Trump cares for all Americans far more than evil leftie dems ever can (Page 5): Dennis, the above is your reply to Frosty, but since you include me in the discussion I will jump in.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

dennis2146 wrote:

Yes I do know all of that. That was my response to John. As you say that was in regard to the obstruction of justice charge. While I am aware of the DOJ not filing that charge due to the POTUS status of Trump that also means that there was ONLY suspicion of charges on the part of the Mueller team. The fact that Mueller supposedly gave Congress the ammunition to charge the President, with regard to at least impeachment does not mean that the President was guilty of anything. Some of the President's detractors SAID they thought he was obstructing justice. One example would be the firing of James Comey. Any President has the ability to fire just about anyone on his staff including the Attorney General. Nobody can deny that Comey was a piss poor Attorney General. Hell, even the Democrats wanted him fired. But of course their wanting him fired was purely out of the good of America while they will tell us that Trump wanting Comey fired was only to prevent Comey from harming the Trump family. See how that little bit of mindless thinking comes about depending on which ox is being gored. As usual Democrats-Good/Conservatives-Bad. Other Attorneys General have been fired and not a word was spoken. But let Trump fire an crappy James Comey and it is all to hide whatever corruption the Democrats THINK is being suppressed. While you say that plenty of evidence existed isn't it odd/strange/funny that the President was not impeached due to any of that so called evidence. If there had truly been evidence then the Democrats would have used it. Evidence of that type is only one side saying, I KNOW Trump had these thoughts when he fired Comey or did whatever else was supposed to be obstructing justice.

Wasn't one of the obstruction of justice charges due to Trump not wanting to answer questions? Something like that? But as an American don't we ALL have that same right to not self incriminate according to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Yet the Democrats insisted somehow that Trump was guilty because he exercised that right.

But back to collusion. I think we can all agree except for the John Frim's on the forum that the Mueller investigation concluded there was NO COLLUSION.

Thanks for the comment on the fish. Actually just last night my wife and I shared the larger one. After spending 30 minutes in the oven at 350 degrees it was delicious. A few years ago I decided to try fly fishing again after not doing well back in the 1970's. This time I have been actually catching fish and really enjoying myself. I used a parachute Adams on those two fish as well as a third, a cutthroat that had to be released. I caught all three on three successive casts. With the large one it was the first time that a trout actually had my reel singing as he took out line. I can't believe to tell you how great that was. I later showed the fish to a guide that was just coming in from fishing. He asked what fly I used and I told him the parachute Adams. He laughed and told me they were not supposed to work on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho.

Dennis

Yes I do know all of that. That was my response t... (show quote)

Dennis, the above is your reply to Frosty, but since you include me in the discussion I will jump in.

First, can we agree that Comey was NOT the ATTORNEY GENERAL? Can we agree on that, Dennis? Can you get your facts straight before you argue a case?

Second, can we ALL agree that Mueller found insufficient evidence to support a charge of conspiracy, which is a criminal act? Hence, NO charges or indictments on CONSPIRACY.

Third, I hope you would agree with me and Frosty -- and most people who can read properly -- that Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion, which is not a crime. Hence, nothing done regarding collusion except to point out this underhanded activity to the American public.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

Dennis, the above is your reply to Frosty, but sin... (show quote)

Of course we can John. If I made a mistake in Comey's title then I can only offer my apology. Thanks for pointing that out. I am darn near perfect but of course not REALLY perfect. That can only be said about Jesus.
Of course Comey was Director of the FBI. As such he was, as are all Directors of the FBI, at risk of being terminated by the POTUS. Surely you are aware of that with all your knowledge of all things American.

No I don't agree that Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion. Why didn't he do something about it? We all know collusion isn't a crime. What then was the Mueller investigation about? Why a three year investigation and millions of dollars spent only to then say, as you seem to be saying, Yes we did find out that Trump colluded with Russia but that is in no way a violation of the law so Kings X, no harm no foul.

Mueller supposedly found evidence of obstruction of justice and I believe that is what Frosty pointed out as well but not collusion. Having said that maybe you can explain why Congress did nothing at all with the so called evidence of obstruction of justice. Adam Schiff said numerous times he definitely had evidence to impeach Trump and yet...not one bit of that so called evidence was used in the final impeachment of the President. I have seen cases and heard of numerous cases where the evidence pointed to a sure conviction of the criminal from shoplifting to Murder as in the O.J. Simpson case where all of the so called evidence was wrong the the so called guilty party walked. Evidence is only evidence IF the jury finds the person guilty. Otherwise it is just one side saying they THINK the person is guilty. So all of the so called evidence against President Trump proved to be nothing more than a Democratic pile of chicken shit.

Thank you as always John for your informative contribution to the thread. I know each of us is thankful for your comedic contributions. Have a wonderful day.

Dennis

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

dennis2146 wrote:

Of course we can John. If I made a mistake in Com... (show quote)

Dennis, I have no idea why the Dems did not follow up on the Mueller report in their impeachment of Trump. I am sure they considered it seriously and the "smart folks" (???) decided it was better not pursue that avenue. In my view I think they made a mistake. I think they should have used the Mueller findings of potential obstruction of justice and the collusion to show that Trump is NOT the kind of person America should have as their leader. But I guess poor leadership and repulsive character are not impeachable.

In any case, I acknowledge your admission of not being perfect. But I would point out that I, like Jesus, am also perfect. After all, I was born on 25 Dec as well!!!

I hope this has added to your reading pleasure as the comedic chuckle of the day.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

Dennis, I have no idea why the Dems did not follow... (show quote)

And maybe John in their learned experience they realized there was simply nothing there to begin with. My knowledge of the obstruction of justice charges was based almost entirely on opinion, whether or not in someone's opinion Trump did something such as firing Comey was based upon saving his own neck OR firing Comey because he was simply a piss poor FBI Director. As you will no doubt recall even the Democrats said Comey should be fired because of the way he handled the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Yet because it was Trump who fired Comey that left the Democrats with some made up excuse to criticize Trump rather than Comey. Such was the nature of all similar charges regarding obstruction of justice. Yet as an avowed Liberal you and others have decided that Trump only did what he did for any of the charges because he is corrupt and is stealing from the American people. What a crock of crap.

Dennis

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

[quote=dennis2146]Of course we can John. If I made a mistake in Comey's title then I can only offer my apology. Thanks for pointing that out. I am darn near perfect but of course not REALLY perfect. That can only be said about Jesus.
Of course Comey was Director of the FBI. As such he was, as are all Directors of the FBI, at risk of being terminated by the POTUS. Surely you are aware of that with all your knowledge of all things American.

No I don't agree that Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion. Why didn't he do something about it? We all know collusion isn't a crime. What then was the Mueller investigation about? Why a three year investigation and millions of dollars spent only to then say, as you seem to be saying, Yes we did find out that Trump colluded with Russia but that is in no way a violation of the law so Kings X, no harm no foul.

Mueller supposedly found evidence of obstruction of justice and I believe that is what Frosty pointed out as well but not collusion. Having said that maybe you can explain why Congress did nothing at all with the so called evidence of obstruction of justice. Adam Schiff said numerous times he definitely had evidence to impeach Trump and yet...not one bit of that so called evidence was used in the final impeachment of the President. I have seen cases and heard of numerous cases where the evidence pointed to a sure conviction of the criminal from shoplifting to Murder as in the O.J. Simpson case where all of the so called evidence was wrong the the so called guilty party walked. Evidence is only evidence IF the jury finds the person guilty. Otherwise it is just one side saying they THINK the person is guilty. So all of the so called evidence against President Trump proved to be nothing more than a Democratic pile of chicken shit.

Thank you as always John for your informative contribution to the thread. I know each of us is thankful for your comedic contributions. Have a wonderful day.

Dennis[/quo
You must bear mind that impeachment is not a legal process but a political/quasi legal process. There was no jury selection where the prosecution seeks people without biases. This jury (the senate) consisted of people that were all biased one way or another. Had there been a democratic majority, the rules of evidence would have been different with witnesses testimony and documents allowed to be entered as evidence. This procedure was conducted without either. Senate republicans made sure of that during impeachment rule making. Even if witnesses, documents and Muellers report were allowed, unless the democrats had 66 or 67 majority, trump would have been acquitted anyway. In the end, it was purely a political process. Acquittal means nothing.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

[quote=Frosty][quote=dennis2146]Of course we can John. If I made a mistake in Comey's title then I can only offer my apology. Thanks for pointing that out. I am darn near perfect but of course not REALLY perfect. That can only be said about Jesus.
Of course Comey was Director of the FBI. As such he was, as are all Directors of the FBI, at risk of being terminated by the POTUS. Surely you are aware of that with all your knowledge of all things American.

No I don't agree that Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion. Why didn't he do something about it? We all know collusion isn't a crime. What then was the Mueller investigation about? Why a three year investigation and millions of dollars spent only to then say, as you seem to be saying, Yes we did find out that Trump colluded with Russia but that is in no way a violation of the law so Kings X, no harm no foul.

Mueller supposedly found evidence of obstruction of justice and I believe that is what Frosty pointed out as well but not collusion. Having said that maybe you can explain why Congress did nothing at all with the so called evidence of obstruction of justice. Adam Schiff said numerous times he definitely had evidence to impeach Trump and yet...not one bit of that so called evidence was used in the final impeachment of the President. I have seen cases and heard of numerous cases where the evidence pointed to a sure conviction of the criminal from shoplifting to Murder as in the O.J. Simpson case where all of the so called evidence was wrong the the so called guilty party walked. Evidence is only evidence IF the jury finds the person guilty. Otherwise it is just one side saying they THINK the person is guilty. So all of the so called evidence against President Trump proved to be nothing more than a Democratic pile of chicken shit.

Thank you as always John for your informative contribution to the thread. I know each of us is thankful for your comedic contributions. Have a wonderful day.

Dennis[/quo
You must bear mind that impeachment is not a legal process but a political/quasi legal process. There was no jury selection as I’m sure you have seen numerous times, where they seek people without biases. This jury (the senate) consisted of people that all biased one way or another. Had there been a democratic majority, the rules of evidence would have been different with witnesses testimony and documents allowed to be entered as evidence. This procedure was conducted without either. Senate republicans made sure of that during impeachment rule making. Even if witnesses and documents were allowed, unless the democrats had 66 or 67 majority, trump would have been acquitted anyway. In the end, it was purely a political process. Acquittal means nothing.[/quote]

Yes you are certainly correct. But you must also admit, many Democrats will not admit this, that the House was also just as biased if not more so than the Senate. Witnesses were not allowed to be called by the republican side, Adam Schiff spoke of guilt every time he opened his mouth when the real purpose of the House part of the impeachment was to find guilt. Yet Schiff brought up guilt constantly. The Democrats also changed the rules of how the proceedings were run.

You tell us acquittal means nothing when in my opinion the investigation from the House means nothing. Here there was a number of so called witnesses. Not one of them had actually heard President Trump on the phone with the man in Ukraine. One of the witnesses said he overheard the phone call while sitting next to his friend in a coffee house somewhere. Really??? He didn't really hear the call except by secondhand sitting next to a friend? The female ambassador was asked if President Trump broke any laws at all. She said NO. Apparently she was only there so the Democrats could show what a heartless President Trump was supposed to be. She added absolutely nothing to the proceedings except to give the Democrats a chance to openly commiserate her termination by Trump. Now you know as well as I do that the President can hire and fire at will especially with ambassadors. From what I recall she didn't like some things Trump was doing. Rather than stick up for the President and do things his way as is the manner in which all employees should be doing things, she bad mouthed Trump and was gone. Since I started working at around 15 years old this is how the workplace has struck me. One does not go around doing things not accepted by management and expect to remain an employee.

We will have to always disagree on this. For my money the Democrats held a kangaroo court with the impeachment of Trump always the end game. There was no real investigation just a showing of something Trump was considered to have done wrong. Even if he was wrong and I doubt he was, was impeachment the only game in town? How about censuring the President? How about a letter signed by those in Congress who agreed with the democrats that he did something wrong?

How about Joe Biden doing exactly the very same thing and bragging about it? How about Hunter Biden using his influence to land lucrative jobs for his son, Hunter? Was that something impeachable if Biden was still the VP or was it something that was a poor choice for Joe Biden. Will you tell us that Joe Biden knew absolutely nothing about what his son was doing? Do you really believe that Hunter Biden didn't tell his father he received lucrative jobs while on that trip? Apparently all of that is acceptable to the Democratic Party.

Dennis

Angmo

JohnFrim wrote:

Dennis, I have no idea why the Dems did not follow... (show quote)

Because there was nothing there and mueller proved evil leftie Dems lie.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

dennis2146 wrote:

My knowledge of the obstruction of justice charges was based almost entirely on opinion...

Dennis

So you read nothing of the Mueller report, yet you argue about its content? I rest my case. No need for you to raise Mueller again. Your credibility is now well below zero.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

JohnFrim wrote:

So you read nothing of the Mueller report, yet you argue about its content? I rest my case. No need for you to raise Mueller again. Your credibility is now well below zero.

What took you so long, it has always been that way for me.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

dennis2146 wrote:

Yes you are certainly correct. But you must also admit, many Democrats will not admit this, that the House was also just as biased if not more so than the Senate. Witnesses were not allowed to be called by the republican side, Adam Schiff spoke of guilt every time he opened his mouth when the real purpose of the House part of the impeachment was to find guilt. Yet Schiff brought up guilt constantly. The Democrats also changed the rules of how the proceedings were run.

You tell us acquittal means nothing when in my opinion the investigation from the House means nothing. Here there was a number of so called witnesses. Not one of them had actually heard President Trump on the phone with the man in Ukraine. One of the witnesses said he overheard the phone call while sitting next to his friend in a coffee house somewhere. Really??? He didn't really hear the call except by secondhand sitting next to a friend? The female ambassador was asked if President Trump broke any laws at all. She said NO. Apparently she was only there so the Democrats could show what a heartless President Trump was supposed to be. She added absolutely nothing to the proceedings except to give the Democrats a chance to openly commiserate her termination by Trump. Now you know as well as I do that the President can hire and fire at will especially with ambassadors. From what I recall she didn't like some things Trump was doing. Rather than stick up for the President and do things his way as is the manner in which all employees should be doing things, she bad mouthed Trump and was gone. Since I started working at around 15 years old this is how the workplace has struck me. One does not go around doing things not accepted by management and expect to remain an employee.

We will have to always disagree on this. For my money the Democrats held a kangaroo court with the impeachment of Trump always the end game. There was no real investigation just a showing of something Trump was considered to have done wrong. Even if he was wrong and I doubt he was, was impeachment the only game in town? How about censuring the President? How about a letter signed by those in Congress who agreed with the democrats that he did something wrong?

How about Joe Biden doing exactly the very same thing and bragging about it? How about Hunter Biden using his influence to land lucrative jobs for his son, Hunter? Was that something impeachable if Biden was still the VP or was it something that was a poor choice for Joe Biden. Will you tell us that Joe Biden knew absolutely nothing about what his son was doing? Do you really believe that Hunter Biden didn't tell his father he received lucrative jobs while on that trip? Apparently all of that is acceptable to the Democratic Party.

Dennis

Yes you are certainly correct. But you must also ... (show quote)

I don’t want to go into a marathon discussion about this, so I have just two things to say: 1. The purpose of the house impeachment was to investigate and determine if there is evidence of a crime, much like a grand jury. Trump prevented evidence to be presented both verbally and by submitting redacted documents. There wasn’t a kangaroo court when evidence wasn’t allowed to be presented.
2. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the the the impeachment. That is a deflection from the issue.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

JohnFrim wrote:

So you read nothing of the Mueller report, yet you argue about its content? I rest my case. No need for you to raise Mueller again. Your credibility is now well below zero.

This is an interesting point since none of us have read the full report because the incriminating parts were redacted.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Frosty wrote:

This is an interesting point since none of us have read the full report because the incriminating parts were redacted.

I suspect Dennis did not read even the publicly posted version.

But I like your take on the redacted parts; anything negative about Trump is now "classified." It will be interesting to see what comes of the review by the judge who recently asked for the entire report.

Angmo

Frosty wrote:

I don’t want to go into a marathon discussion about this, so I have just two things to say: 1. The purpose of the house impeachment was to investigate and determine if there is evidence of a crime, much like a grand jury. Trump prevented evidence to be presented both verbally and by submitting redacted documents. There wasn’t a kangaroo court when evidence wasn’t allowed to be presented.
2. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the the the impeachment. That is a deflection from the issue.

No. It’s a huge issue that evil leftie dems are desperately trying to deflect. Nice try at deflecting the deflection.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

So you read nothing of the Mueller report, yet you argue about its content? I rest my case. No need for you to raise Mueller again. Your credibility is now well below zero.

What a great but idiotic deflection you give us. The fact that I have never read the entire Mueller report does not mean I don't know what is in it. I have never read the entire U.S. Constitution nor Declaration of Independence yet I know what is in those documents.

I have already proven you wrong and you either have a reading problem and/or you are not paying attention.
The Mueller report dealt with two main points. 1. Collusion with the Russians. The report said there was NONE. 2. The Mueller report said there was some points that Congress could pursue regarding Trump and his obstruction of justice. But that DOJ could not pursue because Trump is a sitting President. Somewhere in our discussion you have seemed to get those two points mixed up.

There was NO collusion. That should be final and yet you Wingers still say there was. As for he obstruction of justice charges Congress, specifically the HR, has done nothing about all of those supposed charges that were present according to Mueller.

Anything else I can do for you? Time for you to pay attention. The written word is not your forte' is it?

Dennis

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

dennis2146 wrote:

What a great but idiotic deflection you give us. ... (show quote)

Dennis, I said I have no intention of rehashing the Mueller report, but there are a few points that need to be addressed. Your lies cannot be left hanging.

First, you said in a previous post that "Here there was a number of so called witnesses. Not one of them had actually heard President Trump on the phone with the man in Ukraine." That is FALSE. LCol Vindeman was a witness, and he listened in on the call.

Second, you keep saying Mueller found "No Collusion." Collusion itself was never addressed in the Mueller Report because it is not a crime. It was Barr who started that nonsense, and Trump repeated it many times thereafter.

I also don't know why you think I got "those two points mixed up." I have never mixed them up.