We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[Forty Two]

Not the Democrats. They are the underdogs, just trying to serve the people, provide the needy with health care, and make the world a cleaner, safer, and more secure environment, while simultaneously respecting people's rights and pronouns, all while checking their own privilege. That's been verified by Politifact.

[Tero]

No medal? Special Comey golf cart at Mar-a -lago?

[Sean Hayden]

They could have been wrong before and right now, or right both times, or wrong, or dumb, corrupt...

-bleh, I can't be arsed, and I don't know how you can either. I guess it's just what you're into.

[Brian Peacock]

Merge'd

[Tero]

There's No One to Hold Donald Trump Accountable
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... le-w481604

[Hermit]

Not the Democrats. They are the underdogs, just trying to serve the people, provide the needy with health care, and make the world a cleaner, safer, and more secure environment, while simultaneously respecting people's rights and pronouns, all while checking their own privilege. That's been verified by Politifact.

Sarcasm fail. You'll not find - in this forum at least - a single person (except possibly for Tatt) who thinks of the Democratic Party as any better than the preferable of two bad options.

[Forty Two]

I think that's hard to believe. I think most ratz folks view the democrats as a better choice than the republicans. There were plenty of Clinton supporters here. Few trumpers .

[Brian Peacock]

And you'll probably find that those 'Clinton supporters' here simply said she was the least worst option on the table.

[JimC]

I think that's hard to believe. I think most ratz folks view the democrats as a better choice than the republicans. There were plenty of Clinton supporters here. Few trumpers .

Better only as the lesser of 2 evils...

And most commentators here were critical of Clinton for a variety of reasons, and would have shown more (but not unqualified) support for Sanders, but not for the Democratic Party as an institution...

[Woodbutcher]

And you'll probably find that those 'Clinton supporters' here simply said she was the least worst option on the table.

I agree. I like Bernie, although I also think that had he been elected he would not have gotten any support at all from either party. American politics is like binary, you're either for 1 or 0, none other.

[Tero]

[pErvinalia]

He's attempting to make himself untouchable by the law. Proto meaning beginning of.

Why would someone who was involved in the conspiracy to install Trump to this "proto" fascist position be in any way a threat to Trump?

You are assuming that he was involved in a conspiracy to install Trump. If he wasn't, which is almost certainly the case, then your argument falls down.

You know that, and I know that, but somebody needs to tell Schumer and Pelosi and Cohen and Reid and other Democratic politicians and operatives. They seemed to think Comey was involved in a cover-up of the Russian contacts and in league with Trump to defeat Hillary. When it was politically expedient for them to declare a conspiracy, they did it. Now, just a few months later, with no new information (as far as anyone has said), they think it's treasonous or Nixonian for Trump to have fired the guy they had "no confidence" in and who was, they thought, part of the nefarious plot....

So the real question is, was Comey a threat to Trump? Abso-fucking-lutely he was. That's the real point, not some confected conspiracy theory.

The Democrats confected a conspiracy theory?

So, were the Democrats confecting a conspiracy theory that did not exist in order to make it difficult or impossible for Trump to fire Comey, so that Comey could be in there helping the Democrats take down Trump? Or, did they make up the conspiracy theory in good faith?

Not surprised that when Trump does something incredibly suspect you focus on the Democrats. The real story here is what Trump has done and whether he is attempting to cover something up. Not political rhetoric from the Democrats.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why another thread was created about this. Until the merger -



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/p ... n-fbi.html

Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three congressional officials who were briefed on his request.

Mr. Comey asked for the resources last week from Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who also wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.

Mr. Comey then briefed members of Congress on the meeting in recent days, telling them about his meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, who is the most senior law enforcement official supervising the Russia investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself because of his close ties to the Trump campaign and his undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador.

This stinks to high heaven.

[pErvinalia]

Hopefully Trump can an appoint an FBI head that ignores the silly unfounded Russia lies, and goes after more important things, like Hillary emails

He was doing both. Trump was perfectly happy with him while he didn't know he was investigating him. This is proto-fascism. Good luck, America...

Trump found out Comey was investigating Trump, and then fired him? You have some reported evidence? Or, is this just what you speculate is happening?

Of course it's speculation. But that doesn't make the possibility that something very dangerous isn't happening here. The seriousness of this means that all resources should be directed to finding out the truth of what's going on.

Of course, I'm not surprised you are an apologist for this, like all of Trump's dodgy shit. Do you have any sort of credible theory as to why Trump would fire Comey now for his behaviour pre-election regarding Clinton (which Trump of course yugely supported back then)? Don't you think that reason sounds suspect? You don't think it's suspect given Comey just requested to bolster the investigation into Trump et al?

[pErvinalia]

the president did to Comey what no president had the courage to do to J. Edgar Hoover. Five presidents wanted to fire Hoover, with Harry Truman accusing him of running a police state and of blackmail. But all were afraid of Hoover, so he died in office.

Trump acted before Comey could get that kind of lifetime protection, which has no place in American democracy. At our best, we are a nation of laws, not of people who accumulate power and ruthlessly wield it without accountability.

The president didn’t have just one good reason to act. He had a choice among many.

The one he cited, Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server, is rich with irony, given its prominence in the campaign. And the irony doesn’t stop, with Democrats who not so long ago were furious with Comey over the Clinton probe rushing out condemnations of Trump for firing him.

“Nixonian” was a common theme, a shot both cheap and predictable. When you’re a hammer, everything is a nail. When you’re a Democrat, everything is Watergate.

Partisan nonsense. Bush administration ethics lawyer (an oxymoron, I know) has come out and caned Trump over this. As has McCain.