite a while before. I do not specialize in election law by any means, but I have the feeling this is going to keep more than a few of my colleagues employed for a year or more.

-

On balance I think it's a fairly easy call for the courts to uphold California's law. IMHO it is NOT unconstitutional--and not even a very close decision.

present, esq. wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

California can’t exclude Trump from the ballot. It’s unconstitutional.

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

That's most probably not true.

-

It's an interesting question and almost certainly would end up in the courts. But it is by no means the case that everyone who meets the Constitution's eligibility requirements (to hold office) MUST appear on a state's ballot. In fact, in 2016 there were more than 150 people who met the FEC's financial-disclosure requirements . . . yet only three appeared on all 51 state-plus ballots.

-

California's requirement applies to all candidates for president/governor (question: vice president, too?), so it is not explicitly crafted to hinder any particular individual(s); and it has been promulgated early enough, allowing plenty of time for individuals to comply before the elections, to almost certainly pass constitutional muster. (Speaking of timing, SCOTUS's precedent in Anderson v. Celebrezze would likely not apply.)

-

Note that this law applies to the *primary* as well as the general elections--so not a question that will first come up in November 2020, but quite a while before. I do not specialize in election law by any means, but I have the feeling this is going to keep more than a few of my colleagues employed for a year or more.

-

On balance I think it's a fairly easy call for the courts to uphold California's law. IMHO it is NOT unconstitutional--and not even a very close decision.