In 'highly unusual' move, DOJ secretly invited reporters to view texts sent by ousted FBI agents - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976744]Obama never seized power through treason and then assaulted the Free press and tore down the investigative bodies who had the authority and responsibility to invest and prosecute the crimes committed by him and his administration. Obama's crime was being a black Muslim Kenyan who hated Christianity and wanted Sharia law. Don't pretend that the legitimacy of these two positions are in any way comparable. The outrage surrounding Trump is based on what he's [B]done[/B], whereas the outrage around Obama was based on [B]who he was.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't even think this comparison is worth talking about dude. Obama received hate for a ton of things. Almost every single thing brought up against him though was false, un true, unsupported, unreasonable, and unsubstantiated. Trump is receiving hate for things he does, says, and behaves like and the quality of work he's doing. People on the right hated Obama because of his skin colour, and the lies peddled by Fox News and the like. People hate Trump because he's highly likely to be a criminal who cheated his way into office, and has abused the position he has and has used it as a childish weapon against those he doesn't like. The fact that people like Silence have equivocated the two to be equal levels is patently untrue, absurd, false. Really, it's a fucking lie and I don't know how to phrase it any other way. It's a lie that we're still running with. That's why Trump is so much more dangerous than Obama ever could have been to the right. Obama was just a regular guy who made a few mistakes along the way, a decent president but not amazing. Trump is literally the worst president the US has ever seen, but you can't get a consensus on that from even fair weather republicans it seems

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52976651]So if Trump removes Mueller from his post, your response would be nothing? You wouldn't care? React? You wouldn't consider democracy severely damaged at that point? Well that's too bad, because it would be severely damaged at that point, and it would be irrevocably damaged if you and your country men do nothing about it.[/quote] I wouldn't consider our democracy damaged. We can still vote him and others out. And yes, I would care and I would do as much as I could (emails and calls to representatives, donating to opponents, voting people out, etc.). But I'm not going to show up at the nation's capital and riot because I'm angry. [quote]I think it would be FAR more damaging than you are leading on. It would effect a mindset, that mindset would rule the next 10-20 years of decisions made in the United States, leading to a feedback loop.[/quote] Then we'll have to agree to disagree that it will damage our democracy. The only mindset it will affect is one that's small and on it's way out anyways. [quote]Duly elected official removes the person investigating him of criminal suspicions, Democracy isn't damaged, or hurt? It clearly is. [/quote] So you mean we can't vote for new representatives or another president after that? Is that all we have to do to destroy our democracy? [quote]The GOP and Republicans seem pretty happy to destroy LITERALLY ANYTHING to get a "WIN". They have made this clear in their rhetoric, and in their attempt to elect Roy Moore, in their dogged pursuit of Net Neutrality, and in other fields like Taxes and Healthcare. Anything they can get done is a "Win" to them, even if it is matter of factly against what they wanted. It's a partisan nightmare right now. Trusting that group to preserve democracy when they stand to gain from it's demise is batshit.[/qote] [quote]If Trump removed Mueller, all of what you said isn't important anymore. That's why BDA's rhetoric is what it is at this point. Because even if he did that, we apparently will have apologists who suggest we do nothing, but probably wouldn't have felt AT ALL the same under Obama. [/quote] I never said do nothing. I said rioting and trying to remove people by force, creating a civil war is probably the worst idea. [quote]You're finding ways to mitigate the seriousness of Trump possibly removing Mueller. If you want to tell him to calm down and act more rationally, I have to tell you to examine this situation more critically.[/quote] I never said it wasn't serious. And I have examined the situation critically and came to the conclusion that Trump getting rid of Mueller is by far not the point of no return that people are making it out to be. [quote]So what would be the solution to Trump removing Mueller?[/QUOTE] Impeachment and/or reinstatement of Mueller. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976744]Obama never seized power through treason and then assaulted the Free press and tore down the investigative bodies who had the authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute the crimes committed by him and his administration. Obama's crime was being a "black Muslim Kenyan who hated Christianity and wanted Sharia law." Don't pretend that the legitimacy of these two positions are in any way comparable. The outrage surrounding Trump is based on what he's [B]done[/B], whereas the outrage around Obama was based on [B]who he was.[/B][/QUOTE] I'm not saying that Trump and Obama are comparable, because they are not. I'm saying you're using the same overblown rhetoric about rioting and throwing people out of office that right wing nutjobs used during his tenure, and neither times is it warranted. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52976764]I don't even think this comparison is worth talking about dude. Obama received hate for a ton of things. Almost every single thing brought up against him though was false, un true, unsupported, unreasonable, and unsubstantiated. Trump is receiving hate for things he does, says, and behaves like and the quality of work he's doing. People on the right hated Obama because of his skin colour, and the lies peddled by Fox News and the like. People hate Trump because he's highly likely to be a criminal who cheated his way into office, and has abused the position he has and has used it as a childish weapon against those he doesn't like. The fact that people like Silence have equivocated the two to be equal levels is patently untrue, absurd, false. Really, it's a fucking lie and I don't know how to phrase it any other way. It's a lie that we're still running with. That's why Trump is so much more dangerous than Obama ever could have been to the right. Obama was just a regular guy who made a few mistakes along the way, a decent president but not amazing. Trump is literally the worst president the US has ever seen, but you can't get a consensus on that from even fair weather republicans it seems[/QUOTE] Read my words and understand them: [B][U]I AM NOT EQUIVOCATING THE HATE OBAMA RECEIVED TO THE HATE TRUMP IS RECEIVING. UNDERSTAND THIS.[/U][/B]

If you don't have a problem with Mueller being removed from this investigation, then you're a pussy with clearly no respect to the democratic heart of what America is supposed to stand for. If you're not outraged by the sheer amount of obstruction to the necessary justice in finding out the truth behind the fraud and treason that has raped our country and countrymen, then you're a blind pussy.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52976886]I wouldn't consider our democracy damaged. We can still vote him and others out. And yes, I would care and I would do as much as I could (emails and calls to representatives, donating to opponents, voting people out, etc.). But I'm not going to show up at the nation's capital and riot because I'm angry.[/QUOTE] Why do I feel this is just disingenious? Why do I feel that if guns were under threat, people like yourself would march to protect them from the government over reach? is it the piles, and piles of rhetoric, and precedent that would make me feel that many people who would fall onto the "right" wouldn't react the same way were it an issue they cared about? [QUOTE]Then we'll have to agree to disagree that it will damage our democracy. The only mindset it will affect is one that's small and on it's way out anyways. [/QUOTE] I think sitting back, and writing angry letters like you're the UN is in-effective in a situation where the sitting president is actively disrupting investigations into his actions. And the people who support him? Support him disrupting that activity. [QUOTE] So you mean we can't vote for new representatives or another president after that? Is that all we have to do to destroy our democracy?[/QUOTE] Yes, that will single handedly instantly solve all the issues. It'll be a vulnerable transition period, and with your country being what it is right now, I don't trust it to make it through that in a good position for anyone but the powerful. [QUOTE] I never said do nothing. I said rioting and trying to remove people by force, creating a civil war is probably the worst idea.[/QUOTE] I don't think even BDA was saying "Go to war". I don't think going to war is the right option, but I don't think just writing letters to representatives who frankly don't care about you, is going to fix that issue. [QUOTE]I never said it wasn't serious. And I have examined the situation critically and came to the conclusion that Trump getting rid of Mueller is by far not the point of no return that people are making it out to be. [/QUOTE] If Trump gets rid of Mueller, you guys have an issue as a people. Because if you don't react loudly, swiftly, and with anger that "No this isn't okay" then it'll be ignored and it will be acceptable. It'll take your nation actually getting angry and actually pressuring their representatives in masse, and maybe a thousand strongly worded letters arriving fast enough will do something, but I'm pretty sure having an open protest about it is even better. [QUOTE]Impeachment and/or reinstatement of Mueller.[/QUOTE] That'd be the ideal but we can't know that would happen in this climate. [QUOTE] I'm not saying that Trump and Obama are comparable, because they are not. I'm saying you're using the same overblown rhetoric about rioting and throwing people out of office that right wing nutjobs used during his tenure, and neither times is it warranted. [/QUOTE] When is it ever warranted to be fucking angry then? Only when you allow it?

Apparently, once you're elected you are above the law. Silence, the problem with your absurd argument is that the implications of what you're saying are that any elected official has the absolute power to do whatever they fucking want, and that nobody can tell them otherwise until somebody else wins an election. This is NOT the case. Trump and his cronies have NO right to kill this investigation. None. To do so, and get away with it, would be the single greatest erosion of constitutional checks and balances in the entirety of US history. Trump being elected does not mean that he is allowed to tear down the checks and balances established by our constitution to prevent the president from having unchecked power, you hopeless mook. The act of firing Mueller and killing the investigation into the crimes committed by Trump and his associates would be an unprecedented assault on the very fabric of our democracy. The only appropriate response to such an assault would be the immediate arrest of all responsible parties, and failing that, the forced removal of those parties. Nobody is above the law. Not even the president has absolute power. If he is allowed to get away with what he appears to be angling towards, and is not immediately removed from office and locked in a cell pending a trial, then that will no longer be the case.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52977717]Apparently, once you're elected you are above the law. Silence, the problem with your absurd argument is that the implications of what you're saying are that any elected official has the absolute power to do whatever they fucking want, and that nobody can tell them otherwise until somebody else wins an election. This is NOT the case. Trump and his cronies have NO right to kill this investigation. None. To do so, and get away with it, would be the single greatest erosion of constitutional checks and balances in the entirety of US history. Trump being elected does not mean that he is allowed to tear down the checks and balances established by our constitution to prevent the president from having unchecked power, you hopeless mook. The act of firing Mueller and killing the investigation into the crimes committed by Trump and his associates would be an unprecedented assault on the very fabric of our democracy. The only appropriate response to such an assault would be the immediate arrest of all responsible parties, and failing that, the forced removal of those parties. Nobody is above the law. Not even the president has absolute power. If he is allowed to get away with what he appears to be angling towards, and is not immediately removed from office and locked in a cell pending a trial, then that will no longer be the case.[/QUOTE] He doesn't have unchecked power. We saw this with his executive orders. And I'm not saying that elected officials are above the law. They can still be prosecuted, but from what I understand, the president can't be prosecuted while in office. He needs to be purged first. And no, I don't want him to get away with it, and I don't think he will. We want the same thing here, in case I didn't make that clear. I guess I just have more faith in our government's checks and balances than you do.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52977836]And I'm not saying that elected officials are above the law. They can still be prosecuted, but from what I understand, the president can't be prosecuted while in office. He needs to be purged first. And no, I don't want him to get away with it, and I don't think he will.[/QUOTE] But if he successfully fires Mueller, and the American people doesn't revolt, he will get away with it? The point is that yes, right now Trump is not above the law, but if he fires the person investigating him, he will effectively have circumvented the law.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52977982]But if he successfully fires Mueller, and the American people doesn't revolt, he will get away with it? The point is that yes, right now Trump is not above the law, but if he fires the person investigating him, he will effectively have circumvented the law.[/QUOTE] Exactly this. Trump is not above the law, and thus using his authority to kill the investigation into his criminal activities cannot be allowed. If he succeeds in doing so, and is unchallenged by the people, Trump will have established that he [I]is[/I] above the law, and in so doing destroy the very checks and balances that exist to prevent just such an occurrence.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52977836]I guess I just have more faith in our government's checks and balances than you do.[/QUOTE] Why would you ever have faith in self-serving corrupt politicians? That's kinda the blatant flaw with every facet of your argument in this thread. You're putting faith in people who don't deserve to have your faith at all. [QUOTE=Medevila;52978384]Half of the voting public in the US is [I]supportive [/I] of impeding investigations of the administration.. food for thought[/QUOTE] It's not half. It's way more than it should be but it's still maybe only half of Republican voters and a tiny portion of Democrats who are misguided or just stupid. The majority of people are in support of the investigation.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52977982]But if he successfully fires Mueller, and the American people doesn't revolt, he will get away with it? The point is that yes, right now Trump is not above the law, but if he fires the person investigating him, he will effectively have circumvented the law.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52978370]Exactly this. Trump is not above the law, and thus using his authority to kill the investigation into his criminal activities cannot be allowed. If he succeeds in doing so, and is unchallenged by the people, Trump will have established that he [I]is[/I] above the law, and in so doing destroy the very checks and balances that exist to prevent just such an occurrence.[/QUOTE] An investigation is nothing like a court trial. You can investigate someone more than once without violating double jeopardy. How many times did they reopen the Hillary investigation? To say that him firing Mueller is circumventing the law is ignoring the fact that he can be investigated over and over and over again.

But he would have already established that he can arbitrarily fire investigators who investigate him, and otherwise impede disrupt, or derail investigations into his interests without consequence... Are you being for real right now, or are you just fucking with us? How can you not see the problem here?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52979366]But he would have already established that he can arbitrarily fire investigators who investigate him, and otherwise impede disrupt, or derail investigations into his interests without consequence... Are you being for real right now, or are you just fucking with us? How can you not see the problem here?[/QUOTE] You say without consequence like he couldn't be impeached and the investigation resumed. You're saying that there is no possible outcome but the worst possible, and that's not true.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52979377]You say without consequence like he couldn't be impeached and the investigation resumed. You're saying that there is no possible outcome but the worst possible, and that's not true.[/QUOTE] Dude, everything I have said here has been on the condition that Trump [I]isn't[/I] impeached and the investigation is effectively [I]halted[/I], and I've been pretty forward about that. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52974869]If the administration moves to impede this investigation, and that obstruction [B]is not met swiftly and decisively by the Republican dominated congress[/B][...][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976125]Mass protests and civil unrest, at a minimum, and the forced removal from office of all government officials [B]who did not move to protect the sanctity of this independent investigation[/B][...][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976179]Do you not understand the consequences of Trump [B]and the GOP[/B] killing this investigation?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52976358] Our military, law enforcement agencies, judicial system, [B]and Congressional government[/B] will be charged with the responsibility to immediately act on such a move[...][/QUOTE] If Trump moves to kill this investigation, and if the GOP dominated congress backs his play, then the only recourse for the public is mass civil disorder until statutory order has been restored, and those responsible for that coup are made to face justice. That's been my position from the start, and it hasn't wavered. If congress takes swift and decisive action to reinstate the Mueller, protect the investigation, and impeach Trump and his administration, then all is well -- or at least as well as things can be under those circumstances. If they fail to do so, then they have effectively just toppled the checks and balances on the power of the president.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52979377]You say without consequence like he couldn't be impeached and the investigation resumed. You're saying that there is no possible outcome but the worst possible, and that's not true.[/QUOTE] Look at the flimsy reasons being used to delegitimize Mueller's investigation. The investigation is being criticized for having an agent with an anti-Trump bias, even though he was fired when said bias was discovered. If that is grounds for killing the investigation, and the public doesn't complain, then that's a boundary that can be pushed like Trump already has so many other boundaries. I realize this is a slippery slope argument, but would you really be surprised if the next investigation was criticized for less?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52979377]You say without consequence like he couldn't be impeached and the investigation resumed. You're saying that there is no possible outcome but the worst possible, and that's not true.[/QUOTE] You basically keep ignoring everything that's said to insist that everything will be alright, and his obstruction of it would be short lived. He can obstruct it. If the people don't react with the proper outrage, he will get away with it. That's why we're saying people will have to be outraged. I just don't understand why you suddenly turn into the U.N and start writing firmly worded letters when it's a cause WE care about but if it's a cause you care about it's far more reasonable to be upset?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980031]I just don't understand why you suddenly turn into the U.N and start writing firmly worded letters when it's a cause WE care about but if it's a cause you care about it's far more reasonable to be upset?[/QUOTE] Probably because there's a ton of stuff in between a "firmly worded letter" and violent rebellion.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980031]You basically keep ignoring everything that's said to insist that everything will be alright, and his obstruction of it would be short lived. He can obstruct it. If the people don't react with the proper outrage, he will get away with it. That's why we're saying people will have to be outraged. I just don't understand why you suddenly turn into the U.N and start writing firmly worded letters when it's a cause WE care about but if it's a cause you care about it's far more reasonable to be upset?[/QUOTE] Are you implying I don't care because I'm against a riot or violent overthrow of our government?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52980171]Are you implying I don't care because I'm against a riot or violent overthrow of our government?[/QUOTE] I just feel it's not entirely true because if your guns were being taken away, would you not march or be doing more than a strongly worded letter?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52980171]Are you implying I don't care because I'm against a riot or violent overthrow of our government?[/QUOTE] You clearly don't seem to have the balls to admit that being nice and writing petitions isn't working. The GOP doesn't give a left nut fuck about strongly worded letters from the constituents they're elected to represent. The threat of turmoil on the doorstep to their cozy safety blanket up north will be the only answer if all general avenues of law are circumvented and cheated.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980188]I just feel it's not entirely true because if your guns were being taken away, would you not march or be doing more than a strongly worded letter?[/QUOTE] Depends on the point at which it is. This is akin to talking about an armed revolution because a news article came out hypothesizing a confescation bill passing. It makes people look like a crazy extremist. You write letters when the bill is being created. You march when your senators are showing support. You revolt when they pass it. There are levels of escalation that are appropriate to the situation. You write letters when he's posturing to fire Mueller. You march when he does. You revolt AFTER congress fail to do anything about it. But there is no point talking about revolting when we aren't even to the point where he's posturing.

My personal points of open rebellion would be: 1) Has the government, wholesale, abandoned the constitution? (Say the president and congress were to totally ignore a Supreme Court decision, or the Congress were to start putting laws into effect without approval of both houses, etc.) 2) Are free elections no longer happening? If the answer to both of those is "no," then open rebellion is going too far.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52980235]My personal points of open rebellion would be: 1) Has the government, wholesale, abandoned the constitution? (Say the president and congress were to totally ignore a Supreme Court decision, or the Congress were to start putting laws into effect without approval of both houses, etc.) 2) Are free elections no longer happening? If the answer to both of those is "no," then open rebellion is going too far.[/QUOTE] What would you say if Congress started stepping voter suppression up to 11 (which is something I consider quite likely to happen soon)? Enough to fudge democracy to the point where they guarantee to stay in power in 2018 and beyond, even if they wouldn't have otherwise? Then would you support open rebellion? Voter suppression is already RIGHT NOW at a point where you could argue free elections are no longer happening in many places.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52980235]My personal points of open rebellion would be: 1) Has the government, wholesale, abandoned the constitution? (Say the president and congress were to totally ignore a Supreme Court decision, or the Congress were to start putting laws into effect without approval of both houses, etc.) 2) Are free elections no longer happening? If the answer to both of those is "no," then open rebellion is going too far.[/QUOTE] Can we clarify "free election"? It took a staggering turn out of the black population in Alabama to vote Roy Moore down, despite the large statistical presence of them in the state to be represented fairly. Both sides are quite guilty of gerrymandering and other such techniques, but the GOP does hold the honour of the most actions at restricting voting and the most effective ones at that. Texas, for instance, has quite a few areas that are particularly bad that are designed to almost specifically counter act the presence of liberals in the major metropolitan areas. I can go on, but this isn't isolated.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52980251]What would you say if Congress started stepping voter suppression up to 11 (which is something I consider quite likely to happen soon)? Enough to fudge democracy to the point where they guarantee to stay in power in 2018 and beyond, even if they wouldn't have otherwise? Then would you support open rebellion? Voter suppression is already RIGHT NOW at a point where you could argue free elections are no longer happening in many places.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I would have take them on a case by case basis. It's hard to make generalized points about specific action. It's hard for me to take many of the current calls of voter suppression seriously when absentee voting exists. [editline]15th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980264]Can we clarify "free election"? It took a staggering turn out of the black population in Alabama to vote Roy Moore down, despite the large statistical presence of them in the state to be represented fairly.[/QUOTE] I don't really know what this means. If the black turnout was extra large this election, then clearly black people aren't having their votes suppressed. They were able to vote just fine. Choosing not to vote isn't the same as being suppressed.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52980313]Honestly, I would have take them on a case by case basis. It's hard to make generalized points about specific action. It's hard for me to take many of the current calls of voter suppression seriously when absentee voting exists. [editline]15th December 2017[/editline] I don't really know what this means. If the black turnout was extra large this election, then clearly black people aren't having their votes suppressed. They were able to vote just fine. Choosing not to vote isn't the same as being suppressed.[/QUOTE] It took a staggering turn out for them to be represented at the levels they should be. Yes, you can say "They're just simply not voting", but I honestly believe if you want to boil it down to THAT level of simplicity so you can handwave it away, you're being naive. There are various voter restriction methods that have been passed over the years that affect one group more than another, in this case that line is racially drawn. Over coming that through a staggering turn out isn't "The system works" guy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980369]It took a staggering turn out for them to be represented at the levels they should be. Yes, you can say "They're just simply not voting", but I honestly believe if you want to boil it down to THAT level of simplicity so you can handwave it away, you're being naive.[/QUOTE] If you think that's naive, then you don't understand why black voters don't come out. [video=youtube;p33EnLyKcAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33EnLyKcAE[/video]

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52974856]Even the GOP isn't stupid enough to do nothing if he tried that. Most of the US populace is in support of the investigation and a very significant chunk of their own voterbase is as well.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52975052]When you allow something to happen, you're just as bad if not worse than the person causing that thing to happen.[/QUOTE] Let's hope you both are right then, because... [media]https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/941740120201416705[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/941740544065245185[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/941682900818366465[/media]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52980394]If you think that's naive, then you don't understand why black voters don't come out. [video=youtube;p33EnLyKcAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33EnLyKcAE[/video][/QUOTE] I actually do. Black voters feel wildly unrepresented by both sides. Democrats pander to them but rarely act in their favour. Republicans don't pander to them, and actively seek to make them a smaller, less impactful voter block. The black community doesn't often come out to vote, because they won't be represented, and they KNOW that and so don't give a damn by and large. This election got them out in record numbers not because of what Jones stands for, but for what Moore stood for, and in opposition to that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52980572]I actually do. Black voters feel wildly unrepresented by both sides. Democrats pander to them but rarely act in their favour. Republicans don't pander to them, and actively seek to make them a smaller, less impactful voter block. The black community doesn't often come out to vote, because they won't be represented, and they KNOW that and so don't give a damn by and large. This election got them out in record numbers not because of what Jones stands for, but for what Moore stood for, and in opposition to that.[/QUOTE] I agree with this statement. Democrats like to hold the treat out in front of their nose, then forget them once they have the power. And it's a driving factor behind WHY they have a very low turnout rate.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52980171]Are you implying I don't care because I'm against a riot or violent overthrow of our government?[/QUOTE] You're saying that we're advocating "overthrowing" the government as if we're somehow trying to tear it down, when in actuality we're only demanding that the government be held accountable to same the constitutional standards it always has. For Trump and the GOP to collaborate in an effort to destroy the checks and balances that limit their power would mark the death of our constitutional ideals and democratic freedom. We're not fuckin' saying we want to overthrow the government, we're saying we want to [I]save[/I] it from forces that seek to usurp it. We're trying to [I]keep[/I] the government from being overthrown. We must, as a nation, demand that Congress protect this investigation from Trump's attacks, and that our intelligence agencies refuse to allow their authority and independence to investigate and prosecute these crimes be stripped from them.