Comey: Trump Campaign officially under investigation by the FBI

[Felya]

still you have completely avoided the main topic of the comments which was the actual news article and instead focused on the website which you have a pre disposed opinion of so have decided to not give it a moments thought or checked other sources to see if they have similar articles. your immediate response is to reply with an incomplete picture of the topic just to satisfy your ego that any opinion differing from yours or from a site you don't like must be wrong.

Sorry, most of us are being bled to satisfy Hillary's demonic blood thirst, in Obama's FEMA camps of death. Don't believe me? Here are my sources:

https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-g...ps-across-u-s/
https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-h...twork-exposed/

[Ol Scratch]

LOL yeah, committing treason and colluding with hostile foreign nations, no big deal guys LOL

Do you have any proof of that?

You... you do realize that's what the phrase "under investigation" means, right? That they are, in fact, looking for proof of the claims.

And in the case of the FBI -- and unlike Trump, who just makes shit up and expects the government to investigate whatever he pulls out of his ass -- they almost assuredly have very strong reasons to suspect that it's true, enough to not only launch an investigation, but to publicly state that they're investigating it.

So, uh, yeah...

(What's even more baffling is you think a random person on the Internet would have the proof during the investigation. And you wonder why very few people respect your opinions...)

[Dea7h]

Spicer is implying that the British have the same level of influence in our elections as Russia does but for some reason everyone keeps keeps getting tied up in the Russian meme hard.

And you want to bring up McCarthyism? Did you even watch the FBI hearing today? It was MUH RUSSIA through and through. Replace russian with communism and it sounded the exact same; witchhunt as usual.

[Wyrt]

Spicer is implying that the British have the same level of influence in our elections as Russia does but for some reason everyone keeps keeps getting tied up in the Russian meme hard.

Why would we believe Trump's mouthpiece when he's been used to propagate Trump lies repeatedly?

[Felya]

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documen...nd-alex-jones/

documents proving Trump was wire tapped. do i believe this? that is not important. what is important is the information must be taken into account instead of pretending it does not exist just to try validate your own opinions.


learn this lesson for free. some will get defensive and reply with hate. others will grow as individuals.

There are no such documents in your article. There are two assertions being made... 1, that Operation Dragnet existed... and 2, that we should trust a person they admit at the end as not being trustworthy, because of how he remembers Trump's surveillance specifically. The court documents they claim back them up, are neither called out by name to reference, nor linked on the page.

Happy?

[Edge-]

Spicer is implying that the British have the same level of influence in our elections as Russia does but for some reason everyone keeps keeps getting tied up in the Russian meme hard.

Because all Spicer is doing is quoting a Fox contributor/analyst. That's the administrations "out" when they get called on their complete lack of evidence.

Also, because the entire notion is ludicrous and without any evidence or merit.

And you want to bring up McCarthyism? Did you even watch the FBI hearing today? It was MUH RUSSIA through and through. Replace russian with communism and it sounded the exact same; witchhunt as usual.

You either don't remember the McCarthy hearings at all, or you're intentionally misrepresenting today's hearings. One or the other, the comparison is total bullshit and little more than repeating Trumps bullshit smokescreen for his victimhood.

[schwarzkopf]

Lol are you basing your argument on the idea that these organizations follow the laws.

No - my argument is that these organisations have the ability to do what ever they want, and assuming they don't is akin to assuming no-one speeds or kills.

[Felya]

Spicer is implying that the British have the same level of influence in our elections as Russia does but for some reason everyone keeps keeps getting tied up in the Russian meme hard.

And you want to bring up McCarthyism? Did you even watch the FBI hearing today? It was MUH RUSSIA through and through. Replace russian with communism and it sounded the exact same; witchhunt as usual.

No, it just shows you have no clue what McCartheism was. You know that people were black listed for having movies that courts claimed propagated communist influence? You do know there was no need for an investigation to be had? You do know that like Trump, these were just celebrities, but unlike Trump... were not president of the US...

[schwarzkopf]

Being informed or not is a choice.

Not entirely, one needs a 'critical mass' of education to be able to be informed, or to know you aren't.

The current US system of education forces far to many people into the level of education below which you can't self inform reliably.

[mage21]

Nonsense. Gorsuch is a fine choice, but a conservative Supreme Court is less important than how it was achieved. Not sure if you read what I wrote last week about "norms", but the fact is, Mitch McConell's unsportsmanlike conduct in not giving Merrick Garland a vote WILL do two things (1) create an aura of illegitimacy around Gorsuch, and (2) eventually bite Republicans in the ass when it's their turn to be on the recieving end of "let's wait for the American people to elect a new President.

Respect for Traditions and norms is fundamentally conservative. Winning by any means, at any cost, is not. And saying "at least Trump got me a conservative supreme court" is still a betrayal of the essence of conservatism.

And the fact remains... and I'll say it again, if Conservatism can't deal with being in the minority, fair and square, in whatever setting, then it has no claim to legitimacy as an useful school of political and intellectual thought. Conservatism has to compete for relevancy, like anything else.

At the basis of our political system is the Common Law concept of "fair play", and the Supreme Court saga is just the culmination of the abandonment of a very important American tradition for the sake of near term political expediency.

No I did read what you wrote. I'm still wrapping my head around how Gorsuch is a negative achievement because Republicans waited until the election, and that was unfair. We should have ushered in an unbalanced Supreme Court because reasons, because it's somehow not right. There's nothing wrong with postponing the appointment until after the election, and I couldn't fault Democrats for wanting to do the same thing were the roles reversed. May not be happy about it, but this is politics we're talking about. And I'm sure Democrats were fine with it as they didn't expect the upset at the ballot box.

There will be no bite in the rear end. We have a balanced Supreme Court, and there's no illegitimacy about Gorsuch, and if people harbor those feelings, well, those feelings have little impact. And I'm just completely sure that Democrat opposition would have been kept to a minimum but for the Merrick Garland chicanery, and so now it's ON! I'm sure that's the case.

There is nothing catastrophically anti-conservative about the Garland/Gorsuch timeline.

No. What you're doing is actually building a 3000 mile monument to racism and intolerance.

If you were actually concerned about Border Security, you fund more drones, more remote sensing and you'd fund greater economic development in Central America to reduce the flow of immigration. The thing you would not fund is a largely ineffective static defense like a wall. These are not just my words. These are the words of Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly.

The wall is a political statement, not a security measure. It's a statement about keeping America white and keeping out "the browns". It is coming up at a time that illegal immigration has been declining for years, and at a time federal budgets are under pressure from growing entitlement programs. It is coming up at a time the US electorate is rapidly diversifying and we're moving from White Majority to White Plurality.

There is no legitimacy, whatsoever, in the idea that the wall in any way enhanced border security. Passive defenses like walls have long and sordid history of failure because determined "attackers", throughout history, routinely find new and innovative ways to defeat that. That was Kelly's entire point. This is also why Drones, coordination with central american authorities and sensors are better. Active defenses get results.

The way is a safety blanket. It is supposed to make people feel better about something, but it does nothing. And more to the point, it's inviting a moment where a future center-left American President, or a future center-Right Republican seeking to curry favor with this country's growing Latino population, personally strikes it with a sledge hammer in our very own "tear down this wall" moment.

You build that wall? You'll get to see that. Monuments to intolerance always get torn down in time.

I've read conservatives that have argued that walls are effective, and so suddenly now historically fiscally liberal Democrats have become the greatest budget hawks you've ever seen, worried about the cost. I think they're worried that their open borders policy aims are under threat, among other things. We have the most porous border of any country I can think of, hundreds of thousands a year. Some return, some come over, it's ridiculous. We have areas of United States land that warn citizens to stay away, because this land belongs to human and drug traffickers from south of the border. And so it's suddenly anti-Mexican to say, "Hey, this is a bit out of control." I think "anti-Mexican" and the sudden-onset budgetary hawkishness are excuses to oppose policy that they know will be effective, policies in contradiction to theirs.

You mean some silly little things with regulations or the EPA? I suppose you think you can feed a family of twenty with a bag of skittles.

No mage21... not even close. There is no serious discussion about government spending, reform, draining the swap or whatever else, without DIRECTLY attacking the largest grower of US government spending - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Discretionary spending? Piss off with that shit. There is no route to smaller government through curtailing discretionary spending. As I shared in the other thread, between 2014 and 2016, Medicare spending increased nearly $84 billion. Yes. In two years, we basically added 10.5 EPA's, 4.4 NASAs, or bought six Ford Class Aircraft Carriers.

There is no such thing as a conservative who talks about the EPA, or Department of Education, or "spending", without going after the three headed dragon. This is not new. This has been the fact of the matter since the 1990s.

I'm not going to defend every action Trump does. I know after looking at what he's done that he was a heck of a lot better than Hillary ever would have been, from a conservative point of view. You know, a conservative that I greatly respect, the great Ben Shapiro, also espouses your point of view. So it's not like you're in bad company. I just think you, like him, are wrong. That's what I think. We're the party of ethics and principles, but voting for Hillary or allowing Hillary to win is the most anti-conservative thing I can think of. I'm not on the train, Skroe, the we're-so-screwed-until-Trump-is-out train. He's depressingly immature in a lot of ways, and has moral failings for days, but he's also stubborn in a good way, doesn't let criticism change his behavior, determined, and is a skilled negotiator. He has a lot of pros, you just have look past the cons to see them.

[schwarzkopf]

Three years from now and $50 million dollars later nothing will be found. Every president since what? Nixon has had an investigation.

Yeah, but NO president EVER until Trump has been overtly and obviously doing illegal things. I mean the Russia stuff is one of a stack of issues Trump has.

Trump doesn't even try to hide it ...

[Paranoid Android]

Because all Spicer is doing is quoting a Fox contributor/analyst. That's the administrations "out" when they get called on their complete lack of evidence.

Also, because the entire notion is ludicrous and without any evidence or merit.

That source was pulled from Fox News

Fox News pulls Napolitano after his Trump wiretap claims

He isn't even a news source. He is a mouth piece. He had no sources, just a crazy person saying shit. Oh yeah he was on Alex Jones being a 9/11 Truther

[Felya]

Spicer is implying that the British have the same level of influence in our elections as Russia does but for some reason everyone keeps keeps getting tied up in the Russian meme hard.

Because it's stupid... there have been no evidence of Britain doing anything. He also didn't imply, but specifically listed the agency. Trump has now had several members of his administration and elections resigning due to Russian connection.

Also, British intelligence replying and CIA replying, is put an end to it. Trump's response to questions about it, were to ask Fox News.

[Dea7h]

You either don't remember the McCarthy hearings at all, or you're intentionally misrepresenting today's hearings. One or the other, the comparison is total bullshit and little more than repeating Trumps bullshit smokescreen for his victimhood.

"Wrong"

The whole thing was trying to make the collusion russian meme real. It's pure fear mongering designed to destroy Trump's legitimacy even though every other state has as much influence on our elections as Russia does. The only reason it's pushed so hard is because Russia can be played off as an evil boogeyman still. That's all congress and corporate media is trying to do. Make a boogeyman for you to be scared of. And it's working.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it just shows you have no clue what McCartheism was.

MCCARTHEISM

[schwarzkopf]

This explains a lot about Trump.

McCarthyism.....

[Belize]

Speaking of Russia, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16S04I

Uh-huh. That's not weird at all, or alarming.

[Dea7h]

could not have gone down by planes.

Well somehow WTC 7 fell down without planes but you don't seem to care about that.

Even though the clip you pulled is him talking about WTC 7.

Weird dude

[Felya]

The whole thing was trying to make the collusion russian meme real. It's pure fear mongering designed to destroy Trump's legitimacy even though every other state has as much influence on our elections as Russia does. The only reason it's pushed so hard is because Russia can be played off as an evil boogeyman still. That's all congress and corporate media is trying to do. Make a boogeyman for you to be scared of. And it's working.

Did Trump claim to have a relationship with Putin before elections? Did Trump ask what the meaning of the word "relationship" was, in his denial? Did Manafort resign due to connection to Russian oligarchs? Did Flynn resign due to lying to Vice President of US over his conversation? Did Sessions have to recuse him self from an investigation, due to lying about his Russian connection.

So, yes... you have no clue what McCarthyism was.

[Dea7h]

Ya, that's totally it! It's not that people are scared what the petulant child of a president might do at any given time.

Schrodinger's Trump. Trump simultaneously is going to attack Russia while also being friends with them.

[Felya]

Well somehow WTC 7 fell down without planes but you don't seem to care about that.

Even though the clip you pulled is him talking about WTC 7.

Weird dude

Why do you think Bush orchestrated this conspiracy?