• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official James Comey testimony thread

Russia is trying to damage American democracy Comey says.

Succeed well in that they did by helping Trump get elected (my word's not Comey's).
 
Lol

Comey was the leaker on his memo, ******* hilarious!

Sorry my poor leftists, looks like another nothing burger. Does this feel like Election Day all over again? Are we going to have to go through the five stages of grief again?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I didn't make a factual claim. I constructed a hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...

Right, prove that the sufficient condition is factually true. Maybe, if you can do that, I will consider the consequences of your hypothetical.

Of course, then you can explain how their substantive legislative agenda could not be pursued under President Pence...
 
logger said:
Lol

Comey was the leaker on his memo, ******* hilarious!

Sorry my poor leftists, looks like another nothing burger. Does this feel like Election Day all over again? Are we going to have to go through the five stages of grief again?
Click to expand...

Succeeded in his aim of getting a special council appointed.

Dear Leader is very upset at that development. Though it was a result of his own actions (firing Comey, tweeting about the "tapes").
 
Tony Stark said:
Succeeded in his aim of getting a special council appointed.

Dear Leader is very upset at that development. Though it was a result of his own actions (firing Comey, tweeting about the "tapes").
Click to expand...

Well that and the surprising ethics of Sessions.
 
TraneWreck said:
Right, prove that the sufficient condition is factually true. Maybe, if you can do that, I will consider the consequences of your hypothetical.

Of course, then you can explain how their substantive legislative agenda could not be pursued under President Pence...
Click to expand...

My question is trying to get at what the sufficient condition is. How much is the statement "party over country" a matter of perception for the observer (you) or actor (republicans). If it is the latter, than it would seem to be irrelevant if pence could pursue the agenda, only whether they think it is true.
 
I am sincerely baffled, people don't think the president asking an FBI director to stop an active investigation multiple times and requesting a loyalty oath, then firing that director when he doesn't get what he wants is nothing?

What would constitute "something"?
 
BobTheCoward said:
My question is trying to get at what the sufficient condition is. How much is the statement "party over country" a matter of perception for the observer (you) or actor (republicans). If it is the latter, than it would seem to be irrelevant if pence could pursue the agenda, only whether they think it is true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a very pointless, very silly gambit that, at best, would require me to rephrase my claim. No one reduces important events to boring semantic navel-gazing more quickly.

If you cannot substantiate your hypothetical there is no value in considering it.

I'm not going to play your tedious games through this. Feel free to bother someone else.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
I am sincerely baffled, people don't think the president asking an FBI director to stop an active investigation multiple times and requesting a loyalty oath, then firing that director when he doesn't get what he wants is nothing?

What would constitute "something"?
Click to expand...

Trump is a Republican and therefore it is impossible for him to do something wrong.
 
TraneWreck said:
I am sincerely baffled, people don't think the president asking an FBI director to stop an active investigation multiple times and requesting a loyalty oath, then firing that director when he doesn't get what he wants is nothing?

What would constitute "something"?
Click to expand...
A series of trials in the aftermath of some degree of barbarity or carnage that rises to the level of being a stain on humanity's legacy.

There might still be some *cough* 'skeptics' remaining even then, however.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
TraneWreck said:
I am sincerely baffled, people don't think the president asking an FBI director to stop an active investigation multiple times and requesting a loyalty oath, then firing that director when he doesn't get what he wants is nothing?

What would constitute "something"?
Click to expand...

Lol

You really don't know do you? The word "stop" wasn't used, oh my!

He got fired because he's a moron and messed up this investigation the whole way through, don't you remember when you wanted him fired prior to the election?
 
Ziggurat said:
Just imagine what would have happened if the Attorney General had met in private with the husband of someone under investigation by the FBI.

Oh, wait...

See, it's not even your current outrage that I mind. It's your complete hypocrisy and ignorance about the kind of stuff that's been going on for a long time.
Click to expand...

Which one was the POTUS in that scenario?
 
TraneWreck said:
Yeah, this is a very pointless, very silly question that, at best, would require me to rephrase my claim. No one reduces important events to boring semantic navel-gazing more quickly.

If you cannot substantiate your hypothetical there is no value in considering it.

I'm not going to play your tedious games through this. Feel free to bother someone else.
Click to expand...

It is not pointless. When you say party over politics are you trying to make a comment about some sort of measure of the well being of the country, or are you saying that republicans are making a conclusion themselves that they are advancing a self interested agenda over what they think is best for the country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom