Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

If you guys can't even admit that Adam Schiff lied, then there is no sense in me hanging around here. I am here for some honest discourse with people on the opposite side but if you can't admit he lied, why should I even be here? He had the transcript in front of him but he chose to lie. You guys really can't say he lied? If you can't be honest - no sense in me being here. Put your hyper-partisanship crap away. I want honest discussion but you can't even do that?????@@

Schiff told us he was changing Trump's words to get to their real meaning...and then he did just that.

Explain how that's a lie.

Sally: As an unregistered foreign agent, you may not be eligible for unemployment. But pretty soon McDonald’s will pay $15/hr, thanks to dems.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

If you guys can't even admit that Adam Schiff lied, then there is no sense in me hanging around here. I am here for some honest discourse with people on the opposite side but if you can't admit he lied, why should I even be here? He had the transcript in front of him but he chose to lie. You guys really can't say he lied? If you can't be honest - no sense in me being here. Put your hyper-partisanship crap away. I want honest discussion but you can't even do that?????@@

Schiff told us he was changing Trump's words to get to their real meaning...and then he did just that.

Explain how that's a lie.

Seriously, Agip? This is like bottom-of-the-barrel for you. How does Adam Schiff know how to "interpret" their real meaning. And he never suggested that he was "interpreting" the transcript He never said that! He read the made-up lies like it was the real transcript. IT WASN'T! He lied.

Since Sally Vix is either a troll or an outright liar, here is a transcript of Schiff's statements that they refer to:

It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

I don't see where Schiff said he was repeating Trump verbatim. He simply used words like this is the "essence", or the "sum and character" of what was being communicated.

Classic deflection. Focus on petty details, while the large crime goes by without comment.

If trump won’t resign, Moscow Mitch will have to beg for impeachment.

Wonder what Pelosi will ask for in return?

Remove Barr first? Kavanaugh? Pompeo?

Juicy stuff!

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

Schiff told us he was changing Trump's words to get to their real meaning...and then he did just that.

Explain how that's a lie.

Seriously, Agip? This is like bottom-of-the-barrel for you. How does Adam Schiff know how to "interpret" their real meaning. And he never suggested that he was "interpreting" the transcript He never said that! He read the made-up lies like it was the real transcript. IT WASN'T! He lied.

huh? I already posted this, but maybe you missed it. He said, clear as a bell, that he was paraphrasing, not reading the transcript.

He said: "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates"

This is clear as a bell. I have no idea how you can stay on this argument when the facts are so against you. What is going on in your head when you read Schiff's words explaining the paraphrase?

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Seriously, Agip? This is like bottom-of-the-barrel for you. How does Adam Schiff know how to "interpret" their real meaning. And he never suggested that he was "interpreting" the transcript He never said that! He read the made-up lies like it was the real transcript. IT WASN'T! He lied.

huh? I already posted this, but maybe you missed it. He said, clear as a bell, that he was paraphrasing, not reading the transcript.

He said: "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates"

This is clear as a bell. I have no idea how you can stay on this argument when the facts are so against you. What is going on in your head when you read Schiff's words explaining the paraphrase?

Good DOG! WTF is wrong with you, agip, Trollminator, Flagpole, Conundrum . . . ?!?

You STILL don't get that Sally is pure, 100%, unadulterated troll? Seriously? Are you folks f'ing retarded? He couldn't make it more clear if he started and ended each of his posts with "Just Trolling Here".

Well, for someone who claims to be open minded, you seem to be ignoring some significant counterpoints to your arguments.

Biden clearly threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if the prosecutor was not fired, his admission is on tape and meets the definition of a quid pro quo. The real question is whether he took the action to address the global corruption issue in Ukraine or to protect his son. The prosecutor is on record claiming he was fired because of his investigation into Biden Jr.'s firm. Seems it would be easy enough to ask the Ukraine Gov't for documents that would show that the prosecutor was investigating Biden Jr.'s firm at the time. If none can be produced, then the global corruption motivation wins and Biden is cleared. If documents show that the prosecutor was investigating the firm, then it would seem that Biden's action was completely inappropriate and he should not have led the charge to remove the prosecutor. If so, then Biden is not fit to lead this country. So, it makes sense to ask Ukraine for this information, which, if they exist, would have a dual purpose as they would show proof of crimes committed and destroy the political career of Biden. As everyone keeps repeating when it benefits them, nobody should be above the law, not Trump or Biden.

The prior actions of Clinton, Obama, Bush, Reagan, and every other president are relevant to the standard for impeachment. For those of us who care about the rule of law, its very important the same standard be applied to all. That does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be more of a kangaroo court without any real desire to fairly apply the laws or to find the truth.

For Trump, I applaud the effort to drain the swamp, but I don't agree with his approach to investigating Biden. While Biden's action sure look bad, Trump should not have personally made the request to the Ukraine president because that also looks very bad. But, given the circumstances, I don't think this is an impeachable offense.

your argument seems to be that the entire WH foreign policy toward Ukraine AND the entire European Union foreign policy policy toward Ukraine was...was...wait for it...oh keep waiting, it's well worth it....meant to protect...keep waiting...HUNTER BIDEN.

That is such a massive occam's razor fail that it deserves more caps. SO HERE THEY ARE.

WTF^n wrote:

agip wrote:

huh? I already posted this, but maybe you missed it. He said, clear as a bell, that he was paraphrasing, not reading the transcript.

He said: "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates"

This is clear as a bell. I have no idea how you can stay on this argument when the facts are so against you. What is going on in your head when you read Schiff's words explaining the paraphrase?

Good DOG! WTF is wrong with you, agip, Trollminator, Flagpole, Conundrum . . . ?!?

You STILL don't get that Sally is pure, 100%, unadulterated troll? Seriously? Are you folks f'ing retarded? He couldn't make it more clear if he started and ended each of his posts with "Just Trolling Here".

$10 says Sally wrote this post.

Or not. I consider Sally an educational cause. A little pro bono work.

Hi Sally,

While Putsy Riot wastes all Russia’s cash on the military, he also manages to waste what little tech capability he has on cyber-spying!

Please don’t invest in peaceful technology, that way you can be poorer than Afghanistan in 20 years.

jesseriley wrote:

If trump won’t resign, Moscow Mitch will have to beg for impeachment.

Wonder what Pelosi will ask for in return?

Remove Barr first? Kavanaugh? Pompeo?

Juicy stuff!

I don't get your logic.

Why will Moscow Mitch beg for impeachment? Impeachment is going to happen no matter what.

Well then, YOU MISREAD THE ENTIRE POST.

Capt. Kangaroo wrote:

Well then, YOU MISREAD THE ENTIRE POST.

ok fine fair enough.

just change what I wrote to

your argument seems to be that it's legit possible and well- worth investigating that the entire WH foreign policy toward Ukraine AND the entire European Union foreign policy policy toward Ukraine was...was...wait for it...oh keep waiting, it's well worth it....meant to protect...keep waiting...HUNTER BIDEN.

Josh Marshall at TPM makes an excellent point.

Some points are so obvious they escape attention or so obvious as not to seem worth noting. Yet they are worth noting. Can anyone think of a country, out of the globe’s almost 200 sovereign states, where President Trump has called for a crackdown on corruption other than Ukraine?

I genuinely do not think there is a single example. There’s Baltimore and Puerto Rico but of course those are not countries.

For instance, Nixon litigated the impeachment subpoenas & dragged it out for ages. If donny dumb@ss does that, we’ll be far into primary season or even the general election & even solid-red districts could suffer.

Nixon surrendered. Will fat boy?

agip wrote:

Capt. Kangaroo wrote:

Well then, YOU MISREAD THE ENTIRE POST.

ok fine fair enough.

just change what I wrote to

your argument seems to be that it's legit possible and well- worth investigating that the entire WH foreign policy toward Ukraine AND the entire European Union foreign policy policy toward Ukraine was...was...wait for it...oh keep waiting, it's well worth it....meant to protect...keep waiting...HUNTER BIDEN.

STILL NO, the argument is that it is entirely possible that Joe Biden took advantage of WH foreign policy toward Ukraine to protect his son. The aid was already awarded and Biden interjected himself into that process. Why? It's a fair question and your argument is that it should not be investigated. Which leads to the conclusion that you are looking to hide something.

jesseriley wrote:

For instance, Nixon litigated the impeachment subpoenas & dragged it out for ages. If donny dumb@ss does that, we’ll be far into primary season or even the general election & even solid-red districts could suffer.

Nixon surrendered. Will fat boy?

No.

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't get your logic.

Why will Moscow Mitch beg for impeachment? Impeachment is going to happen no matter what.

Maybe not.

Maybe Mitch would love to replace Trump and impeachment and conviction is the only way he could accomplish that.

Nancy could drag the impeachment process out and decide to never take a vote.

That makes Trump the 2020 Republican candidate. Nancy would like that. Mitch may not.