Under oath, John Kelly raises serious allegations against Trump
msnbc.com
Over the weekend, the allegations returned to the fore, and for good reason. The New York Times reported on Saturday:
John F. Kelly, who served as former President Donald J. Trump’s second White House chief of staff, said in a sworn statement that Mr. Trump had discussed having the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies investigate two F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. Mr. Kelly said that his recollection of Mr. Trump’s comments to him was based on notes that he had taken at the time in 2018. Mr. Kelly provided copies of his notes to lawyers for one of the F.B.I. officials, who made the sworn statement public in a court filing.
You are viewing a single comment
Don't think that's what the comment said... And I'm pretty sure Hunter pled guilty to a felony firearm charge and willfully failing to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes so, yeah, sounds like they're both dicks. The argument that "your dick is bigger than my dick" is hilarious though.
Jesus fuck
One side had a guy tax fraud and owning a firearm
One side had a guy try to violently overthrow the government in order to install himself as dictator
Gee, you're right, they're both equally bad WHAT THE FUCK HOW DUMB ARE YOU?
Well I got to enjoy a few weeks of it feeling different from Reddit around here...
The comment at the head of this was stating that no one should be above the law. (<- That is a period.) Not that no one should be above the law if their crime is a certain amount of awful... Not that no one should be above the law depending on their political alignment. No one.
Then the response was arguing that Hunter did nothing wrong! There's no evidence of a crime! You shouldn't say they're all the same!!! No one said their crimes are the same. No one said they're the same in any way beyond that they are citizens of a country that has laws and they should be held accountable if they break them... And yes, Hunter committed and admitted guilt to crimes... And it doesn't put a red hat on someone's head if they acknowledge a fact that doesn't fit in with your agenda.
I responded and enter you. You really weren't worth this response because you said the same dumbass thing the other person did. Arguing a point that wasn't made because you're so cocked and loaded to encounter one of those dumb right wingers that you think if anyone disagrees with you they must be wearing a maga hat. Pull your head out of your ass.
I wasn't talking about that. You also said
bOtH sIdEs
That's what I was calling you fuckin stupid for. Repeating bullshit propaganda.
No, no, you didn't say it...you just heavily implied it while winking and nodding in its direction. We're not stupid, fuck off.
Lol relying on telling the other person what they were implying to create an argument for yourself. Followed by saying "we're not stupid" as if you have a bunch of people around you're speaking for.
I said they're both dicks. They both are. You want to argue the size, you go for it, I'd agree that Trump 100% is the "bigger dick" of the two, he's absolute garbage, but since I'm not on some fanciful battlefield fighting in your war of the blues & reds, I wasn't concerned with who tarnished their side the most. My concern was more geared toward the fact that rich folks shouldn't get away with doing shit the rest of us can't. If you're going to make statements for you and, whoever else falls under "we," about whether or not you all are "stupid," you should make less assumptions, it doesn't help your case.
That's a favored tactic of the red side.
Both sides, impartial, enlightened centrism, yadda yadda.
It's sad because "both sides bad" can be a valid argument, if it hadn't been coopted as an undercover facist dog whistle.
True. In some cases it's important to bring up.
Everything needs context.
Anything to prevent "we don't want to live under a 2 party dictatorship anymore" from being an option, right?
Definitely don't want to suppress that fact, not disagreeing with you.
That's been my position throughout, the disagreement came from the other person assuming my stance because it didn't align with theirs. Much appreciated.
"if you're not with us, you're against us," is somehow better? The only options are the options YOU give me? Shew, you got authoritarian with a quickness. The whole seeing the world in black & white isn't a sign of much depth... It's also the primary reason it's hard to agree with "the red side" on a lot of their arguments. Hate something so much you start acting like it 🤦🏼♂️
The main difference is that now instead of constantly telling fascists to fuck off, I also sometimes get to tell tankies to fuck off.
Says this and a reply later says people aren't allowed to have opinions other than the ones (he/she/they?) offer, which is apparently "if you aren't blue, you're red." 🤦🏼♂️
You can piss off too, with your straw man and faux outrage.
🤦🏼♂️ exactly what you did when you joined the discussion arguing about a point that wasn't made?
That's not what pissing off looks like.
We both know what it looks like. Good day to you.
oh no some one took a plea deal. no if it can be shown he got special treatment as the presidents son, that i can outraged at. but people take plea deals all the time.