Comey: Trump Campaign officially under investigation by the FBI

[Zan15]

anyone remember these gems?



- - - Updated - - -

or this one



- - - Updated - - -

or this one

[drakensoul]

FBI Suggests Trump and Russia May Have Coordinated

[Mormolyce]

I already stated that I am not defended what he said because he has no proof and he shouldn't have said anything unless he had proof. I literally said Trump is a dumbass for saying this but you reply like I agreed with it. SMH

In bold: words you are using which remain incorrect:

Trumps campaign was wiretapped or at least part of it, we know this to be true

Some Trump associates might have been recorded during the investigation of other things. Not his campaign. And it probably wasn't a wiretap because this isn't the 1960s.

- - - Updated - - -

FBI Suggests Trump and Russia May Have Coordinated

And apparently more evidence is coming to light about Manafort.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7642916.html

[Gorgodeus]

Revoking gay marriage, is not conservative. Appointment of judges that promis to over turn Row v Wade is not conservative.

Those 2 are definitely Conservative core planks.. lol

Life Begins at Conception and Ends at Natural Death
Human life is nature’s continuum which begins at fertilization and is not interrupted until natural death. Constitutional personhood is the secular legal definition of the continuum of life. It is a law of logic that contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. If nature’s continuum of life is true, then the secular continuum of life must also be true because if the secular continuum of life contradicts nature’s continuum of life, one is false.

Marriage is Between One Man and One Woman
True marriage is only between one man and one woman. CP-USA supports a Constitutional Amendment that would outlaw gay marriage. Although ruled unconstitutional, continue to support the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows any state to not recognize the same-sex marriage license issued by another state.

http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/national-platform/

[Mormolyce]

I don't think that's theoretical.

I think in this case it'd be more like if Nixon tried to pardon Haldeman et al for their role in Watergate, and refused to step down himself.

[Felya]

Those 2 are definitely Conservative core planks.. lol

Life Begins at Conception and Ends at Natural Death
Human life is nature’s continuum which begins at fertilization and is not interrupted until natural death. Constitutional personhood is the secular legal definition of the continuum of life. It is a law of logic that contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. If nature’s continuum of life is true, then the secular continuum of life must also be true because if the secular continuum of life contradicts nature’s continuum of life, one is false.

Marriage is Between One Man and One Woman
True marriage is only between one man and one woman. CP-USA supports a Constitutional Amendment that would outlaw gay marriage. Although ruled unconstitutional, continue to support the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows any state to not recognize the same-sex marriage license issued by another state.

http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/national-platform/

Look at the date on mine:

https://newrepublic.com/article/7905...omes-the-groom

[Gorgodeus]

Look at the date on mine:

https://newrepublic.com/article/7905...omes-the-groom

Try reading what I posted, which is the taken from the official, current Conservative Party platform website. Yours is nothing more than a nearly 30 year old opinion piece. lol

[Mormolyce]

Look at the date on mine:

https://newrepublic.com/article/7905...omes-the-groom

There are always dissenting voices within an ideology, however mainstream conservative thought has been opposed to gay marriage until very recently.

The victory of gay marriage in the US has forced a sharp retreat on the part of conservatives in recent years though.

[Felya]

Try reading what I posted, which is the taken from the official, current Conservative Party platform website. Yours is nothing more than a nearly 30 year old opinion piece. lol

Did you happen to check who the executives of this "official" Conservative party? That party is as "official" as this one:

http://americanconservativeparty.com

... and 30 years was the point. I gave you a conservative rationale for gay marriage, from before 'don't ask, don't tell'...

- - - Updated - - -

There are always dissenting voices within an ideology, however mainstream conservative thought has been opposed to gay marriage until very recently.

The victory of gay marriage in the US has forced a sharp retreat on the part of conservatives in recent years though.

This isn't really true, because it hinges on the religious side of GOP. Something that is at this point wholly republican, but is part of the reason Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater claimed GOP was no longer conservative... thanks to Reagan...

[Gorgodeus]

Did you happen to check who the executives of this "official" Conservative party? That party is as "official" as this one:

http://americanconservativeparty.com

... and 30 years was the point. I gave you a conservative rationale for gay marriage, from before 'don't ask, don't tell'...

- - - Updated - - -



This isn't really true, because it hinges on the religious side of GOP. Something that is at this point wholly republican, but is part of the reason Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater claimed GOP was no longer conservative... thanks to Reagan...

The site you linked says nothing about supporting same sex marriage or allowing same sex marriage. All it says is each state should decide. They know how the Conservative states will go. No abortions, and no same sex marriage. Let's be realistic here.

[Paranoid Android]

I truly hope the Democrats get a subpoena for Trump's tax returns. I mean fishing in Benghazi lead to Hillary's private server.

[Skroe]

I truly hope the Democrats get a subpoena for Trump's tax returns. I mean fishing in Benghazi lead to Hillary's private server.

The thing is, I don't get how Trump thinks this is going to go down any other way.

Let's say Trump, against all odds, becomes a two term President. The odds are very very good that Democrats retake the House in 2018 or 2022. The reason the Democrats lost the house was because Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama basically left the Blue Dogs to die in 2010, and left the remainder of them to be devoured in 2012 and 2014. There are dozens of centrists-Republicans who COULD be Blue dogs or are in districts where blue dogs could win.

To put it another way, the far right that presumes that the Republican hold on the House is some law of nature is out of their goddamn minds. 2, 4, 6 years... it gets harder and harder to hold. The Republican majority eroded in 2016 and is projected to erode further, if not flip, in 2018.

The point is, the Democrats WILL be in a position to demand get the Tax returns before long. It _will_ happen. Delaying the day of reckoning is not preventing it.

Trump would be wise to spill it right now. But then again, he would have been wise to be the leader of the "we need to get to the bottom of this Russia business", to buttress his questionable legitimacy. He and his supporters, however, are not wise people.

- - - Updated - - -

FBI Suggests Trump and Russia May Have Coordinated

The smoke is getting smokier by the day.

[Wikiy]

The smoke is getting smokier by the day.

The scary thing, at least from what I've understood about the current situation over there, is that the people who still support him will support him even after an agency like the FBI prove that he did that (if he did). In fact, they'll support him even more - they'll see it as the "system" fighting back against the person who promised to purge it.

Either way, I'm glad my PhD is 3 years away. America has some of the best universities, after all.

[Kujako]

Either way, I'm glad my PhD is 3 years away. America has some of the best universities, after all.

Check our standing after the next three years under Betsy DeVos.

[lazypeon100]

The scary thing, at least from what I've understood about the current situation over there, is that the people who still support him will support him even after an agency like the FBI prove that he did that (if he did). In fact, they'll support him even more - they'll see it as the "system" fighting back against the person who promised to purge it.

Either way, I'm glad my PhD is 3 years away. America has some of the best universities, after all.

Once thr FBI proves Trump has been colluding with Russia (and they will) I will see those who still support him as no better than traitors. Our country needs to come first, not some delusional loyalty to Trump.

Until then, I see them merely as those with their heads in the sand. They don't want to be wrong, because being wrong on this is huge and is potentially one of if not the biggest political scandal in US history.

[Endus]

oh yeah, i know that. like, in the comey situation, i get it. but with like gorsuch today, and others during the whole process, that smug bullshit wouldn't fly.

you're there to answers my questions, you're gonna answer them.

It isn't "smug" at all. Comey was very specific. If it was a question he couldn't know the answer to, like "what was so-and-so thinking", he's say "I have no way of knowing that". Which is correct, and the proper response; so-and-so needs to be asked that directly. When Comey says "I can't comment on that", it isn't him pleading the Fifth, it's him literally being legally barred from answering because it pertains to an active investigation. He can be taken to testify in camera, with people who have security clearance enough to hear that testimony, but that's it; it CAN NOT be made public, and if Comey DID make it public, he'd face potential legal charges for doing so, even if it was to a public Congressional hearing like this.

[derpkitteh]

It isn't "smug" at all. Comey was very specific. If it was a question he couldn't know the answer to, like "what was so-and-so thinking", he's say "I have no way of knowing that". Which is correct, and the proper response; so-and-so needs to be asked that directly. When Comey says "I can't comment on that", it isn't him pleading the Fifth, it's him literally being legally barred from answering because it pertains to an active investigation. He can be taken to testify in camera, with people who have security clearance enough to hear that testimony, but that's it; it CAN NOT be made public, and if Comey DID make it public, he'd face potential legal charges for doing so, even if it was to a public Congressional hearing like this.

"like, in the comey situation, i get it. but with like gorsuch today" does it need to be bold too?

and it is smug, especially how most of them did it with a shit-eating grin. they're there to answer my questions. they can answer, or they can walk out and someone else can be picked.

[Machismo]

Not according to Rachel Maddow, who said US intelligence couldn't/shouldn't have continued the recording, when a US citizen calls in.

That would depend on what the investigation was regarding, who approved it, how time-sensitive the information was, and any number of other variables. it is likely that whatever was gathered may have to be destroyed.

[Endus]

"like, in the comey situation, i get it. but with like gorsuch today" does it need to be bold too?

and it smug, especially how most of them did it with a shit-eating grin. they're there to answer my questions. they can answer, or they can walk out and someone else can be picked.

Depends on exactly what you mean, then, I guess.

If they have knowledge of something, but it's not public because it's under investigation, they CAN'T legally comment on it.
If they DON'T have knowledge, they can (and should) say so.
If they won't talk because of personal involvement, they can plead the Fifth.

If they honestly know something they're free to disseminate without legal repercussions, and don't, at such a hearing, that's also legally actionable, but you're gonna need proof to demonstrate perjury. And short of that, we kind of have to default to the others.

And I've got no ideological reason to defend Gorsuch, so don't take this as me being partisan or something. I'm just saying this particular thing isn't something you can really take issue with, based on what info we have.

[derpkitteh]

Depends on exactly what you mean, then, I guess.

If they have knowledge of something, but it's not public because it's under investigation, they CAN'T legally comment on it.
If they DON'T have knowledge, they can (and should) say so.
If they won't talk because of personal involvement, they can plead the Fifth.

If they honestly know something they're free to disseminate without legal repercussions, and don't, at such a hearing, that's also legally actionable, but you're gonna need proof to demonstrate perjury. And short of that, we kind of have to default to the others.

And I've got no ideological reason to defend Gorsuch, so don't take this as me being partisan or something. I'm just saying this particular thing isn't something you can really take issue with, based on what info we have.

there were a few times he wouldn't give any indication as to his leaning on an issue simply because "this might come before me in court" ginsberg did the same thing, it's a shitty way of saying "you probably know how i'll vote on this, but i won't tell you here so i can get confirmed"

if it were me, i'd tell them to get out of the room and don't come back.