Read: James Comey's memos

[PoliSciXtina]

Comey has something Trump can only dream of. Consistency.

This is so true!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nota bene]

Another severely disappointing day for the retards on the Left.

I wonder how demented they’re going to get when Mueller reports there is nothing implicating Trump and his campaign? Phew... it’s gonna be ugly... and funny.

None of this is funny.

 

[Renae]

We have SS because far too many people don't save, that hasn't changed.

Interesting Read:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v48n1/v48n1p14.pdf

NO, we have SS because FDR was a huge believer in Government and this is just another sad legacy of that man's assault on the Constitution and the American people.

 

[Fenton]

Another severely disappointing day for the retards on the Left.

I wonder how demented they’re going to get when Mueller reports there is nothing implicating Trump and his campaign? Phew... it’s gonna be ugly... and funny.

I have a question. What if anything in those memo's justified the appointment of a special council ??

 

[Anthony60]

Trying to tell me I don't belong here? Ha. You're the one who thinks you can see into people's brains and knows Mueller's next move. Delusional. I belong here just fine, deal with it. If you can't handle me, scroll past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you don't. You can't even understand a simple post. You think that when someone posts an opinion about what they think is going on, they are claiming that they are able to read someone else's mind. So much so that you decide to abandon the subject and latch on to that as somehow being an issue. Absolutely bizarre. Get your crap together and think a little bit before you start posting nonsense.

 

[JoeTrumps]

Comey has something Trump can only dream of. Consistency.

yes, he's consistently been a spineless douche bag.

Comey's going to be on Dancing With the Stars and Trump will still be POTUS.

 

[Anthony60]

yes, he's consistently been a spineless douche bag.

Comey's going to be on Dancing With the Stars and Trump will still be POTUS.

Can you believe that moron said didn't he didn't find anything wrong with team Hillary deleting emails and smashing cell phones? "Lot's of people smash cell phones" the idiot said. This guy was a disaster for the FBI and our country. He had no intention of ever charging Hillary with anything, no matter what the evidence said. What a bunch of crooks in the Obama administration.

Oh, and he doesn't leak either.

 

[Saladin4]

Can you believe that moron said didn't he didn't find anything wrong with team Hillary deleting emails and smashing cell phones? "Lot's of people smash cell phones" the idiot said. This guy was a disaster for the FBI and our country. He had no intention of ever charging Hillary with anything, no matter what the evidence said. What a bunch of crooks in the Obama administration.

Oh, and he doesn't leak either.

President Obama is NOT under investigation...That idiot trump and his goons are...You need to keep up

 

[Xelor]

NO, we have SS because FDR was a huge believer in Government and this is just another sad legacy of that man's assault on the Constitution and the American people.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, in that FDR promoted it and so on.

No, in that were we to have no system that ensured that one would be to some extent provided for in one's later years, the masses would break into flat out revolt. Indeed, pretty much all of the U.S.' social welfare systems exist for that reason. Remember, the U.S. is a country that was designed by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs. Even today and for the most part, if one is an entrepreneur, one will make out pretty well and, on average, better than folks who are. Hell, the preference given to business owners evident even in the differences in income tax treatment accorded to SEP contributions versus that of an employee's own Social Security contributions.

 

[cabse5]

That doesn't matter?

The FBI was still investigating so nothing changed with Comey's firing.

Sorry I overlooked your response to my post, Mason.
Congressperson politics doesn't justify or end the independent council, IMO. One side wants to call the investigation off yesterday and the other wants to keep probing indefinitely.
Yes, even the FBI continued probing without Comey, for example, but, to put the proper emphasis on the investigation, all people who want a perpetual investigation (and eventual conviction of Trump) need the independent council.

Side note: I think there seems to be some public disgust growing to the length and the means to which Mueller's investigation is heading because, for example, the DNC filing of the DNC's civil law suit hasn't been a hit with the public, even with many dems.

second side note: The Russian collusion with the Trump campaign investigation will not end with a bang but with a whimper. I guess, GOPs will continue to allow the investigation until the public has had enough and GOPs feel their seats are safe in upcoming elections.

 

[cabse5]

GOPs will continue to allow the investigation of the 2016 even though they think there's no there, there for congress seats sake.

And, IMO, the time is now to push back. The voting public is beginning to grumble.

 

[Anthony60]

President Obama is NOT under investigation...That idiot trump and his goons are...You need to keep up

Good point. The man in charge during the Russian possible tampering, during the felonious leaking of unmasked private citizens. The President that exchanged emails with Hillary, but claimed to no nothing about her server. The guy responsible for loosening the rules for information sharing, when he was on his way out the door. The man who used a designated liar, Susan Rice (or is it spelled Reich?).

Yeah, he's not under investigation at all. He's not even been ASKED about it, let alone investigated. That tells you all you need to know about this phoney investigation.

 

[Renae]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, in that FDR promoted it and so on.

No, in that were we to have no system that ensured that one would be to some extent provided for in one's later years, the masses would break into flat out revolt. Indeed, pretty much all of the U.S.' social welfare systems exist for that reason. Remember, the U.S. is a country that was designed by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs. Even today and for the most part, if one is an entrepreneur, one will make out pretty well and, on average, better than folks who are. Hell, the preference given to business owners evident even in the differences in income tax treatment accorded to SEP contributions versus that of an employee's own Social Security contributions.

Yes, the "Masses of stupid" must be controlled by their betters. Because with out the guiding hand of a caring Govt, the people cannot survive! Sad that people feel that way.

 

[OscarLevant]

Common Sense left the country very shortly after the southern states warmly cheered the 12th Amendment that instituted the Electoral College. They knew then that they could "fudge" the electoral-vote in conservative-politicians favor. Which is what happened five times in American history when the popular-vote winner loses the presidential election.

Which is what has happened twice in the past 20 years, and a mind-bent American public (slavely hooked by the BoobTube) swallows all sort of political commentary and acts accordingly to elect Rabidly Right candidates. Like Donald Dork, who LOSES the popular-vote but wins the Electoral College vote.

America deserves better of its "so-called democracy", but it aint gonna find it on the Rabid Right. Where Right-is-might, and money-is-political-power to manipulate elections.

Let's remember the Golden Rule of democracy. Which is the fact that whoever is elected by the popular-vote is a representative sent to help "govern". (So, all that one need do, is manipulate that popular-vote. Which is why the Electoral College was devised and the south insisted that it be part of the constitution without which it would not sign.)

For as long as that "mistake" is not corrected, the popular-vote cannot be an expression of the "democratic right to vote". Moreover, another manipulation of the popular-vote is none other than "gerrymandering" itself also a mechanism originating in the same period of history in America...

PS: To any who have an interest in history, and the way mankind can repeat great-mistakes, they should learn how Hitler remoulded political-thought in Germany in the post-WW1 years. And why/how? Here's why/how:
*The Germans were reacting to a recessionary period that was directly brought-about by the mindless "payments" that Germany owed to France and England due to WW1.
*Which required taxation to obtain and deliver, thus lowering Busines Investment and Public Demand (for goods/services) during the1920s.
*So when Hitler came around he refused all further "payments" and got on with building the German economy, but around a military structure. Which put people back to work, and that is all they wanted.
*What he produced of course, was a fascistic-nation that did his bidding out of fear and not personal volition.
*Leading up to his sparking of WW2 and loss of that war.
*What American foreign policy did was to assure that Germany prospered economically - perhaps out of a sense of fairness (and to avoid the previous mistake that brought about Hitler) but mostly because of the Communist Bear that was present in the East.

Interesting points, a cursory look is that I agree, without scrutinizing your post, but it is not on point in this thread.

 

[Excon]

It is damn easy in this "debate forum" to make one liner (often sarcastic remarks) to one another. That is not "debate" however. It's mindless sarcasm that happens on a Message Board.

No, I am not saying that your above remark is sarcastic. It's a one-liner response to a one-liner argument.

But, in any Real Debate Forum, one-liners just don't happen because without reflection and references and thus good argument to support their claims, there is no real debate.

And it is by real-debate that we learn:
*The point of real-debate is NOT TO WIN. Which is very American; we are obsessed by the notion of winning. As if debate were a physical sport.
*The objective of any real debate is a mental-game of defending one's point-of-view with bonafide arguments.

Methinks ...

All of the above to say nothing applicable to what you quoted. Go figure.
You clearly stated; "It's all about corrupt intent." My pointing out that your comment is not a definitive argument and why it isn't, is applicable. Your failure to refute that and deflect away from it, is only an acknowledgement that you know your prior rebuttal is frail.

---

Watergate investigation was 2 years before it bore fruit.

Watergate was based in actual criminal violations of the law.
This investigation was based in unsupported claims of collusion (which isn't a crime).
Big difference between the two.

Be patient.

Hilarious. That is clearly something you need to be telling those on the left who spout their daily mouth foam over what anonymous sources are spewing.

Whatever is there to be had, if there is anything to be had, he will get it. If not, then he will be cleared.

That clearly shows biased thought and where you are actually coming from.

If one journalist can dig up all this info, I can imagine what Mueller will find.

The same non-criminal acts, and given the fact that he has not bothered to interview Natalia Veselnitskaya, it makes his investigation look it look suspicious.

 

[Excon]

Are you sure that decision doesn't set a precedent that would be used should Trump try something illegal?

1. This is like pulling teeth.
2. You still have not clarified to which situation you think this applies. Do you not understand that such a distinction will limit the response to what is being discussed, or is it your intent to baffle?


Again.

What you cite references the firing of an Independent Counsel in regards to the Independent Counsel Act that was in effect at the time.
That Act, which was law at the time, was found to be Constitutional and applied to the President because it "did not violate the principle of separation of powers because it did not increase the power of one branch at the expense of another".​

and

They do not agree with you as that decision only addressed the law that was in effect at the time that pertained to the firing of an Independent counsel, not an FBI Director which we are discussing.​

​

So the precedence in the decision is that a law created by an equal branch of the Government (such as the one the decision is based on) that does "not increase the power of one branch at the expense of another" does not violate the principle of separation of Powers and is thus Constitutional.

Now show me a law that is in existence that applies to what we are discussing. You can't because it does not exist. No law prevents the President from firing the FBI director, and in case you are also arguing the other aspect of possibly directly firing the Special Counsel the requirement that it be the AG comes from an internal subordinate regulation, not a law passed by an equal branch of the Government.

 

[Excon]

We don't know who has been leaking, but you can cite no evidence they're coming from Mueller's team.

Who else, besides team Mueller is privy to said information? No one.

Two weeks ago, you'd be repeating over and over there is no evidence anyone was looking at Cohen,

I would? Wrong as usual. And your claim is far outside of reality.

Two weeks ago, you'd be repeating over and over there is no evidence anyone was looking at Cohen, and then we heard about the raid, and found out he'd been a target for months. That's by far the biggest threat to Trump to emerge to this point, and NOTHING about that was leaked.

1. Did I claim every thing was being leaked? Nope.
It is your speculation that thinks this is a threat. But the fact is that you do not know if Cohen has any such information that would actually be threat to Trump.

It's awesome how you can read current events about which you are nearly entirely ignorant, and conclude things! It's a gift of yours I guess.

What an ignorant comment.
What I stated is what is known by us.
Again.

Four other indictments, no flips and Trump is still not a Target at this time. That is not an uncertainty. ​

Do you really not understand the above comment?
If any of those folks provided criminal information about Trump, Trump would be a target at this time, but the fact is that we know he is not at this time.

I'm just curious, though, who is Gates flipping on, since you know things about which you are in fact ignorant, and what is he telling Mueller? Thanks!

Hilarious.
Who said Gates flipped, or do you not know what the meaning of flipped is?

DoJ rules and precedence are that they do not charge POTUS with crimes. You're limiting your discussion to whether Trump can be properly indicted on "obstruction" when the DoJ rules that Mueller is following says NO, he will not be indicted, and it wouldn't matter what they found. So it's not an exercise in futility to discuss impeachment.

When Congress is not likely to impeach it most certainly is an exercise in futility.

What's hilarious with you is you selectively omit arguments you're unable to address, but include that one that you dismiss with sarcasm. Interesting and dishonest way to debate IMO.

You are speaking nonsense.
Pointing out that there is no evidence of obstruction clearly addresses your comment.

And what do you have? Speculative bs. It's cute how you apply different standards to your own arguments.

iLOL
Pointing out factual evidence is not speculation.

The evidence we have in regards to obstruction is that Trump publicly started numerous times that he wanted the investigation to continue.
Even Comey's memos support Trumps claims.​

That is fact, period.

You don't know what will be in that report, so any conclusions you have about that are....speculative bs.

Doh!
I speak to that which is known at this time. Not to what will be concluded. Learn the difference.

I addressed my concerns about the "target" stuff that you ignored.

A silly reply.
Again.

No. I am not ignoring anything.
There is no reason to even suggest that will occur and thus has no bearing at this point in time.
Secondly is is absurd speculation as Trump is not a Target. Cohen is the target for something Mueller suspects is criminal. That is all at this time.
If that changes, fine, discuss it. Until then there exists no reason. ​

 

[Excon]

Exxon replies compulsively.

I've drug him around by his compulsion til I got gigged for it.

iLOL
It appears as though this Exxon fella is pretty astute in letting you think you were doing one thing when the exact opposite was happening. Which of course is evidenced by what you say the outcome was. :lamo

---

Yeah, I'm familiar with the drill, and I'm not sure what motivated me to engage. My wife is traveling, so there's that, but I do have other options - tying flies for example!

I blame Trump!

What you are familiar with is having your position trumped by reality.

 

[OscarLevant]

All of the above to say nothing applicable to what you quoted. Go figure.
You clearly stated; "It's all about corrupt intent." My pointing out that your comment is not a definitive argument and why it isn't, is applicable. Your failure to refute that and deflect away from it, is only an acknowledgement that you know your prior rebuttal is frail.

---

Watergate was based in actual criminal violations of the law.
This investigation was based in unsupported claims of collusion (which isn't a crime).
Big difference between the two.

With watergate, indictments were made, and there were more to come....then Nixon stepped down.

How many indictments have been handed down? How many more to come?

It's not about "collusion" that's a media thing, its about crime and "following the money", just as it was for watergate. what crimes might that be?

Maybe money laundering? Maybe conspiracy? Who knows, crimes have been committed thus far, so what are you talking about, "big difference"? I"m not seeing much of a difference here. In fact, money laundering with Russian oligarchs for years is a bigger deal than the petty watergate break in.

Hilarious. That is clearly something you need to be telling those on the left who spout their daily mouth foam over what anonymous sources are spewing.

People in the Nixon Admin downplayed Watergate in it's initial stages, as well. I was in my 20s, I remember it. Most of those "anonymous sources" are coming directly from the WH. WH leaks are usually a cry for help from staff, who are concerned about what they see and have no way other than leaking to get their story told.

That clearly shows biased thought and where you are actually coming from.

I basically said either Trump will be implicated or he will be cleared (and you underlined it), that sounds like a fair statement, to me.

The same non-criminal acts, and given the fact that he has not bothered to interview Natalia Veselnitskaya, it makes his investigation look it look suspicious.

It's not over till it's over, as the old saying goes.

 

[Excon]

With watergate, indictments were made, and there were more to come....then Nixon stepped down.

How many indictments have been handed down? How many more to come?

Irrelevant as they are dissimilar investigations.

It's not about "collusion" that's a media thing, its about crime and "following the money", just as it was for watergate. what crimes might that be?

No evidence of any crime. It is about Mueller hunting for a crime. That is called a witch hunt.

Maybe money laundering? Maybe conspiracy? Who knows, crimes have been committed thus far, so what are you talking about, "big difference"? I"m not seeing much of a difference here. In fact, money laundering with Russian oligarchs for years is a bigger deal than the petty watergate break in.


People in the Nixon Admin downplayed Watergate in it's initial stages, as well. I was in my 20s, I remember it. Most of those "anonymous sources" are coming directly from the WH. WH leaks are usually a cry for help from staff, who are concerned about what they see and have no way other than leaking to get their story told.


I basically said either Trump will be implicated or he will be cleared (and you underlined it), that sounds like a fair statement, to me.


It's not over till it's over, as the old saying goes.

Blah, blah blah, Watergate and irrelevancy. Figures.