Not everyone in the Trump campaign is the president. Duh!
Mr. Trump’s organization is not synonymous with the election campaign. That would be illegal. Duh!
I’m not trying to “finagle” anything. You are trying to convince me that Mr. Trump is guilty without the benefit or, I think in your case the hazard, of a trial. You can act as judge and jury all you like but I prefer to wait until all the evidence has been heard.
“What’s wrong with you? Do you know what a dictionary is?” Didn’t I already ask you not to make presumptuous comments about my character? It just exposes your own inability to argue coherently. For example:
To Compel: “1. To urge irresistibly, to constrain, oblige, force a. a person to do a thing…b. a person into a course of action.” A “course of action” like maybe, an investigation. Duh!
Where does it say to “reach a conclusion?” Duh!
You speak to me of logic? This response has to be one of the most illogical remarks I’ve ever seen. When will you admit that until all the evidence, “compelling” and otherwise is made public so we (that would be you as well as me and the rest of the world) can see what, exactly, was said and in what context, we cannot determine the whole truth (not just the part of the truth the Trump-haters want us to see and hear), nor draw a “conclusion” regarding Mr. Trump’s actions.
Hey, DON’T CALL ME A LIAR!!!!!!!!
It is well documented that the Mueller team was biased. One of the investigators, thought to have written the investigation report, was Andrew Weismann. He has been censured for prosecutorial misconduct on several occasions and has, with his corrupt actions, bankrupted firms and individuals later found upon appeal to have been innocent (that’s different from “not guilty”). He was officially reprimanded in the Eastern District of New York for withholding exculpatory evidence. He also happens to be a former attorney for, and is still a big fan of, Hillary Clinton. The rest of the team have similar, though not as egregious, credentials. If that isn’t biased, tell me what is. Look it up for yourself, that is if you have the spine to discover that you could actually be wrong!
I think I also mentioned that I’m not a “true believer” when it comes to Donald Trump. The “Trumpster” slur is not appreciated. It is however expected from those who discover that their arguments are failing. It’s as if I accused you of having “Trump Disorder Syndrome”. I would never…
I think obstruction of justice is one of the themes the House hearings are focusing on. Time will tell if there is real evidence, not the kind you hear on CNN, that the President committed obstruction. What we have now is “compelling evidence”. You are obviously willing to convict prior to a hearing. I am not. I’d wager a majority of “patriotic Americans” (not to mention the U.S. Constitution) would agree with me, not you. “Compelling” is not the same as “conclusive”. Perhaps you should look it up. In a dictionary. (Notice I didn’t ask if you know what one is.)
I’ve never said I oppose Mr. Trump’s going on trial. That’s just another of your suppositions based upon your assumptions regarding my character. Reading your responses during this discussion, I’d wager I have a better notion of your character than you have of mine.
Name a president that has even tried to stand up to China. In the fifty years I’ve been paying attention to politics, I can’t name one. Every American politician that has had any discussion with China regarding the U.S. relationship with that nation has acted more like Chamberlin than Churchill. Maybe what Mr. Trump is doing will work; maybe it won’t, but he is at least bringing the threat China represents to the U.S. into the discussion. Make no mistake, the Communist Chinese government is determined to bring about the destruction of the American economy. They are more Leninist than Marxist.
That should give you something to think about.
I’m done with this conversation. Maybe we’ll talk again next year. After the election.
Wes O’Dell
