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.

  • @Pillarist
    link
    -5
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      131 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
        link
        -1
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          31 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
            link
            61 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.

            • @Pillarist
              link
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

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

              • @MelonTheMan
                link
                21 year ago

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

                • @Pillarist
                  link
                  11 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
            link
            0
            edit-2
            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
      link
      fedilink
      81 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
        link
        -31 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.” 🤦🏼‍♂️

          • @Pillarist
            link
            -11 year ago

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