Originally Posted by Pete F.
Most people in the world blindly follow their leaders assuming the best, it's human nature. She has the same viewpoint as you and fully supports her government, counting on them to be correct. She has seen the USA, went to school here for many years.
She could not understand why in the USA people did not feel like they did in China.
In China she said the leaders know the right thing to do and of course the people and media support them.
The original instance that I used the term "full" support was in the context of his trade war with China. And it was a postulation as to what effect it would have on China re negotiations in the "trade war" (fixing the trade imbalance and China's theft of secrets) if there was solid backing in this country for Trump's attempt to get China to cooperate: "If Trump had the full support of our political machines and our media and of the American people, and was a lock to be re-elected, China might well think differently about stalling or negating a deal that would end tariffs."
The next time I said it, and to which you refer, I further added that support for him as President (still in relation to the trade negotiation) also includes full support of the constitutional office of President, in this case a duly elected President, rather than trying to remove him by bogus investigations, accusations, and destruction of character. And the very sentence just before that (and which you cleverly omitted in your response) I even specifically said "Pete, I was not suggesting that "full support" for Trump meant lockstep like the enforced lockstep imposed in China." The rest of my post went on to more fully fill out the total context and meaning and consequences of supporting a President democratically elected by the people as opposed to trying to remove him by deceitful maneuvers merely to gain power.
As far as investigating the possibility of Russian influence on our 2016 elections (the purpose of the Mueller investigation) Trump's failure to cooperate and obstruction, along with people refusing to testify or pleading the 5th is reason enough to question if he knew of, aided or abetted Russia's hand in his election.
He cooperated. Nothing was obstructed. And let's not forget our constitutional right not to testify against our self. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution. The defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. So Mueller had no choice, after doing a thorough investigation, to declare that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute. You can't accept that. Or you just don't want to. And here you are left with a nebulous supposition that there is enough reason to question. The problem for you is that there is, as Mueller said, not sufficient evidence to turn your question into fact.
If you think there are no connections between Trump and Russia look at John Dowd's letter to the Intelligence Committee dated October 3rd:
Be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump. Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman have also been represented by Mr. Giuliani in connection with their personal and business affairs. They also assisted Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing in their law practice. Thus, certain information you seek in your September 30, 2019, letter is protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product and other privileges.
What is the source of Parnas and Frumans funding?
A Russian oligarch.
What are they now charged with?
|