On 05-22-19 20:06, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to All about Well said, Mr. President <=-
Meanwhile in the Rose Garden...
President Trump said the following.
"of the 19 people that were heading up this investigation
or whatever you wanna
call it with Bob Mueller, they were contributors to the democratic
party most of them to Hillary Clinton. They hated President Trump, they
I do not blame the man, for pulling back slightly from infrastructure.
They tried to get him with phony dossiers.
years of wasted time and money it was determined that there was NO Collusion and NO Obstruction, and yet they will not yield, for their
next act they want to impeach on the grounds of a cover-up.
Only thing is that the President said that he does not do cover-ups,
and went on to state the ways that he has been completely transparent.
(of which is a matter public record and can be verified.)
So do what is good for the country and all of our fellow Americans,
and stop it with the BS and work with the President on infrastructure.
Lets build America Great Again!
Actually most of them were either non political or replublicans.
infrastructure. DS>I do not blame the man, for pulling back slightly from
He did not pull back slightly -- he stomped out and said -- play my way
or I won't participate.
has non of its claims dis-proven?They tried to get him with phony dossiers.Do you mean that dossier that has been mostly substatiated, and which
years of wasted time and money it was determined that there was NO Collusion and NO Obstruction, and yet they will not yield, for their
It was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which Trump would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
They will work with him when he comes back to the table, instead of sulking out to the Rose Garden to deliver a political speech.
It was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's
report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which Trump
would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
It also says within the 400+ pages there was No Collusion and No Obstruction - perhaps you read it.
So do what is good for the country and all of our fellow Americans, and stop it with the BS and work with the President on infrastructure.
Lets build America Great Again!
On 2019 May 23 07:30:08, you wrote to Dale Shipp:Trump
It was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's
report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which
would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
have *you* read it? from your writings, it seems not... from your writings, you're swimming nostril deep in the koolaid...
What these democrats (and other negative thinkers) need to do is leave
all the negativity in the past, and think about ways to serve their citizens (not serving them negativity) with the tools that they still have.
Nasty Nancy (sounds cute) is afraid to negotiate with the president because she doesn't want to look weak, but that attitude is what makes
her weak.
TrumpIt was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's
report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which
would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
What is the point of that, might of well come out and say it.
have *you* read it? from your writings, it seems not... from your
writings, you're swimming nostril deep in the koolaid...
Drink Up and don't spill any of that koolaid...
I personally commend the President, for his stance. I would of done exactly the same; without change. I would not work with this Witch
Spent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many millions more of inked up paper and what for?
What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
What is up with her dentures, by the way? Just askin?...
you would think that a person that has that much money would be able to get a set the fits.
On 05-23-19 07:30, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Well said, Mr. Presid <=-
Actually most of them were either non political or republicans.
Yeah sure, non-political I do not believe that. If there is to be any truth to what your suggesting, then why did these folks made campaign donations to Hillary.. Which means they were political.
infrastructure. DS>I do not blame the man, for pulling back slightly from
He did not pull back slightly -- he stomped out and said -- play my way
or I won't participate.
The truth of the matter is was agreed upon that they would meet, as
they did have this meeting pre-planned.
However what is also true is that Nancy Pelosi called a meeting of
her own before she lerch (Charles Schummer) were to meet the President.
It was at this tea party of a meeting that Nancy was calling for the Presidents head and still harping and scheming to impeach the
President. If someone does that, before a meeting that talks about infrastructure, does that sound like someone that is serious wanting to make a impact on the matter.
What this shows and is clear, is that Nancy Pelosi wants to undermine
the President and try not to allow the President or his administration
to be successful.
has non of its claims dis-proven?They tried to get him with phony dossiers.Do you mean that dossier that has been mostly substatiated, and which
It has been known for quite quite sometime now that the dossier was totally and completely made up. None of it is remotely true, not even slightly.
years of wasted time and money it was determined that there was NO Collusion and NO Obstruction, and yet they will not yield, for their
It was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which Trump would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
It also says within the 400+ pages there was
No Collusion and No Obstruction - perhaps you read it.
They will work with him when he comes back to the table, instead of sulking out to the Rose Garden to deliver a political speech.
Did you watch his speech?
His remarks where to the point and clear.
Some may have made campaign donations -- to either party. That does not mean that they were democrats, nor that whatever political affiliation they had impacted their work ( and the Justice Department IG said
exactly that about the two who were removed because of some tweets).
Plus, Robert Mueller is a Republican/
He did not pull back slightly -- he stomped out and said -- play my or I won't participate.
PresidenHowever what is also true is that Nancy Pelosi called a meeting of her own before she lerch (Charles Schummer) were to meet the
Your point is? Pelosi is a busy woman and can multi task on items.
It was at this tea party of a meeting that Nancy was calling for the Presidents head and still harping and scheming to impeach the President. If someone does that, before a meeting that talks about infrastructure, does that sound like someone that is serious wanting make a impact on the matter.
Pelosi had to convince her caucus *not* to call for impeachment at this time. She was not "calling for his head".
She will not allow him to get away with the shenangands he has been pulling.
eveIt has been known for quite quite sometime now that the dossier was totally and completely made up. None of it is remotely true, not
slightly.
WRONG. Members of the intelligence community have testified that parts
of it have been substatiated.
Did you watch his speech?
His remarks where to the point and clear.
And slanted, and self serving.
Spent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many
millions more of inked up paper and what for? What did it prove? Not
a GD thing.
$35 million dollars is money that could change lives; it could've been used in a more rewarding way.
It also says within the 400+ pages there was No Collusion and No
Obstruction - perhaps you read it.
Yes I did read it. It seems that you are accepting Barr's synopsis of
it without judging for yourself.
On Collusion
"While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump
Campaign the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
Spent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many millions more of
inked up paper and what for?
What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
The meeting was planned, but he did not even bother to sit down before leaving and giving his Rose Garden speech dinigrating the Democrats.
The Democrats were there to work on the infrastructure deal -- he was
not.
However what is also true is that Nancy Pelosi called a meeting ofYour point is? Pelosi is a busy woman and can multi task on items.
her own before she lerch (Charles Schummer) were to meet the President.
Pelosi had to convince her caucus *not* to call for impeachment at this
time. She was not "calling for his head".
On Collusion
"While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump Campaign the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
Like the Clintons never talked to the Vietnamese, or Russians. There
were Russian interests that supported Hillary early in her campaign,
too. I don't really see a difference, other than one of them lost and
her supporters/fellow party members are still crying over the milk being spilled.
My point is, you could make the same statement above and substitute "Clinton" for "Trump" and have an equally true statement.
moSpent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many millions
inked up paper and what for?
What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
The fact that the Democrats have continued on with this tells me one thing. We are about 18 months from an election. They could drop this, concentrate on a decent platform that would get them elected, and then pursue it after he is out of office. However, since they are continuing with it, I am left to beleive that the whole of their platform for 2020
is going to be "Beat Trump."
Sorry, that is not a platform, that is being lazy and out of actual good ideas.
I am sure that the United States does this too.
Two of the biggest tigers of the world.
On 05-24-19 07:14, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Well said, Mr. Presid <=-
Quote from the President
"of the 19 people that were heading up this investigation or whatever
you wanna call it with Bob Muller they were contributors to the
democratic party most of them and to Hillary Clinton they hated
So Bob Mueller is a Republican, and?... (Yeah I know what you are implying) but he's a Republican, and he still did what he did to the President. The left uses that phrase - all the time like it
underscores and explains his deeds. If you knew what I know about Mr. Integrity, you would not even mention his name.
Bottom line is this - He is not going to work with the democrats on anything including infrastructure, when there is a on-going attempt of impeachment and impeachment attempts.
She will not allow him to get away with the shenangands he has been pulling.
There is NONE -- remember the 2 year investigation. -- That found
nothing significant. now it's a POST INVESTIGATION it's done & it is
time to move on.
Here's a question who holds her accountable for her shenanigans.
It has been known for quite quite sometime now that the dossier was totally and completely made up. None of it is remotely true,
WRONG. Members of the intelligence community have testified that parts
of it have been substatiated.
It's totally fake just the connect dots.
if you can not do that then look at this.
The making of the Steele dossier
http://tiny.cc/8kz76y
On 05-23-19 22:57, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Gregory Deyss about Re: Well said, Mr. Presid <=-
I personally commend the President, for his stance. I would of done exactly the same; without change. I would not work with this Witch
I also commend him. I'm short tempered; I would've gone berserk if she
did that to me. I've been in situations before when people try to start
a conversation by insulting me, and it's not productive!
Spent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many millions more of inked up paper and what for?
What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
$35 million dollars is money that could change lives; it could've been used in a more rewarding way. That would be enough money to house all
the illegal immigrants in America, and to give them all silver spoons.
I hope the handout seekers all take note of this.
Just what is it that you know? I am close friends with someone who
knows him personally, and who has worked with him. That friend gives
Bob Mueller high praise, and confirms that he is a careful and truthful investigator.
Bottom line is this - He is not going to work with the democrats on anything including infrastructure, when there is a on-going attempt impeachment and impeachment attempts.
So, he is going to just sit in his office and sulk? The members of Congress are quite willing to work on infrastructure with or without
him.
shI personally commend the President, for his stance. I would of done exactly the same; without change. I would not work with this Witch
I also commend him. I'm short tempered; I would've gone berserk if
stadid that to me. I've been in situations before when people try to
a conversation by insulting me, and it's not productive!
Just what was the insult in your mind? What I read that she had said at that meeting of the caucus was that The President was involved in a cover-up. That is not an insult -- it is the truth.
Trump has a habit of insulting anyone who is not directly allignedwith him and pledging fealty to him. He invents dinigrating nicknames
and other barbs.
Spent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many millions of inked up paper and what for? What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
I believe it had about 40 criminal inditements and multiple jailsentences. That is something. And it documented at least ten occasions
B. Since there are possibly as many as 11 million undocumented
immigrants in America, that would not go very far to provide housing.
C. The 16 billion that Trump wants for his ineffective wall would go a long way towards relief of immigrants.
"So Far, $1.57 Billion for Wall Yields 1.7 Miles of Fence"
Just what was the insult in your mind? What I read that she had said at that meeting of the caucus was that The President was involved in a cover-up. That is not an insult -- it is the truth.
C. The 16 billion that Trump wants for his ineffective wall would go a long way towards relief of immigrants.
I am sure that the United States does this too.
Two of the biggest tigers of the world.
There is now doubt that the US "gets involved" in the elections, and politics, of other countries.
"So Far, $1.57 Billion for Wall Yields 1.7 Miles of Fence"
That link isn't working. What are they talking about?
it works perfectly fine... here's a shorter one...
https://tinyurl.com/y2b2gw82
There is no doubt that the US "gets involved" in the elections, and politics, of other countries.
There is?
The US has been "involved" in other countries' elections for decades,
most blatantly in Iraq's in the early 2000s
Nothing more than a liberal hit piece,is everything that you don't agree with "liberal"?
and their version of the truth, of which is NOT the real truth.
says who? you?
leaders.It's the kind of thing I would expect from TicToc by Bloomberg is a global news network native to the social, mobile world, delivering general interest news video to the next generation of global
what? did you leave some word(s) out??
Liberalism is a mental disease.same can be said for conservatism... you exhibit all the signs ;)
On 05-29-19 08:44, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Insults <=-
These people who follow her and hang on her every word, have a mental disease furthermore they are so bent and even propelled toward creating never ending chaos.
Take for example Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren.
It just fits.
millionsSpent 2 years and many millions of dollars that produced many
of inked up paper and what for? What did it prove? Not a GD thing.
I believe it had about 40 criminal indictments and multiple jailsentences. That is something. And it documented at least ten occasions
Sure there were indictments, but not one of them directed at any
American Citizen, including the President of the United States; Donald
J. Trump.
C. The 16 billion that Trump wants for his ineffective wall would go a long way towards relief of immigrants.
I bet you would feel very differently, if we directed them all your
house.
"So Far, $1.57 Billion for Wall Yields 1.7 Miles of Fence"
That link isn't working. What are they talking about?
Nothing more than a liberal hit piece,
is everything that you don't agree with "liberal"?
I know what a liberal smear job is when I see it.
Quite easy to see, when your not 'one of them'.
It's just another sad attempt to attract people who are not awake
enough to realize that they are being lied to.
The short phrase is "Fake News".
I am immune to such trickery,
in fact I see threw it and understand it
for what its true purpose is, to deliberately deceive.
and their version of the truth, of which is NOT the real truth.
says who? you?
It's from Bloomberg,
explanation is not necessary and neither is debate
because you have already lost your argument before it has even begun.
It's the kind of thing I would expect from TicToc by Bloomberg is a
global news network native to the social, mobile world, delivering
general interest news video to the next generation of global
leaders.
what? did you leave some word(s) out??
I think not, as the description came from their own website.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
same can be said for conservatism... you exhibit all the signs ;)
Yeah and it's called Winning!
"So Far, $1.57 Billion for Wall Yields 1.7 Miles of Fence"
That link isn't working. What are they talking about?
Thanks, this one works.
The headline is misleading; 1.7 miles has been constructed so far,
with 80 miles to be constructed. It sounds good to me.
Take for example Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren.
It just fits.
Yes, it just fits his level of mental ability.
Actually, I live in a fairly diverse community -- many of them would be welcome here and would be assimilated on their way to becoming
citizens.
really? that 1.7 miles has already cost 1.57 billon and you're ok with that? at that rate, that 80 miles will cost 73.9 billion... are you
really ok with that?
really? that 1.7 miles has already cost 1.57 billon and you're ok
with that? at that rate, that 80 miles will cost 73.9 billion... are
you really ok with that?
The wall is a handout from the government.
I like this handout, and I don't care where the money comes from. I
never wanted a handout so bad before.
It's better than Honduran abortions, better than foodstamps, better
than affordable health care. After all, I won't need affordable
healthcare if I'm murdered by an illegal.
I like this handout, and I don't care where the money comes from. I never wanted a handout so bad before.
you've never taken any business classes, have you?
healthcare if I'm murdered by an illegal.
hell, you can achieve that without any illegal person being involved...
On 05-31-19 08:35, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Insults <=-
Actually, I live in a fairly diverse community -- many of them would be welcome here and would be assimilated on their way to becoming
citizens.
How far from the Mexico border do you live? Many central americans
hate whites and blacks.
And why assimilate? Breaking the law was the first thing they did when they arrived at the border. That went so smooth - so why stop there?
Dumb white and black americans say "apply for residency," but man,
that's a drag, isn't it?
Dumb americans will also say "Buy a car, try dating, and make
friends," but all the illegals say is "Me steal car! Me rape women! Me kill people!"
...but they're actually right about Americans being dumb!!
And why assimilate? Breaking the law was the first thing they did when they arrived at the border. That went so smooth - so why stop there?
They crossed the border and asked for assylum, which they are entitled
to do under US law.
They crossed the border and asked for assylum, which they are entitled
to do under US law.
The problem is that a lot of them are not entitled to it, under US
law.
In the meantime, there are so many that the government is overwhelmed
& has to turn them loose into the population while they wait for their case to come up.
By the time it does, they've snuck off or the government has lost
track of them.
At least a thousand miles, but so what is your point? My city has a mixture of whites, blacks, hispanic, asian, mid-eastern and just about anything else you could name.
They crossed the border and asked for assylum, which they are entitled
to do under US law.
Only some -- e.g. those who think that a wall is going to have any real impact on the import of illegal drugs.
By the time it does, they've snuck off or the government has lost
track of them.
if the gov't can't keep up with the children they've separated from their guardian/parent, what makes you think they can keep up with those requesting asylum? remember, they are required by law to be ON US soil to request asylum... just like having to physically be in the church to request asylum with the church...
At least a thousand miles, but so what is your point? My city has a >DS>mixture of whites, blacks, hispanic, asian, mid-eastern and just about >DS>anything else you could name.
It's a different scene when you live near the border. Try comparing crime >statistics and tell me what stands out.
Did you see a movie, or something, where some family of impoverished illegal
immigrants snuck into the USA, traveled up to some redneck farming town,
and lived a modest life?
It's nice of you to give the illegals the benefit of the doubt, but don't
let people abuse your generosity.
They crossed the border and asked for assylum, which they are entitled >DS>to do under US law.
There are people who need asylum more than central americans, like Syrian >children. I'd rather take all of them as refugees than people who were
already offered asylum in another country and turned it down.
Only some -- e.g. those who think that a wall is going to have any real >DS>impact on the import of illegal drugs.
It's more than just drugs. But if it puts a dent in drugs, conservatives are >ok with that too. More and more, I worry that people who support the
rights of illegals are actually users or "jons" themselves. Have you ever
had
an argument about drugs with an addict? It can be on ordeal.
I have a relative who travels to the border area of Mexico, and other places south of Mexico, to coach people what to do once they get
across the border (find the border patrol, claim asylum, wait for them
to turn you loose somewhere in the US and then run off). They do it
as a part of their "job."
Build the wall.
By the time it does, they've snuck off or the government has lost >>MP>track of them.
if the gov't can't keep up with the children they've separated from their >>guardian/parent, what makes you think they can keep up with those
requesting
asylum? remember, they are required by law to be ON US soil to request >>asylum... just like having to physically be in the church to request asylum >>with the church...
The problem was not always that the gov't could not keep up with the
children but that the "parents" would go ahead and high-tail it because
they either knew their asylum claim was completely bogus and/or the kids
were not even theirs.
I have a relative who travels to the border area of Mexico, and other
places south of Mexico, to coach people what to do once they get across the >border (find the border patrol, claim asylum, wait for them to turn you
loose somewhere in the US and then run off). They do it as a part of their >"job."
Build the wall.
El Paso is much safer than the rest of America. Next question?
Why should Americans have these special privileges when this
country refuses to grant others those same privileges?
Why does this country insist on cremation for illegals who die
in this country? Why does this country insist on billing the families
There have been at least 6 immigrant children who have died as a
are from. Not that some are better refugees than others. Let them
Nobody is dying from Trump's policy. Kids are dying because of poor choices made by their parents, or poor choices made by their kidnappers.
On 2019 Jun 01 12:32:00, you wrote to DALE SHIPP:entitled
They crossed the border and asked for assylum, which they are
to do under US law.
The problem is that a lot of them are not entitled to it, under US law.
that is determined after they are on US soil and request asylum... one cannot request asylum without being on US soil... that is the law...
There have been at least 6 immigrant children who have died as a
result of Trump's "zero tolerance" policy, after having been separated from their families. And you call this country "generous"?
The problem is that a lot of them are not entitled to it, under US
law.
that is determined after they are on US soil and request asylum...
one cannot request asylum without being on US soil... that is the
law...
What happens when these illegals, who were granted asylum are provided
an appearance ticket to reappear for immigration court.
They are never seen or heard from again.
The only way they would be is if they once again broke the law.
On 2019 Jun 04 20:17:02, you wrote to me:under US
The problem is that a lot of them are not entitled to it,
asylum...law.
that is determined after they are on US soil and request
theone cannot request asylum without being on US soil... that is
providedlaw...
What happens when these illegals, who were granted asylum are
determined, yet...an appearance ticket to reappear for immigration court.
why have you classified them as "illegals"? that hasn't been
they are here legally on US soil requesting asylum... that's properlyfollowing
our immigration law...
as for their appearance, they either appear in court or they don't...just like
you, they may request/have their case extended if they cannot make itto that
session for some reason... this is just like any other court... thereis a time
frame in play just like there is with you and any court case you mayhave...
the worst?They are never seen or heard from again.
maybe... maybe not... are you a cop or similar that always assumes
if one is guilty, they're all guilty?again" implies
The only way they would be is if they once again broke the law.
they only way they would be what? you're use of the phrase "once
that you think they have broken the law at least once, already... whywould you
think that in the first place?
have they done something to you, personally?
they only way they would be what? you're use of the phrase "once again" implies that you think they have broken the law at least once,
already... why would you think that in the first place? have they done something to you, personally?
On 2019 Jun 04 20:17:02, you wrote to me:
The problem is that a lot of them are not entitled to it, under US
law.
that is determined after they are on US soil and request asylum...
one cannot request asylum without being on US soil... that is the
law...
They are never seen or heard from again.
maybe... maybe not... are you a cop or similar that always assumes the worst? if one is guilty, they're all guilty?
The only way they would be is if they once again broke the law. ml>
they only way they would be what? you're use of the phrase "once again" implies that you think they have broken the law at least once,
why would you think that in the first place? have they done
something to you, personally?
they only way they would be what? you're use of the phrase "once
again" implies that you think they have broken the law at least once,
already... why would you think that in the first place? have they done
something to you, personally?
Nice try...
You are the one who is attempting to make this personal; with the
asking of your question.
Have they done something to you personally?
Furthermore, you are also attempting to make me out to be the bad guy
here because you can not understand why nor do you understand the
stance that I am talking but UI am sure you find it to be mean
spirited and all of this because I look at things differently but you still wanna lecture me on how the law works..?
Sorry I like my definition better as it matches more closely to what
the truth actually is.
I don't share your sugar coated - candy crystals version of really
happens at the U.S. / Mexican Border.
As far as declaring asylym.
There is plenty asylym exploitation involving and this is a matter of a fact, The fantastic flip charts and great graphics are to show that thisis
the case, additionally it shows something else and that would be thatthis
is much more then a individuals a opinion.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y4bytjx9
It all begins with that foot crossing over the line, but before this occurs they still have to still ask for asylym. which still makes them
at this point still illegal.
Just remember you wanted to go down this asylym road, so be it.
no, i'm not trying to make it personal... i'm trying to understand why
you have such a hatred of anything that isn't just like you... you
accuse "them" of having already broken a law when you have no idea if
they have or not... you paint with a monstrously large brush...
why have you classified them as "illegals"? that hasn't been determined, yet... they are here legally on US soil requesting asylum... that's properly following our immigration law...
no, i'm not trying to make it personal... i'm trying to understand why >ml>you have such a hatred of anything that isn't just like you... you >ml>accuse "them" of having already broken a law when you have no idea if >ml>they have or not... you paint with a monstrously large brush...
Let me start out by stating I have nothing against you or anyone even if
they disagree with me. You and I have more in common then you realize.
I am a conservative,
if you try to understand what is important to such a person with a
conservative mindset, then things would be abundantly clear.
There would be no more questions or even the slightest confusion.
Everything that I have said on the matter would be in focus.
You suggest that I paint with a monstrously large brush?
Do you know or care of the enormous cost that is associated and the problems
that are created with this issue.
Wanna come to the U.S. give yourself and your family a better life, better
then ever before. Great, then go about it legally, get in line and start
the process.
but they don't want to do this,
they would rather but the line and sneak in.
That is why I feel the way I do, as it is a violation of the
sovereignty of the United States of America.
Furthermore a whole host of emotions get applied in the process as being
untrustworthy, someone that does not care to follow the rules.
I do not understand why I should be compassionate to such people, and I do
not understand why the left has such love for such people.
The left wishes to exploit them for political means,
they don't really give a rats ass about them,
they see them as means to power and for maintaining power.
I hate almost no one, certainly not anyone within the fidonet community.
I do have unremarkable hatred for Nancy Pelosi,
as her continued actions speak many hundreds of times as not being
productive.
In fact they are counterproductive to getting anything done within the
country that would be known as a accomplishment.
I am a conservative,
trying their best to survive. Denying people their basic rights
Our entire way of life is based on obeying the law.
People that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They violateMY
rights as a law abiding American citizen.
Our entire way of life is based on obeying the law.
Without it there
is Anarchy. I have friends that waited 20 or more years to gain US citizenship. It is an injustice to US citizens to allow anyone to just walk in whenever they please.
Regardless of their origin. Our system is based on law and punishment. Those that break the law should and will be punished.
Our entire way of life is based on obeying the law.
Your entire way of life is founded on theft, murder, genocide, rape, ...
Your entire way of life is founded on theft, murder, genocide, rape, ...
Our entire way of life is based on obeying the law.
Your entire way of life is founded on theft, murder, genocide, rape, ...
I am a conservative,
Me too!
trying their best to survive. Denying people their basic rights
is to deny them their own humanity. Is that who you are or want
People that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They violate MY
rights as a law abiding American citizen. Our entire way of life is based
on obeying the law. Without it there is Anarchy.
I have friends that waited 20 or more years to gain US citizenship.
It is an injustice to US citizens to allow anyone to just walk in whenever
they please.
Regardless of their origin.
Our system is based on law and punishment.
Those that break the law should and will be punished.
Your entire way of life is founded on theft, murder, genocide, rape,...
Everyone's is if you go back far enough.
Without it there
is Anarchy. I have friends that waited 20 or more years to gain US citizenship. It is an injustice to US citizens to allow anyone to just walk in whenever they please.
did you friends not "walk in whenever they pleased"??? they arrived here somehow...
exactly! what do kids learn in school these days???didn't
note "these days" meaning "since the '80s"... we learned all about how our country was formed when we were in school in the '60s and '70s... they
come right out and state that "theft, murder, genocide, rape" were used butit
is easily apparent if one simply looks at the material and pays attention...
Your entire way of life is founded on theft, murder, genocide, rape,...
Everyone's is if you go back far enough.
That most likely is correct.
Without it there is Anarchy. I have friends that waited 20 or more
years to gain US citizenship. It is an injustice to US citizens to
allow anyone to just walk in whenever they please.
did you friends not "walk in whenever they pleased"??? they arrived
here somehow...
I cannot speak for his friends, but mine came in *legally* and went through all of the processes it took to be here *legally*. Most of
them are more unhappy about people just wandering in and being able to
get even more than they are entitled to than I am.
Do you not know anyone who is not a native that is here legally?
I will guarantee you that they did not just "walk in whenever they pleased."
All the ones I know (mostly from Asia or South America) had to go
through all sorts of paperwork to get a visa, then again for a green
card, etc. Many had to prove they had jobs waiting here for them. Some
had to leave the country for a while in between "phases."
What they go through to be here legally is a far cry from just
"walking in whenever they please," and insinuating that they can do so belittles their experience.
One may say "that is why it should be easier" but I disagree. Those processes are there for a reason. They validate the identity of the person in question, verify that they are not wanted by the law in
their home countries, verify that they are here to be productive
members of society, etc.
I do not understand why a citizen of any country would want it any
other way when it comes to who gets let in.
Where do you think the early Americans, who came over from Europe,
learned it from?
Without it there
is Anarchy. I have friends that waited 20 or more years to gain US >>SW>citizenship. It is an injustice to US citizens to allow anyone to just >>SW>walk in whenever they please.
did you friends not "walk in whenever they pleased"??? they arrived here >>somehow...
I cannot speak for his friends, but mine came in *legally* and went through >all of the processes it took to be here *legally*. Most of them are more >unhappy about people just wandering in and being able to get even more than >they are entitled to than I am.
Do you not know anyone who is not a native that is here legally?
I will guarantee you that they did not just "walk in whenever they pleased."
All the ones I know (mostly from Asia or South America) had to go through
all sorts of paperwork to get a visa, then again for a green card, etc.
Many had to prove they had jobs waiting here for them.
Some had to leave the country for a while in between "phases."
What they go through to be here legally is a far cry from just "walking in
whenever they please," and insinuating that they can do so belittles their experience.
One may say "that is why it should be easier" but I disagree.
Those processes are there for a reason. They validate the identity of the
person in question, verify that they are not wanted by the law in their
home countries, verify that they are here to be productive members of society, etc.
I do not understand why a citizen of any country would want it any other way
when it comes to who gets let in.
That last bit, learned in school, is one of the big reasons I believe that >opening the borders to anyone and everyone, while relaxing the vetting >process, is a path to destruction for our society. The only reason I can >think of that one would feel otherwise is if one longs for those not-so-good >old days of chaos and lawlessness.
IMHO, the politicians that push for such want just that. They want to >introduce some chaos and lawlessness so that they can assert control.
Where do you think the early Americans, who came over from Europe, >MP>learned it from?
Vladinir Putin
What cost? Those who are seeking asylum have nothing but the
clothes on their backs. They have committed no crimes, and are
trying their best to survive. Denying people their basic rights
is to deny them their own humanity. Is that who you are or want
to be? It is not who most Americans are, or want to be. We are
better than that, as individuals and a people.
Applying for citizenship is part of the process. The USA has
a chain immigration policy,
Mr Spock would take issue with that, understanding it is a human
condition to get emotional. But he was Vulcan, except in rare moments
of ecstacy when on a certain planet ...
violaPeople that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They
rights as a law abiding American citizen.
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a law somewhere? does this also apply to the domestic terrorists roaming our streets today? does it also apply to the mass murders that have shot up our clubs, hotels, concerts and schools?
lawPeople that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They viola rights as a law abiding American citizen.
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a
somewhere? does this also apply to the domestic terrorists roaming our
On 06-09-19 12:12, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Insults <=-
This is a hunger and a thirst that drives the left into making false claims and accusations without any merit about the President.
Their statements are outrageous as they also treasonous.
Nasty Nancy saying that
"I do not want to see the President impeached, I want to see him in Prison."
On 06-09-19 17:47, Steven Wolf <=-
spoke to Mark Lewis about Re: Insults <=-
somewhere? does this also apply to the domestic terrorists roaming our
Yes all the people you mentioned violate MY right and my families
right to the freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution. The US constitution ONLY protects US citizens. If they are citizens of the US
On 06-09-19 12:12, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Insults <=-
This is a hunger and a thirst that drives the left into making false claims and accusations without any merit about the President.
Their statements are outrageous as they also treasonous.
Nasty Nancy saying that
"I do not want to see the President impeached, I want to see him in Prison."
You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in which it was made.
To start with, for the House to impeach Trump would result in nothing of value to the Democrats. The fact is that the Republican Senate would never convict Trump, and so in the end nothing would be accomplished.
What she is saying is that she would rather focus on having Trump not be elected to a second term. If and When that happens, he would then be subject to indictment and trial on the multiple instances of obstruction of Justice that Mueller documented -- with evidence. It is possible
that he would be convicted and thus end up in prison. That is a real punishment for the crimes he has committed.
People that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They viola
rights as a law abiding American citizen.
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a
law somewhere? does this also apply to the domestic terrorists
roaming our streets today? does it also apply to the mass murders
that have shot up our clubs, hotels, concerts and schools?
I can see by your statement that you do not seem to care or even acknowledge that U.S. Sovereignty is something that should be
protected and cherished.
People that cross our borders illegally are law breakers. They
viola rights as a law abiding American citizen.
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a
law somewhere? does this also apply to the domestic terrorists
roaming our
Yes all the people you mentioned violate MY right and my families
right to the freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution.
The US constitution ONLY protects US citizens.
If they are citizens of the US and break the Law they will be punished under US law.
People think the entire world is protected by the US constitution.
They are NOT!
And they are NOT entitled to those protections UNTIL they BECOME US citizens LEGALLY!
NOBODY is "entitled" to break our Laws and invade our country just
because the one they live in and born in is a "shit hole".
Fight back and Fix it. That's what the US and it's allies did against Hitler. Stand up to these cowardly "gangs" stealing and killing".
Even if it kills YOU! BUT DON'T come to MY country and make ME pay
for your problems. My father and my fathers father and his father
fought for our freedoms.
Don't come to MY country to pawn your children off on our already
broken healthcare system.
First we need to take care of our own US Citizens
before we take care of any foreign invaders.
Their statements are outrageous as they also treasonous. Nasty Nancy
saying that "I do not want to see the President impeached, I want to
see him in Prison."
You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in
which it was made.
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse for this to be spoken in any context.
You are wrong. Most constitution protections apply to undocumented immigrants. All are entitiled to a fair trial, and to most of the rest
of the protections afforded to you and me.
ORLY? how does my above statement about what is going in here in the US have anything to do with US Sovereignty? that's a completely different topic and one not under discussion in this thread...
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a
law somewhere?
foIt does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
On 06-10-19 06:52, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Impeachment or not <=-
You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in which it was made.
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse for this to be spoken in any context.
How can there be any impeachment or any indictment when there was no crime? To spite whatever back door Robert Mueller wants to leave open.
The investigation is completed and so is the opportunity for an
encore.
There is no possibility of prison when there is no crime.
As for his chances on being re-elected, I would say the following,
they are dam good, the country is doing much better then when Obama was re-elected for a second term.
However, what is it from your perspective that the President is guilty
of? I really want you to think about that. First let me enlighten you
on what it can't be. The firing of James Comey, The FBI Director
serves at the word of the
President of which is (or was in this case) his boss.
Which means there was no crime committed with his firing.
NOBODY is "entitled" to break our Laws and invade our country just because the one they live in and born in is a "shit hole".
i wonder what the native american's thought about that...
foIt does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
ORLY? how does my above statement about what is going in here in the
US have anything to do with US Sovereignty? that's a completely
different topic and one not under discussion in this thread...
No it's one in the same, it was your very first sentence.
come again? what rights of yours are they violating if they break a
law somewhere?
Then the second sentence you went on to another topic, talking about domestic terrorists. Deliberately changing the subject,
far be it for Conservative to make a valid point.
To date all you want to ask is, Does their actions affect me
personally,
and yet and still - totally and completely ignoring that the act is
wrong.
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
for this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
Absolutely!
It's called demanding justice.
She smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit and deleted thirty thousand emails,
NOBODY is "entitled" to break our Laws and invade our country just
because the one they live in and born in is a "shit hole".
i wonder what the native american's thought about that...
Ask a native what they think about illegal immigration, the answer
might shock ya!
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
fo this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
President Trump didn't chant that
There is a crime if the firing was done with criminal intent, e.g. to twart the investigation into his wrong doings. That is just one of the ten documented examples of obstruction in the Mueller report. Read it.
On 2019 Jun 10 20:47:16, you wrote to me:
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
for this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
Absolutely!
It's called demanding justice.
really?
andShe smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit
deleted thirty thousand emails,
suggest you take that up with her lawyers... they were the ones that did that...
DS> You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in which
DS> it was made.
GD> It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
for
GD> this to be spoken in any context.
Why not -- it is a perfectly conservative and practical approach to the situation.
GD> How can there be any impeachment or any indictment when there was no
GD> crime? To spite whatever back door Robert Mueller wants to leave
open.
Once again, you are proving that you have not bothered to read the
Mueller report and are accepting the word of Barr. The Mueller report outlines multiple occasions which would give rise to a charge and
probable conviction of anyone other than the sitting president.
GD> The investigation is completed and so is the opportunity for an
GD> encore.
Not an encore -- things are still going on.
There is no possibility of prison when there is no crime.
That is not for you to say. It is for the courts to say. And multiple
legal experts have publically stated that there are ten cases of
obstruction of justice which will be prosecutable if Trump is not
reelected.
As for his chances on being re-elected, I would say the following,
they are dam good, the country is doing much better then when Obama was >GD>re-elected for a second term.
However, what is it from your perspective that the President is guilty >GD>of? I really want you to think about that. First let me enlighten you >GD>on what it can't be. The firing of James Comey, The FBI Director
serves at the word of the
President of which is (or was in this case) his boss.
Which means there was no crime committed with his firing.
There is a crime if the firing was done with criminal intent, e.g. to
twart the investigation into his wrong doings. That is just one of the
ten documented examples of obstruction in the Mueller report. Read it.
GD>>> Their statements are outrageous as they also treasonous. Nasty
Nancy
GD>>> saying that "I do not want to see the President impeached, I want
to
GD>>> see him in Prison."
DS>> You need to examine that quote in the context and circumstances in
DS>> which it was made.
GD> It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
for
GD> this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
You are wrong. Most constitution protections apply to undocumented >DS>immigrants. All are entitiled to a fair trial, and to most of the rest >DS>of the protections afforded to you and me.
It's all good. I have absolutely no need for money and have no problem
paying the world's medical bills.
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse fo >ml>GD>this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
Absolutely!
It's called demanding justice.
She smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit and
deleted thirty thousand emails, that were under subpoena for her to surrender. Then she has the audacity to claim that "there is nothing to see here." Then to additionally claim that she is innocent. rrrrright. Guilty
100 percent.
It wasn't that long ago that black folks who were falsely accused
by an unruly mob demanding the same kind of "justice".
GuiltyShe smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit and deleted thirty thousand emails, that were under subpoena for her to surrender. Then she has the audacity to claim that "there is nothing to here." Then to additionally claim that she is innocent. rrrrright.
100 percent.
Hillary Clinton is the most investigated person in the US.
The director of the FBI concluded no crime was committed.
Given the claims you making are totally unsupported and
unsubstantiated,
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
President Trump didn't chant that
i didn't say that he did... i will say that he incited it, though...
On 06-11-19 18:09, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Impeachment or not <=-
All of this was and still is a complete waste of time.
The report came out sometime ago, if there was anything in there to
ACT upon those actions would of already taken place by now.
All of this was and still is a complete waste of time.
The report came out sometime ago, if there was anything in there to ACT upon those actions would of already taken place by now.
Have you read the public facing part of the report? It certainly does
not sound like it.
It wasn't that long ago that black folks who were falsely accused
by an unruly mob demanding the same kind of "justice".
Thank goodness, that more and more African-Americans (more to come) are no >longer looking to the Democrats for solutions to the issues. All that has >been delivered in the past were empty promises, which has been seen and
felt
very quickly as life continues to degrade to new lows.
The expectation of hope and change just never did anything of any
significance.
The job market did a complete turn around, that is the difference between
the lack of skill president (who said "The jobs are gone, and they are not >coming back") vs someone who knows how to turn things around to with
multiple
record breaking results, and not just in the job market.
to sShe smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit and >LL> > deleted thirty thousand emails, that were under subpoena for her to
surrender. Then she has the audacity to claim that "there is nothing
Guiltyhere." Then to additionally claim that she is innocent. rrrrright.
100 percent.
Hillary Clinton is the most investigated person in the US.
The director of the FBI concluded no crime was committed.
Yeah, because everyone thought that she would be Madam President.
Given the claims you making are totally unsupported and >LL>unsubstantiated,
Currently... Perhaps...
but I have a feeling that they will not remain that way.
Understand that I am no nostradamus, but I predict they these so called
unsupported and unsubstantiated claims will become known as facts of embarrassment.
ml> GD> It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no
excuse fo
ml> GD> this to be spoken in any context.
ml>
ml> but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
President Trump didn't chant that - I think you're experiencing context >issues. Rally attendees can chant whatever they want, but when a >congresswoman chants something about a co-worker (Trump) it makes for an >unproductive future.
There is a crime if the firing was done with criminal intent, e.g. to
twart the investigation into his wrong doings. That is just one of
the ten documented examples of obstruction in the Mueller report.
Read it.
All of this was and still is a complete waste of time. The report came
out sometime ago, if there was anything in there to ACT upon those
actions would of already taken place by now.
The findings are concluded
and it is finally over, the investigation was the final curtain,
you can twist it and turn it into any shape that you wish,
but at the end of the day it changes nothing.
Donald J. Trump is still the President
and he will be the President until the end of his next term 2024,
so get use it & stop being so triggered.
It does not matter what the circumstances were, there is no excuse
for this to be spoken in any context.
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
Absolutely! It's called demanding justice.
really?
Most Seriously..
Of course still I think the ways are best. Tarred and Feathered and carried through the cobblestone streets of Boston.
She smashed up blackberry's and treated hard-drives to bleach-bit
and deleted thirty thousand emails,
suggest you take that up with her lawyers... they were the ones that
did that...
I do not believe that any lawyer would have the ability to save her,
but chanting "Lock her up!" is allowed?
President Trump didn't chant that
i didn't say that he did... i will say that he incited it, though...
Ilhan Omar incited the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh. Hillary
Clinton incited Anthony Weiner's sexting. Andrew Cuomo incites human trafficking and drug smuggling. Everyone incites something.
"Because you'd be in jail." ~Donald Trump
"If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get
a special prosecutor to look into your situation - there has
Go ahead. Dig out the transcripts. Read the words of your
loony tunes president as he went toe-to-toe with Secretary Clinton
in the second presidential debate.
According to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll -
"If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get
a special prosecutor to look into your situation - there has
never been so many lies and so much deception."
~ Donald Trump, 2nd presidential debate
Really? What is he waiting for? His term in office is almost up.
Only a few months left to keep his campaign promise ...
no it is/was not... there is still more work to be done assembling everything to see if there is another step to be taken...
the only one here that is triggered is you ;)
I do not believe that any lawyer would have the ability to save her,
trying to change the subject again? i didn't say anything about any lawyers saving her... i said they were the ones that performed those actions... reading comprehension is a GoodThing<tm>...
no it is/was not... there is still more work to be done assembling
everything to see if there is another step to be taken...
It's Over!
There will be nothing of any significance coming from it.
To spite what backdoor that they built into it.
A couple of weeks I typed what his finding were or more importantly
the only one here that is triggered is you ;)
No Mark, I am not remotely triggered,
I am not the one talking about how this circus of a investigation was going to be the end of Donald Trump,
I am also not the one who points to falsehoods and other lefty fake
news about the President.
Yeah so NO, I am not the one who is triggered, just as I was not one
who was triggered before he was elected,
well.. well.. well.. tisk-tisk. Where are these loud mouths now? Hiding? That's ok... I like winning, specially when I'm right.
I do not believe that any lawyer would have the ability to save her,
trying to change the subject again? i didn't say anything about any
lawyers saving her... i said they were the ones that performed those
actions... reading comprehension is a GoodThing<tm>...
I really wasn't...
but tell me Mark, did these lawyers take it upon themselves to do
this? That's kinda of strange, don't ya think?
Lawyers doing such things that another hired thug could do just as effectively.
I wonder if these people were real lawyers or just people dressed up
in a pant suit, just like the witch who hired them.
have you even read the report???
On 06-12-19 08:40, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Impeachment or not <=-
All of this was and still is a complete waste of time.
The report came out sometime ago, if there was anything in there to ACT upon those actions would of already taken place by now.
Have you read the public facing part of the report? It certainly does
not sound like it.
public facing part?
What does that even mean?
Do you mean to say? When will it happen, when will that day come? That
One does not need to understand the legal mumbo-jumbo to know that
there was nothing found of any significance, as it relates to the President Trump.
All they care about is the headline and the final result of the
report.
N O C O L L U S I O N
N O O B S T R U C T I O N
On 06-12-19 18:25, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Gregory Deyss about Impeachment or not <=-
Time to face the truth. The president is a loser.
Better for him to give up politics and return to his golf game.
Even if nobody else will join him on the golf course.
On 06-12-19 22:21, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Mark Lewis about Re: Impeachment or not <=-
have you even read the report???
Reading the report is a huge waste of time which is equal to the
amount of time wasted that it took to write it.
It must of been an absolutely awful feeling to the reader once they realize that there is nothing within those 400+ pages that speaks to a crime being committed by the President.
I listened to his press release on the day the report was released.
Then I very carefully watched and listened to his spoken word that was provided weeks later by the man himself at his televised press
conference.
That is good enough for me, as it should be good enough for anyone.
ofhave you even read the report???
Reading the report is a huge waste of time which is equal to the amount
time wasted that it took to write it.
So you admit that you cannot handle the truth?
It must of been an absolutely awful feeling to the reader once they realize that there is nothing within those 400+ pages that speaks to crime being committed by the President.
False. The elements of a crime are very carefully laid out.
Time to face the truth. The president is a loser.
Better for him to give up politics and return to his golf game.
Even if nobody else will join him on the golf course.
The only problem with that is that if he is not elected for a second
term, he will then be brought up on federal charges of at least ten
counts of obstruction of justice as documented in the un-redacted part
of the Mueller report. The statue of limitations will not have expired
on Jan 2021.
ml> have you even read the report???
GD> Reading the report is a huge waste of time which is equal to the
GD> amount of time wasted that it took to write it.
So you admit that you cannot handle the truth?
So you admit that you cannot handle the truth?
When there is no smoking gun, clearly one can determine the gun did not
fire.
It must of been an absolutely awful feeling to the reader once they >DS>GD>realize that there is nothing within those 400+ pages that speaks to >DS>GD>crime being committed by the President.
False. The elements of a crime are very carefully laid out.
elements? more like vague accusations that allow the reader to lean right or
left - which ever political party that the reader affiliates with.
Poorly written, there are no clear and decisive facts and no clear language
that a crime was committed by Donald John Trump. (again this was
deliberately written in the way.)
It is the way it goes when you have to make stuff as you go.
Dancing around making fantastic and alarming statements, coming dangerously
close and then dialing it back, because those thoughts and feelings can not be proven.
In America we all (including Trump) We ALL are innocent, until proven
guilty.
Donald Trump fired James Comey because he was investigating
Russian interference in the US presidential election, including
their connection with the Trump campaign.
Regardless of party affiliation, no man is above the law. Including
the POTUS. Bob Mueller is a Republican, but his motivation to do his
job had nothing to do with party politics, but rather of enforcing
the law. The law is not what Donald Trump says, regardless of how
many times he might try to convince you of that.
Bob Mueller is not the kind of guy who makes stuff up.
Although he is a man of few words, he means what he says,
and says what he means. We all found that out when he
finally came out and gave a short speech on the matter.
seriously, you should read the report yourself so you can
make up your own mind instead of allowing an unknown to shovel shite
into your head... i've read it... dale's read it... others in here have read it... are we better than you because we took the time to read the report?
BTW: in case you can't tell, this conversation between us is over...
Yes I know, I watched it. He did appear to be clear and concise.
(and yet Mueller did not speak of a crime that was committed by Trump)
On 06-13-19 22:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Mark Lewis about Re: Impeachment or not <=-
seriously, you should read the report yourself so you can
make up your own mind instead of allowing an unknown to shovel shite
into your head... i've read it... dale's read it... others in here have read it... are we better than you because we took the time to read the report?
Challenge Accepted.
Ok, I'll read it, let me know where to get it.
I want the same version you and Dale have read.
I will put the url onto a thumb drive and then take it into staples or
the UPS store for printing, I will have it hole punched it and have it
put into a binder for reading.
seriously, you should read the report yourself so you can make up
your own mind instead of allowing an unknown to shovel shite into
your head... i've read it... dale's read it... others in here have
read it... are we better than you because we took the time to read
the report?
Challenge Accepted.
Ok, I'll read it, let me know where to get it.
It was not determined that there was no obstruction -- Mueller's
report documented evidence of at least ten instances for which Trump
would have been charged if he were not a sitting President.
It also says within the 400+ pages there was No Collusion and No Obstruction - perhaps you read it.
I want the same version you and Dale have read.
I will put the url onto a thumb drive and then take it into staples or
the UPS store for printing, I will have it hole punched it and have it
put into a binder for reading.
BTW: in case you can't tell, this conversation between us is over...
Ok Mark, that is fine, it's been fun as well as enjoyable.
Yes I know, I watched it. He did appear to be clear and concise.
(and yet Mueller did not speak of a crime that was committed by Trump)
That is 100% correct.
Things can be proven however by the proof of the inexistence of the
opposite,
Science is full of it.
Just follow the money.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y9xwzcze
Bob Mueller is not the kind of guy who makes stuff up.
Although he is a man of few words, he means what he says,
and says what he means. We all found that out when he
finally came out and gave a short speech on the matter.
Yes I know, I watched it. He did appear to be clear and concise.
(and yet Mueller did not speak of a crime that was committed by Trump)
This is not the gotcha moment that everyone was hoping for, not by a long
shot.
Before the report was out, the left was praising him and placing him upon
the highest pedestal known to exist as they were impatiently waiting with vengeance upon their faces. - they did seem like they wanted to be carrying pitchforks.
Donald Trump fired James Comey because he was investigating
Russian interference in the US presidential election, including
their connection with the Trump campaign.
The President does not need a reason to fire the FBI Director. The FBI
Director serves at the will of the President.
Regardless of party affiliation, no man is above the law. Including >LL>the POTUS. Bob Mueller is a Republican, but his motivation to do his >LL>job had nothing to do with party politics, but rather of enforcing
the law. The law is not what Donald Trump says, regardless of how
many times he might try to convince you of that.
You say that Robert Mueller is a stand up guy, ok I'll take that at face
value
but what about the other cast of players that made up the team.
It would appear that there were some real snakes in that group.
On 06-15-19 01:52, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Ward Dossche about Impeachment or not <=-
Yes I know, I watched it. He did appear to be clear and concise.
(and yet Mueller did not speak of a crime that was committed by Trump)
That is 100% correct.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump of having committed any crimes,
citing at least 10 instances dealing with obstruction of justice
in which Trump may be guilty.
Please do get your facts right.
Things can be proven however by the proof of the inexistence of the
opposite,
If it could have been shown that Trump was innocent, Bob Mueller
publicly stated he would have said so in his report. Fact is, he
did not exonerate Trump, citing "insufficient evidence".
Yes I know, I watched it. He did appear to be clear and concise.
(and yet Mueller did not speak of a crime that was committed by Trump)
That is 100% correct.
I believe that Ward was saying it is 100% correct that Mueller did not
speak of a crime by Trump -- and it is true that Mueller did not say
directly that Trump had committed a crime.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump of having committed any crimes,
citing at least 10 instances dealing with obstruction of justice
in which Trump may be guilty.
Please do get your facts right.
Things can be proven however by the proof of the inexistence of the >>opposite,
If it could have been shown that Trump was innocent, Bob Mueller >LL>publicly stated he would have said so in his report. Fact is, he
did not exonerate Trump, citing "insufficient evidence".
Your first sentence is accurate.
But "insufficient evidence" is not why Mueller did not say that Trump
committed the crime of obstruction.
As he carefully laid out -- Mueller was not allowed to charge a sitting
President with a crime and therefore could not say that a crime was committed.
The "insufficient evidence" had to do with the possible
charge of conspiracy in collaborating with the Russians --
mainly that he would have had to show that they (Jr., Kushner, and Manifort)
knew that it was a violation of campaign law to accept something of value from a foreign government.
Many examples of contacts between campaign officials and foreign governments
were cited, but none for which a charge of conspiracy could be reasonably charged with expectation of conviction.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 368 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:15:56 |
| Calls: | 7,895 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,968 |
| Messages: | 5,792,007 |