388

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's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

I wasn't talking about that. You also said

so, yeah, sounds like they’re both dicks. The argument that “your dick is bigger than my dick” is hilarious though.

bOtH sIdEs

That's what I was calling you fuckin stupid for. Repeating bullshit propaganda.

No one said their crimes are the same.

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.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

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.

That's a favored tactic of the red side.

Both sides, impartial, enlightened centrism, yadda yadda.

[-] MelonTheMan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It's sad because "both sides bad" can be a valid argument, if it hadn't been coopted as an undercover facist dog whistle.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

True. In some cases it's important to bring up.

Everything needs context.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Anything to prevent "we don't want to live under a 2 party dictatorship anymore" from being an option, right?

[-] MelonTheMan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Definitely don't want to suppress that fact, not disagreeing with you.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"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 🤦🏼‍♂️

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Well I got to enjoy a few weeks of it feeling different from Reddit around here…

The main difference is that now instead of constantly telling fascists to fuck off, I also sometimes get to tell tankies to fuck off.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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." 🤦🏼‍♂️

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

You can piss off too, with your straw man and faux outrage.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤦🏼‍♂️ exactly what you did when you joined the discussion arguing about a point that wasn't made?

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

That's not what pissing off looks like.

[-] Pillarist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

We both know what it looks like. Good day to you.

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
388 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
4418 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS