Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Thanks for your very comprehensive response. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Will read again to digest everything but as far as Trump calling Schiff a liar does not make him one. Schiff had the actual transcript of the phone call and he did not read that transcript. He made up stuff. That is not Trump calling Schiff a liar. That is Schiff lying.

You're a f*ckin' moron.

Sally’s being punished by eternally having to come up with alibis for trump’s crimes; THEN trump commits a bigger crime, and she has to work harder to think of a bigger alibi. Repeat forever.

Fortunately, she has Hell to look forward to.

The $391 million in military aid to Ukraine had already been approved in the 2019 federal budget.

The Trump administration initially told Congress it was releasing the aid to Ukraine on February 28. It repeated that assertion to Congress again on May 23, but failed to explain to lawmakers and struggled to explain — both publicly and to the lawmakers who approved the aid — exactly why the funds were withheld.

June 21: Giuliani tweets that Zelensky is “still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres Poroshenko.”

Rudy Giuliani

✔

@RudyGiuliani

New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.

July 18: Trump’s decision to withhold nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine is communicated to the State and Defense

departments. Members of Congress are told that the hold is part of an “interagency delay.”

July 23. OMB reiterates that aid to Ukraine is suspended, per Trump.

July 24: Mueller testifies before Congress about his report and its findings.

July 25: Trump and Zelensky speak on the phone.

July 31: Trump holds a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The call is first reported by the Russians; the White House doesn’t confirm it until late that evening. The Russians, in a much more substantial readout than the United States, claim Trump and Putin spoke about restoring full diplomatic relations one day.

Aug. 12: An anonymous whistleblower files a complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community. Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson will later determine the complaint to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern,” triggering a legally required disclosure to the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Late August: Lawmakers raise concerns about Ukraine aid being withheld, citing its importance to defend the former Soviet republic from Russia.

Sept. 1: Taylor texts Sondland, asking, “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland responds, “Call me.”

Sept. 5: The Post editorial board writes that it had been “reliably told” that Trump was “attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.”

Sept. 9: Atkinson notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees that a whistleblower has filed a complaint, but he does not reveal its contents or substance.

Sept. 10: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) writes to Maguire demanding Congress receive the complaint.

Trump announces on Twitter that national security adviser John Bolton has resigned. Trump says it came at his request; Bolton quickly counters by saying he offered first.

Sept. 11: The Trump administration releases the Ukraine aid it had been withholding.

Ukraine aid was approved for 2019.

Trump asked their president to publicly investigate Biden.

The funds were not released until after the public news of the whistle blower.

Sally Vix wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

I'll play:

Thanks for your very comprehensive response. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Will read again to digest everything but as far as Trump calling Schiff a liar does not make him one. Schiff had the actual transcript of the phone call and he did not read that transcript. He made up stuff. That is not Trump calling Schiff a liar. That is Schiff lying.

I'll take this one. Schiff prefaced his version of the call with this:

"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."

It's his interpretation if the call and not a lie.

Knot Really wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

So your argument is that Trump is part of the DEEP STATE?

Wow.

Dude, you've said a lot of really stupid sh!t on here. But this one could well top the list.

What bizarre "logic" did you use to get from my post to the notion that Trump is part of the DEEP STATE? Seriously, you are one dumb fugk!

Dude, I've already admitted that I misinterpreted your post.

Let me get this straight. We have the phone call transcript. We have numerous witnesses testifying that Trump committed a crime. We have the whistleblower saying Trump committed a crime. We have Mulvaney saying Trump committed a crime. The staff of the whistleblow is saying Trump committed a crime. EVERYONE IN EFFING WASHING DC is saying Trump committed a crime. YET, We have no IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. Instead we have an Impeachment "Inquiry." What the Hell is an Impeachment Inquiry???? What the hell is that? If Trump committed numerous crimes and committed numerous impeachable offenses, LET'S GET THE F%CKER OUT OF OFFICE. Let's go full on with an IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. No more of this Impeachment INquiry. Let's GET THE F-CKER OUT OF OFFICE!

In case anyone is new here, the Big Three Morons should be clearly defined for you.

Ghost of Igloi: He's just a moron. Nothing more. His posts are the result of nothing going on upstairs, and I mean nothing.

Sally Vix: Sally is 20% troll and 80% moron, but the moron part defines him and is very very strong.

Rigged for Hillary: Rigged is 100% moron, but he is also 100% batsh!t crazy. Nothing going on upstairs intellectually, but also full on certifiably batsh!t insane.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Thanks for your very comprehensive response. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Will read again to digest everything but as far as Trump calling Schiff a liar does not make him one. Schiff had the actual transcript of the phone call and he did not read that transcript. He made up stuff. That is not Trump calling Schiff a liar. That is Schiff lying.

I'll take this one. Schiff prefaced his version of the call with this:

"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."

It's his interpretation if the call and not a lie.

How can we allow his "interpretation" of the call? Do you want Shelia Jackson Lee giving her "interpretation" of the call? Do you want the Republican Joe Hick of Oklahoma giving his "interpretation" of the call? Should we also allow Maxine Waters to give "her" interpretation of the call? Do you realize how absurd that is?

Smorbun wrote:

In case anyone is new here, the Big Three Morons should be clearly defined for you.

Ghost of Igloi: He's just a moron. Nothing more. His posts are the result of nothing going on upstairs, and I mean nothing.

Sally Vix: Sally is 20% troll and 80% moron, but the moron part defines him and is very very strong.

Rigged for Hillary: Rigged is 100% moron, but he is also 100% batsh!t crazy. Nothing going on upstairs intellectually, but also full on certifiably batsh!t insane.

I would put myself at 3% troll, 80% moron, and 17% something occasionally enlightening.

Smorbun wrote:

In case anyone is new here, the Big Three Morons should be clearly defined for you.

Ghost of Igloi: He's just a moron. Nothing more. His posts are the result of nothing going on upstairs, and I mean nothing.

Sally Vix: Sally is 20% troll and 80% moron, but the moron part defines him and is very very strong.

Rigged for Hillary: Rigged is 100% moron, but he is also 100% batsh!t crazy. Nothing going on upstairs intellectually, but also full on certifiably batsh!t insane.

In regard to Sally I would take 5% out of each and point out he is 10% Astros fan.

Lock Him Up! wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Meanwhile, some of his minions in Congress tried to protest the hearings...they were just standing there eating Cheez-Its all morning.

Can the Capitol Police arrest these mobs? I hope they can. And put them in jails.

https://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-official-testifies-ukraine-impeachment-143912900.html

Unfortunately Dems are too nice

Smorbun wrote:

In case anyone is new here, the Big Three Morons should be clearly defined for you.

Ghost of Igloi: He's just a moron. Nothing more. His posts are the result of nothing going on upstairs, and I mean nothing.

Sally Vix: Sally is 20% troll and 80% moron, but the moron part defines him and is very very strong.

Rigged for Hillary: Rigged is 100% moron, but he is also 100% batsh!t crazy. Nothing going on upstairs intellectually, but also full on certifiably batsh!t insane.

Could you write a letter of recommendation for me?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

In case anyone is new here, the Big Three Morons should be clearly defined for you.

Ghost of Igloi: He's just a moron. Nothing more. His posts are the result of nothing going on upstairs, and I mean nothing.

Sally Vix: Sally is 20% troll and 80% moron, but the moron part defines him and is very very strong.

Rigged for Hillary: Rigged is 100% moron, but he is also 100% batsh!t crazy. Nothing going on upstairs intellectually, but also full on certifiably batsh!t insane.

In regard to Sally I would take 5% out of each and point out he is 10% Astros fan.

LOL Aztec - last night was a tough one but am expecting better tonight. FYI - if the Astros would win this World Series they would be the first team since the '42-44 Cardinals to have 3 years of 100-win seasons and 2 World Series championships in those 3 years. Historical.

jesseriley wrote:

Interesting that R’s disrupt the hearing, but typical short-term thinking. Dragging out the proceedings doesn’t help them now; partly because they can’t be stopped, partly because they’ll interfere with election season, where they already are in for a tough fight.

The name of the game is distraction and crying unfair... they have absolutely nothing else to defend with when it comes to the substance of the accusations. This reaction from Rs amounts to admission of openhandedness.

Sally Vix wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I'll take this one. Schiff prefaced his version of the call with this:

"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."

It's his interpretation if the call and not a lie.

How can we allow his "interpretation" of the call? Do you want Shelia Jackson Lee giving her "interpretation" of the call? Do you want the Republican Joe Hick of Oklahoma giving his "interpretation" of the call? Should we also allow Maxine Waters to give "her" interpretation of the call? Do you realize how absurd that is?

I didn't say it was a smart thing to do. All it did was give Trump another chance to make an irrelvant attack against his accusers. Anyway, you moved the goalposts from you're initial statement that Schiff lied.

Oh Sally, you pathetic moron.

You don't believe there should be an investigative phase? Why would that be? The inquiry is the investigative phase. There was one for Nixon. There was one for Clinton. The information on Trump was already so damning before the inquiry began that an inquiry could possibly help Trump. Of course it hasn't because he is guilty and there are a lot of people who will not go down for him.

The inquiry is to gather information. The more information that sullies Trump, the better as far as Democrats are concerned, and they rule the House, so what they want goes, so there is no need to rush through this. The House will impeach him, but the more damning the evidence, the more House Republicans will vote to impeach which could potentially make more Senate Republicans vote to convict.

Impeachment process compared to legal process:

Impeachment inquiry = criminal investigation

Impeachment = indictment

Impeachment case taken to the Senate = trial

Conviction by Senate means removal from office = conviction in trial means prison or other punishment

Stop asking moronic questions.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

How can we allow his "interpretation" of the call? Do you want Shelia Jackson Lee giving her "interpretation" of the call? Do you want the Republican Joe Hick of Oklahoma giving his "interpretation" of the call? Should we also allow Maxine Waters to give "her" interpretation of the call? Do you realize how absurd that is?

I didn't say it was a smart thing to do. All it did was give Trump another chance to make an irrelvant attack against his accusers. Anyway, you moved the goalposts from you're initial statement that Schiff lied.

I apologize for not reading this beforehand - dealing with other stuff but ...

Four Pinocchios:' Does Adam Schiff's Whistleblower Conduct and Lie Prove a Partisan Set-up?

Guy BensonGuy Benson| @guypbenson|Posted: Oct 04, 2019 10:25 AM

'Four Pinocchios:' Does Adam Schiff's Whistleblower Conduct and Lie Prove a Partisan Set-up?

Republicans are turning up the heat on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat known for his intense partisanship and recklessness. Neither quality speaks well of his fitness for his current role, imbued with significant power. A sober-minded member of Schiff's committee is calling on him to step down as chairman, while GOP leadership is pushing for him to be formally censured by the House. Nancy Pelosi will see to it that neither rebuke amounts to anything, but she should be concerned about how compromised Schiff's credibility is, as he will be one of the most public faces of the impeachment process (such as it exists) as it moves forward. On Wednesday, the New York Times revealed that the whistleblower in the Ukraine controversy reached out to Schiff's staff prior to filing his complaint days later:

The C.I.A. officer [future whistleblower] approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague. The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Some conservatives had deduced, based on various clues in Schiff's actions leading up to the Ukraine story exploding into public view, that the chairman at least been given a heads-up in advance about what was coming. Those suspicions have now been confirmed -- and I can't help but wonder if the details relayed in the paragraph above represent the full extent of his involvement. This was my initial reaction to the Times story:

Guy Benson

✔

@guypbenson

This was suspected. Now apparently confirmed. This doesn’t change the substance of the transcript & what was said. That’s on Trump. It does feed the storyline that this is fundamentally politically motivated / partisan. And Schiff lacks credibility already...

…

Yashar Ali ?

✔

@yashar

NEW: Adam Schiff learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint. @nytmike @julianbarnes @AllMattNYT scoop

…

1,607

11:34 AM - Oct 2, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

636 people are talking about this

I'd like to underscore the point about Trump and the substance of the allegation: On some level, all the process questions surrounding the whistleblower are moot because his core claims have been borne out by the facts. The transcript of the phone call in question confirms that President Trump did specifically ask the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden, and as the whistleblower complaint charged, White House officials did relocate the account of this call to a server reserved for secret and highly sensitive national security matters (though this may not have been sinister, and was not unprecedented). I would add that reporting also confirms that Trump personally intervened to delay the payment of military aid to Kiev, temporarily overruling the unanimous advice of his own foreign policy and national security team (although it must also be noted that we don't know why he did so, and that the Ukrainians apparently didn't know about the delay, which is hard to square with a clean and damning 'quid pro quo' timeline).

What Trump did is clear, and he's doubling down on it, even though it was fundamentally improper and an abuse of his power (a majority of Americans believe this, with a super-majority calling his actions a matter of "serious" concern). How he went about it, as facts are gathered, could be the difference between condemnation-worthy misconduct and an impeachable offense. The hullabaloo over Schiff, the whistleblower, secondhand knowledge, etc. is part of the story (as are the Biden conflicts of interest, to which we'll return later), but those ancillary issues do not supplant the core questions about presidential conduct at the heart of the story. I disagree with some Trump defenders who say the president's actions are so harmless and irrelevant that the secondary and tertiary questions around this storm have become the 'real' story. Polling unambiguously demonstrates that voters do not agree that this is a nothingburger on Trump's end (unlike the Australia dud).

With that said, back to Schiff. He has been an irresponsible and untrustworthy figure throughout the Trump presidency, constantly over-promising on Russian 'collusion,' and foolishly refusing to back down even when the Mueller report pantsed him. His little stunt at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing, in which he twisted the Trump-Zelensky transcript into his own, exaggerated "parody" version, was unserious and profoundly unwise. And his staff's apparent involvement with the whistleblower prior to a formal complaint being issued does give the appearance of a partisan set-up. But was it?

Olivia Gazis

✔

@Olivia_Gazis

I am told by spokespeople for both @SenatorBurr and @MarkWarner that it would be ***standard practice*** for intel committee to tell a potential whistleblower to hire counsel and file a complaint with an agency IG or the IC IG.

**Bipartisan. Both parties say this.**

20.2K

1:17 PM - Oct 2, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

7,840 people are talking about this

I'll reiterate that I have doubts about whether the Times-reported sequence represents the full extent of what happened, but based on the evidence we have, Schiff and his office appear to have handled at least this portion of the drama by the book. I do wonder why the whistleblower only approached Chairman Schiff, as opposed to Chairman Burr, whose Senate committee has been far more professional and nonpartisan in its work than its Schiff-led House counterpart; recall that the IG flagged indications that the whistleblower did have a political motivation, and therefore may have felt more comfortable approaching the staff of a fellow Trump opponent. Then again, if Schiff played by the rules here, why tap dance and mislead the public about it?

If I can only ask non-moronic questions, how can I ask questions? My only questions are moronic!

Schiff had the actual transcript of the phone call and he did not read that transcript. He made up stuff. That is not Trump calling Schiff a liar. That is Schiff lying.

I know this is the line but go back and watch the clip. You don't have to search hard or parse for some hidden meaning. Schiff never once pretends he's reading a transcript. In fact he's explicit that what he's doing is proposing an interpretation of what was said. Laying out how he and other Democrats believe what was said should be interpreted.

There was no dishonesty in his presentation, only in how Republicans pretended to hear it.

Go to 3:30.

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

This is what Republicans pretend to hear: "I am now going to read the (non-verbatim) call summary verbatim"

I don't know if Republicans being so disingenuous is more or less depressing than you falling for it.