"I'm definitely for making a real example" "whether there's a basis or not"

I must simultaneously defend and attack Podesta here.

Defend: Making an example of does not necessarily mean murder the guy. In fact it almost certainly does not. And we will never be able to prove differently.

Attack: Podesta was willing to throw a staffer overboard EVEN IF PROBABLY INNOCENT (insufficient evidence) just to send a message to everyone else. In other words, "**** that guy who is trying to feed his family and will never find work again due to job history."

Wow, really Podesta?

No. Impeached AND convicted. That takes 67 senators. And we are only increasing our majority in 2018 and they know it. That's why the urgency to do it now while we have only 52. And while a couple Democrats are really Republicans, the same is true of our side. Collins and Murkowski vote with the Democrats far more than they do the Republicans.

That email is evidence, not a theory. Give VMF some credit for at least posting something on which we can debate instead of mere opinion.

The IC needs to be reminded of its place. Serving the people by serving the people's elected representatives, chief among which is Donald J. Trump.

The Left and the Media (but I repeat myself) turn every single thing he says and does into a 5-alarm constitutional crisis.

Everyone in the public who is not in the Rachel Maddow crowd is starting to tune y'all out.

Four more years is the net effect.

People use the term "hacking" to cover any sort of scenario where some party gains unauthorized access to information over a network. There's certainly technical distinctions between successful phishing schemes, social engineering, and exploiting vulnerabilities in server software directly (for example), but it's fairly common to refer to all of these as "hacking", and I have no idea why the distinctions would be politically relevant. Also I feel like I've written this response before :P

Its relevant because if the dnc was hacked then by definition there could be no leaker.

Does anyone here think Trump is engaged in a coverup via his firing of Comey? And if so, what do you think he is covering up? And what evidence, if any, do you have of it?

Well, that doesn't actually follow. Both could occur. But falling victim to a phishing scheme is definitely "hacking" if the alternative is supposed to be an intentional leak. The relevant part is that the info was gained in an unauthorized way.

I think the more interesting question is supposing that Trump is innocent of whatever he is being accused of (of which no one is exactly sure) and Comey wants to keep investigating

Why not fire him? Is it still a cover up if you're innocent?

Is there anyone that you think should be a check on Trump? Do you not think that the executive branch has a little too much power right now? Do you really want a Democrat exerting this much authority on the country whenever one gets elected to the presidency?

The current state of affairs was created by both parties. Do you expect Trump to give some power back to a congress that hates him?

Excellent point.

Luckbox for co-mod with Monkey.

1. Yes, the legislative and judicial branches. He can only assent to legislation, not create it.
2. No.
3. Whether I want it or not, the Democrat would have the right.

The snippet of email Vari quoted has no relevance to WikiLeaks or Seth Rich or DNC, which he should know, because we talked about it back in the day. In context "making an example" didn't even concern firing people, but rather not hiring them in the first place if they're suspected of leaking that they're being considered for a position.

For one thing, a person can commit obstruction of justice without having committed any prior crime. Second, and more important, the investigation was (primarily, and officially) of the other people in his campaign, so Trump's innocence would be of no relevance and he himself would not be in a position to know for sure that his associates were all innocent of all wrongdoing. Third, if Trump himself is innocent of any collusion but his top advisers were guilty of something, then there is still a very obvious benefit to Trump for that information never to see the light of day.

eyebooger, let me make this simple for you

There are a lot of pieces of garbage who are uninterested in details like "institutions of democracy" or "checks and balances" or "basic human decency". They are interested in only two things: gathering power for themselves, and doing as much harm as possible to people they don't like, by fair means or foul. They are called Republicans, and decent humans are now at war with them, whether you like it or not. Keep in mind they've spent the better part of the last two decades TELLING you they don't believe in these things, you just weren't listening to them.

They are not worth debating, questioning, or giving a fair hearing to, because they will not do the same for you, they're trying to -- literally -- exterminate you.

It would be best for humanity if someone would air a 30 minute special on Fox encouraging the health benefits of chugging Drano from the bottle. Until then, just understand, unlike the current Democratic leadership and most of the media, that there is no bargaining or reasoning with them. Treat them accordingly.

A bunch of Trump underlings are under investigation. Does Trump know for a fact that they're all innocent? If he has evidence to that effect, he should just hand it over to the FBI and then we can all go home.

I think Trump fired Comey because he saw Comey as being disloyal to him personally. Trump wanted a company man in the position - he probably wants one in every position not already occupied by a relative - and by investigating the Trump campaign's dealings with the Russians and by contradicting Trump's Obama wiretap claim in public, Comey proved he wasn't qualified. It's the authoritarian impulse in Trump.

This also explains the timing. If the firing had anything to do with the Clinton investigation, as the initial lie went, they'd never have retained Comey in the first place.

oh come on

Wow

"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day," is a funny quote.

"As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

"Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge."

nytimes

I guess I just assume that someday one of them will come around and self-reflect and think "yeah, this isn't good".

Probably a fruitless endeavor, I know.

Now we know at least one thing that was worse than originally reported: the intel ****face shared with Laurel & Hardy was from Israel, and Russia is of course BFFs with Israel's worst enemy, Iran.

It is pretty shocking the average person doesn't care about intersectionalism and trans rights and Russian having allegations. At least they distract is from talking about too many people in prison and stagnating wages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-...kileaks-2017-5