Does anyone really think trump accepts "educating" from anyone about anything other than a military general?

He'd easily ignore a general, too, unless it was one he had a mancrush on like Flynn.

He's learned a lot from Bannon and Roger Stone

LOL Putin. Yeah he learned how to get pissed kompromat'd on the hard way.

Lol yeah "learned" is not the right word for trump. Instinctualized?

But I think this is more than Putin having pics of his tiny penis. Trump genuinely admires Putin for his power and money.

He does, as long as it doesn't conflict with his world view. Think about when that sheriff or whoever it was explained asset forfeiture to Trump.

I disagree that it wasn't his job stand up to POTUS. It became his job when Trump threatened to compromise his and the Bureau's integrity. Standing up to Trump was the choice Yates made, the choice Bharara made, and the choice Comey himself said he wished he'd made (sooner or more directly anyway). Even Trump might have been better served that way. Regardless, I don't believe Comey did what he did because he was intimidated.

Bharara and Yates were not in a room alone with the President when they took their stands. Comey followed up their meeting by proceeding through the chain of command, telling his immediate boss Sessions never to allow this to happen again. Comey was 100% in the right on every step. That it's his responsibility to tell the POTUS, a man with dozens of lawyers and advisers, not to act like a cartoon mobster is laughable.

If you could make things disappear by laughing at them, Trump wouldn't be president. But it doesn't much matter- Comey did stand up to Trump, well enough. And collected evidence against him that we wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

Copying from the most stereotypical Trumpkin's facebook page that I know



These ****ers just live in an alternate reality

You know, Comey could've done the world a favor by actually investigating Trump officially, instead of trying to play both sides of the coin like this. There isn't a lot of evidence, but I think that he could've gotten cause to launch an investigation. The discussion would've been VERY DIFFERENT.

**** like this is inexcusable and deserves lawsuits at a minimum.

**** free speech when it involves intentional falsehoods designed to incite people to civil unrest/disobedience/WAR. Fox would be 1000x better off yelling fire in a crowded building.

Jesus, that Facebook page in unbelievable. Every other post is some **** about Dems being full of hate, fearing for children, something about Hilary etc. It's all I can do not to respond to these ******s.

Uh bro he stood up to him when he went on record about it in the senate committee

Fox News is available on Sky in the UK but is so unpopular with the regulator, Ofcom, that it was compulsorily blacked out for the whole of election day until after the polling stations closed because it couldn't be trusted not to break the Broadcasting Act 1996 and Communications Act 2003. But hardly anyone watches it anyway.

Aren't there limitations like that in the US? I don't understand how a major media company with strong influence over like 45% (anything over 20% IMO) of the population can completely flip the truth in such a NEGATIVE manner to provide cover for and impede investigations into an extremely corrupt administration, rile up hate, anger and fear among an incredibly biased racist nationalist group predisposed to hate and anger to begin with, and lots of other dangerous concepts, based on what they absolutely know to be utter bull****.

Spin is one thing. But using your influence to further the corrupt agenda of creating chaos in an alternate reality to cover up ongoing crimes? That's gotta violate some things somewhere.

Ads have to be true(ish), not the shows supported by ads.

I could be wrong, but I dont think that FB page is official Fox? It says "for fans".

There is so much crazy **** out there right now. I always thought the Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac was a big ball of nothing, but this account is making me rethink:

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/...armac-meeting/

Not official. Surprised it generated so much outrage. Have you guys like not received a right-wing chain mail before? Not looked at the comments on any story linked on Drudge once the Drudgetards get at it?

"10 reasons why Comey's testimony proved Trump is 100% innocent and we WILL lock her up!!!" is like the Zack Snyder filmography of right-wing discourse. It's not like a masterpiece of ****ing insanity, it's not going to get nominated for any awards, but it's your standard fare entry in the genre.

Maybe it was that blatantly false piece of Russian intel that "forced" Comey to go public about the email reopening

Yes, that would obviously be an important thing to know.

Before that, too. He was never going to give Trump what he wanted. But he didn't make that clear to Trump. He was trying to walk some middle path. In effect, he led Trump on until Trump got frustrated enough to fire him.

Not since the Reagan administration bullied the Fairness Doctrine out of existence in 1987, no. Hence Fox News and the coarsening of Stateside public discourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

In Britain, broadcast and online news must observe a statutory standard of 'accuracy and impartiality', enforced by Ofcom. Normally, if you breach the standards, Ofcom will just issue a notice of censure. But if you keep ignoring the notices they can just take you off the air.

They've never done that -- until election day last week, when they forbade Fox to broadcast on air or online at all while the polling stations were open. Ofcom have censured both Fox and RT several times in the past, but they've lost patience with Fox. The only reason Fox is even allowed in the UK is that hardly anyone watches it, and the few who do are mostly just watching to point and laugh.

No, you don't get to do that. Trump is literally making it as tough as possible for people to find out ANY truth about what he did last year that won him the election. There was enough concern to find evidence, enough evidence to start an investigation, and enough investigations to cover various angles of the corruption. There is ZERO doubt of Trump's financial corruption. ZERO doubt of his intent to obstruct justice, ZERO doubt of his intent to intimidate witnesses, ZERO doubt of his intent to cover up crimes committed by others in the campaign, who later went on to have the most significant security clearances. And there's very little doubt that something Russian and highly illegal is hidden among the ruins.

So no, we don't get to go after Comey for doing nothing illegal and slightly bending norms to catch the guy above who is acting immune to repercussions and throwing it in everyone's face as he leads what was the world's best Democracy only a few long months ago.

What else, do you prefer Mike Flynn still be head of national security right now over the leak that ended his job and brought a lot of the above facts to light?