Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Whistleblower: "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described."

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

Democrats have lost their minds. They've officially jumped the shark. They're doubling down relying on a second or third party "witness" to report on something that would be laughed out of any court.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFZc7uNXUAAjjB5?format=jpg&name=small

KAG2020

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Whistleblower: "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described."

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

Democrats have lost their minds. They've officially jumped the shark. They're doubling down relying on a second or third party "witness" to report on something that would be laughed out of any court.

KAG2020

Investigation of any crime relies on gathering information from witnesses. And the investigative process often relies on third party witnesses in order to track down the first party witnesses.

That's why the whistleblower complaint will be investigated. Congress does not want to rely on hearsay. So they want to talk to the whistleblower, who was a first party witness to some events. And congress will also want to talk to those who were first-party witnesses to other events.

But we already have enough firsthand evidence to throw the president out of office. The transcript/readout combined with public statements from both Tiny and Rudy are all we really should need.

But congress will investigate further to make an even stronger case.

Forgotten Man wrote:

His tax returns have nothing to do with his phone call to the Ukrainian president. How are they material?

Were you under the impression that the impeachment inquiry was only about Ukraine?!?

The Ukraine business--which *may* end up being a nothingburger IMO--was simply the motivation to finally get the Dems off the pot. They'll be looking at possible money laundering (tax returns are directly relevant), emoluments (ditto), and a lot of other stuff--you know, like the felonies for which his co-conspirator was imprisoned.

Pencil neck Schiff is making up his own conclusions....what a dope. He had the “whistleblower’s” complaint for 1.5 months but claimed it was withheld by the White House.

Pencil neck is a serial liar.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Pencil neck is a serial liar.

Goodness, if serial lying is something you're against then I guess you could *never* vote for Donald Trump again.

I Thingk wrote:

agip wrote:

read this and see what you think.

it's an argument that trump committed exaclty the kind of 'high crimes' the founders meant when they wrote the impeachment/removal rules.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/opinions/trump-ukraine-call-if-this-isnt-impeachable-nothing-is-bowman/index.html

I think that was a quick few hours. Days.

;-)

aim high, dare to fail

Pencil neck LIED about the Trump's call with Ukraine, but then tried to counter it by saying it was meant to be "parody." WTF?

Lying piece of schiff.

Sally Vix wrote:

The practice of obtaining something through force or threats. Joe Biden, in his capacity as VP of the United States, threatened to withhold $1 billion (the threat) unless the prosecutor was fired (what was obtained).

You RETARD. A VP has ZERO power to withhold money. You swallowed yet another yuge load of Trump's orange spunk.

agip wrote:

ARNO wrote:

Sorry to break this news to the Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.

As most likely the only poster who has read the memo, the complaint, and the OLC info, it is apparent that this is not enough to bring the end to Trump, but will harm him significantly.

read this and see what you think.

it's an argument that trump committed exaclty the kind of 'high crimes' the founders meant when they wrote the impeachment/removal rules.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/opinions/trump-ukraine-call-if-this-isnt-impeachable-nothing-is-bowman/index.html

Sigh.

ARNO wrote:

Sorry to break this news to the Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.

As most likely the only poster who has read the memo, the complaint, and the OLC info, it is apparent that this is not enough to bring the end to Trump, but will harm him significantly.

I need to inform you: You are not qualified to pass judgment on this. If you think that you are please identify whether you a member of the House of Representative, or the U.S. senate. (Not an aide, little boy. But someone who was actually elected to make the decision.)

Thanks in advance.

Also, the IC IG already looked into the complaint and deemed them credible and urgent. BUT, as you also correctly said, Trump and Giuliani have already admitted to this. There is no doubt that the investigation is warranted. The House will impeach him. Trumpers are wishing HARD here.

ARNO wrote:

agip wrote:

read this and see what you think.

it's an argument that trump committed exaclty the kind of 'high crimes' the founders meant when they wrote the impeachment/removal rules.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/opinions/trump-ukraine-call-if-this-isnt-impeachable-nothing-is-bowman/index.html

Sigh.

ok well that was a weaker response than I expected.

here's the main thought:

Nixon's conduct was penny-ante compared to Trump's. Trump didn't cover up a second-rate burglary by a group of inept "plumbers" looking for dirt on Democrats. Rather, he appears to have wielded the entire economic, military and moral authority of a great nation to, effectively, extort another democratically elected head of state.

Leaving aside the question of impeachment, this episode must count as one of the most discreditable things any American President has ever done. Prior Presidents have been cruel or mean-spirited, bigoted or shortsighted, and sometimes exercised terrible judgment. And every President makes decisions with at least one eye on the political consequences. But I know of no comparable case where a President baldly, consciously misused the power of the whole nation for his own purely private political benefit, without even a credible claim that it was in the national interest.

If what Trump did here isn't impeachable, nothing is.

Giuliani is ready to throw Trump under the bus.

Giuliani say he has text messages proving the State Department sent him to Ukraine, and that "I'm going to use them to protect myself."

I can safely assume that you have not read the memo, the complaint, nor the OLC info. I'm likely correct that you haven't even read one of those.

Get back to me when you have read all three and then, perhaps, we can have a discussion. However, based on your previous responses, I'm not confident that can happen.

The only relevant question here is "will this convince at least 20 Republican Senators?" I think the answer is no.(Nothing will.) He could be impeached, but will not be removed.

Break it 2U wrote:

ARNO wrote:

Sorry to break this news to the Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.

As most likely the only poster who has read the memo, the complaint, and the OLC info, it is apparent that this is not enough to bring the end to Trump, but will harm him significantly.

I need to inform you: You are not qualified to pass judgment on this. If you think that you are please identify whether you a member of the House of Representative, or the U.S. senate. (Not an aide, little boy. But someone who was actually elected to make the decision.)

Thanks in advance.

Ummm . . . Sorry, but he is indeed qualified to pass judgement on this. It's called being human.

Now, if you want to claim that his is not the definitive word or that his judgement carries no legal weight then that is a different matter. But he is certainly qualified to pass judgement. As are you.

Obvi wrote:

celery wrote:

To those who think the Ukraine phone call is an impeachable offense; does Biden's brag that he with held a billion dollars of US money as a stipulation to get a Ukrainian Prosecutor fired bother you at all? If not, what is the difference in your mind?

Trump: Withheld aid for personal gain. "You scratch Trump's back, America scratches your back."

Biden: Withheld aid for national interests. "You scratch America's back, America scratches your back."

If the Ukraine Prosecutor's investigation was a possible threat to Biden's son, wouldn't that be personal gain for Biden?

Breaking Back wrote:

Break it 2U wrote:

I need to inform you: You are not qualified to pass judgment on this. If you think that you are please identify whether you a member of the House of Representative, or the U.S. senate. (Not an aide, little boy. But someone who was actually elected to make the decision.)

Thanks in advance.

Ummm . . . Sorry, but he is indeed qualified to pass judgement on this. It's called being human.

Now, if you want to claim that his is not the definitive word or that his judgement carries no legal weight then that is a different matter. But he is certainly qualified to pass judgement. As are you.

Ahem, no, little child. He stated a position that claims he is speaking for everyone. Of course, you are not intelligent enough to see through your Trump blinders to understand.

nah there are two relevant questions: 1) Should the House impeach. Then after that we can talk about 2) should the senate remove trump from office. Two relevant questions. This argues that the House should impeach.