That alone doesn't invalidate your response, but your response is your typical poo-flinging that doesn't actually answer his question.

ok well then, since obama lied, I guess it is ok for trump to.

How about naming a President that didn't lie? Or are you saying that Trump should be the only President held to the 100% honesty standard.

I agree though - no one should be held in such low contempt as to be compared to an Obama standard., but I don't think that's the point here.

Well, something productive may actually come out of the Comey testimony.

Dem: We need to investigate whether Lynch gave cover to Clinton campaign
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-t...ver-to-clinton

Now perhaps the American people will see what a trial about real 'obstruction of justice' will look like.

Yes, because I want his opinion, not yours.

Dianne Feinstein wants a full investigation into possible obstruction of justice in Comey's firing, though. According to you guys, doesn't that mean she's a crank who has no idea what obstruction of justice is

As always, there is no possible way for you Trumpkins to explain how an AG suggesting an FBI director use a different word is a worse offense than a president telling an FBI director to drop an investigation into his friend and former national security advisor.

(oh wait, I forgot, there is a possible way: if you listen to the one SCOTUS judge that got overruled by 7 of his colleagues LOL)

Do you honestly believe Obama lied more than Trump does?

It's ****ing incredible that the marching orders Fox is giving to their foot soldiers here is that the President was allowed to tell Comey to shut down the investigation.

I mean, even if you were right about the law, and you're not, but even if you were...

Does that really make Trump look good?

But did he tell him to shut it down? There seems to be some disagreement about that point.

No one with a functioning brain stem is in "disagreement" over what cheeto was doing.

LOL. Who let you out of your cage?

Black people yell and point guns a lot?

I think Obama's lies have hurt the American people more than Trump's.

I take Trump seriously, not literally.

Admitting that YOU lack a functioning brain stem is the first step. Good luck on your recovery.

You flipped that back around him like a champ ... you should go into comedy!

Of course you don't dispute that everyone knows what his intention was. The only question is whether he was doing it to protect a senior official, or to both protect flynn and himself due to his own complicity.

But as long as you've got enough frauds in government willing to lie to protect the king -
that's one path to impeachment you won't have to worry about. Good luck in the midterms!

Incorrect. Everyone doesn't know what his intention was.

I don't have to dispute what continues to be disputed. Shouting into the wind is a fruitless endeavor.

There isn't a single person reading this thread who believes either of you when you say that you're not sure what his intention was. You really need to try a bit harder if want to create an effective smoke screen.

I am paying attention to the nitty gritty as usual, which is, ironically, why I have so many basic questions. The phrase "hacking the election" is a phrase I have read, not one I came up with. I'll just set that to the side, maybe indefinitely. What I am wanting to know is how team Trump actually helped the Russians in the alleged hacking into the emails. I've gone over some possible scenarios in other threads. Those had to be attempts at comedy because I couldn't think of how it would actually go down, as in what role could team Trump possibly play that seems reasonable. Apparently I'm not the only one drawing blanks on that topic. Strangely, that doesn't seem to slow most people down. Actual evidence would be nice, but do we even have a realistic notional scenario?

It seems like you're not focusing on the Russia conspiracy. I think that is wise. Having looked into several conspiracy theories and believing in several that most don't, from the 2004 Ohio national election being stolen for Bush to the government killing MLK (please someone come at me on that one) to my 9/11 agnosticism, if I am telling you there is no "there" there...well...then there probably isn't.

It seemed to me that rigor is a turn-off in alpha.

I'm not so sure it is a red flag. It is probably obstruction, which is a crime itself, but I don't think it is highly indicative of Trump's guilt on the underlying issue. Tump would want Comey to back off whether Flynn (or Trump) was truly guilty or not.

It depends on how you judge the legitimacy of the investigation.

Let's switch to your world, the fictitious world where the government actually made a case against AQ for 9/11 using evidence. This is a world where Deuces and Fly are on the same side of the 9/11 debate, me because of real supporting evidence, you because you believe everything the government tells you and sometimes it isn't lying.

In this fantasy world, if Comey were to reopen the 9/11 investigation as a proper crime investigation, and you were president, would you let him go on? What if Comey was investigating something equally groundless which just so happened to also be pushed by your political opponents?

If you believe that the Russia conspiracy is just bitter mud slinging, which it plainly is, then you have to think Comey's firing was justified. You can't let your FBI director chase ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The impact of economic sanctions against russia (from the us and EU) over the past several years have been huge. Donald could easily have made policy promises for personal enrichment without having any hand in the hacking itself.

He's repeatedly lied about his ties to russia, and several members of his inner circle have been caught lying about their meetings. The idea that this is even close to as improbable as 9/11 conspiracy theories is laughable.

Deuces do you just like know, literally nothing about this story?

Are you a MICHAEL FLYNN truther??!?!?! A Manafort truther? A Sessions truther?


For ****'s sake, if Daddy was so ****ing innocent, why did he ask Comey to let the Flynn thing go and then fire Comey when he didn't? What was he afraid of the FBI finding?


This is even better than when you assumed there was something scandalous in the Podesta emails.

I mean there's another real ****ing obvious heuristic that explains why someone who thought Paul Wolfowitz would flee to Israel after helping them do 9/11 would be so willing to strawman the scandal here(Trump didn't help the Russians hack. What are you talking about? The Russian hacking helped Trump! Lazy and illiterate).

Daddy stands against the (((globalists))) so he activates Deuces anti-establishment sympathies.

I mean, Deuces, for ****'s sake, when you try to clown me for "believing everything the government says" because I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, you realize you're regurgitating the official American government line here, right? Trump is President. The administration line is that there's no Russia scandal and it's just Dems nursing sour grapes over Hillary.

The problem with your reasoning is that the American people voted for Trump and the economic policy choices he was going to make. Russian sanctions were probably a very small factor in the election, but when you vote, you get the candidate's policies as a whole.

That said - the real dick move was Obama screwing with Russia after the election was over. Imagine if George W. Bush, after McCain lost the election said - "Nah, I don't want to pass TARP any more. Let those companies go bankrupt since my party lost the election fair and square." Same sour grapes as when Clinton left the White House, now sour grapes again. Can't wait for Trump to get rid of all of the Obama-traitor holdovers.

Your allegiances are suspect when you equate American banks to Russia.

It's a safe assumption that you hated Russia the day before trump got the nomination and loved Russia the day after.