When the obvious partisan Huber investigation into possible Trump alleged FBI misconduct finds (and fails to hide) FBI misconduct that benefited Trump (something that's undeniable thanks to Comey) will you be chanting "lock him up!"?

WARNING, readers, don't click links to documents you aren't certain aren't viruses.

I guess the best evidence yet is that the only real charges levied against anyone, the only people actually arrested are from the Trump camp.

There's this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/two-clinton-employees-arrested-destroying-evidence-uranium-probe-begins/

But, as scopes points out, that story is not actually true.

Keep on beating your drum about how everyone in the Trump camp is so innocent, we'll keep actually arresting them and charging them while you follow the propaganda.

Oh and the EPA admin resigned today amid ethics scandals. I'll look forward to seeing him behind bars while you keep chanting "LOCK HER UP" without anything actually happening to her.

Who is the Executive in charge of the Justice Department again?

Yeah, fuck people who don’t want to jail kids. Bunch of pussies. I say we lock up MORE kids.

In fact, fuck it, locking them up costs money. Why don’t we just shoot the little fuckers?

Jesus Bob, even for you, this is pathetic.

Lock her up!
Build the wall!
Lies!
Fail!
Sad!

If I have to hear about crooked hillary one more time... hey, why do you think all the investigations, testimony under oath, and revisiting of various aspects of Hillary Clinton's supposed crimes never go anywhere?

Hmm? what happened to "Lock her up" ???

Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation keeps mounting evidence...hmmmm

You ought to educate yourself about how the people who supported Nixon acted right up until the moment he resigned @bobknight33

Newt,

A certain person, yeah -- but there have been others from time-to-time.

Look, everyone knows we're talking about Bob, and I don't want to throw rocks at the guy. FWIW, for all his faults, I believe he's not stupid and is probably capable of presenting something rational if he could just get past bomb-throwing. He's presented a video where someone tried to intellectually defend the views that he holds. It wasn't the strongest set of arguments ever, but it was better than the usual bullshit.

Here's the thing: I actually want to hear what the other side thinks and feels, both from the standpoint of empathy and curiosity. Maybe there's something to learn from people on the other side. But I can't do this when all they present is HURR BLURF HURR CUCK SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE SJW LOCK HER UP ETC.

I hold vanishingly little hope that any kind of consensus can ever be reached again in this country (and the microcosm that is VideoSift) again, but I'm willing to at least listen and try to do my part. That doesn't mean I won't call bullshit, but if someone on the Right is willing to speak their piece without resorting to Alt-Right (Far Right) games, I'm game for something better than the usual flame war.

They don't get a bonus, they avoid a reprimand for not meeting quotas.

For profit prison means all those costs are more reason to lock people up, not reason to avoid imprisonment. Yes, it costs us, but makes money for police departments and prisons. The prison guard union is one of the most aggressive, well funded, and successful lobbies in Washington.
That's the profit he's talking about. No one pays for a recovered missing person, but there's money to be had incarcerating a pot smoker. Engage your brain before you spout ridiculousness....if you have the capability.

Build the wall!
Drain the swamp!
Lock her up!
Same as Hopey-Changey Stuff.

Yeah, Fox is the bastion of fairness and balance.......and the sky is a lovely shade of green. Edit: Fox can't even stop claiming Clinton/DNC murdered a man over leaks the Russians made, the best they can do is pause while indicating the story is still true but out of respect/bowing to pressure they'll stop covering it for now.

He originally claimed he never touched the man, even though he knew the Fox reporter saw him. The only sane conclusion is he expected them to go along with his lie because he's Republican.

That's not what I read, both before and after the attack. The point is, this is not acceptable behaviour, and that made little difference because 1)early voting before it happened and 2) Republicans will vote for any frothing idiot if they just put an (R) in front of their name.

Nope, not kidding. They elected Trump, a womanizing, racist, classist, classless, serial philanderer, proud liar and deceiver, falsely pious, groper, repeatedly failed businessman that never reads the contracts he signs who is the worst kind of partisan con man. 8 years of hating Obama screwed with your heads. You're so incredibly deluded you still think Trump is winning big time. You probably repeated the bullshit about child slave pizza, you buy into every other insane conspiracy theory Alex Jones dreams up. Who promotes the worst again? You know, like baseless accusations of murder and child slavery being repeated for months on national tv? Like frothing rage over Benghazzi, but total head in the sand over Trump's imploding administration and his Russian ties involving every person in his administration it seems, all angrily lying about it until recordings surface then going silent? Yeah, using an unsecured email server, that's much worse than just telling our enemies state and intelligence secrets and leaking far more while creating enemies of the press and intelligence community (both ours and our allies). Worse than setting up a secret communication channel through the Russian consulate because you don't trust American intelligence agencies but do trust Russia? Much worse. Lock her up...Lock her up....Lock her up.

Democrats represented more Americans than Republicans if you go by votes...so if one party represents Americans and the other doesn't, you have it backwards. (Truth be told neither represent their constituents, but democrats come closer).

They can, because all this reporting, is fake news. All of it. He says it is. Fox says it is. Their church tells them it is. So all this bad stuff about Trump is just a libtard media feeding a bunch of brain dead idiots who believe this stuff.

Now of course all of who actually know how to vet information and the like, know that the opposite is true and that we are in a scary situation, unlike we've ever seen before. The barest hint of this sort of stuff was enough for them to shout "lock her up" about Hillary, but here they are just "fake news!" and continue to believe he's one of the greatest Presidents ever.

It's like they don't get any of it. It isn't firing Comey was bad, it was the timing. Had he waited until after the investigation was over, then it would have been fine, if not great.

Yes, he's allowed to reveal any classified information he wants, though he did complain, during his campaign, about how we can't have somebody in the Whitehouse who can't keep a secret... It's the fact that this goes to the Russians, an enemy of the state at the moment, and the day after he fires Comey, and the fact we were asked not to give up this information, and even our closest allies didn't have it... but it's okay, because he says it is okay and Fox says it is okay, and those are the only truth out there, CNN, and all the major networks are lying and manipulating us according to those on the right.

I'm willing to let the Comey memo go, until it is proven to be true or not, as right now it is more speculation than else, but if it is true, and the Republican Congress refuses to act against Trump for Obstruction of Justice charges... sadly, that bit of news didn't slip until after they recorded this episode.

If Comey was fired after the investigation was over, then nobody would have been upset. It is the timing that upsets people, and should upset those on the right too who want to put the Russian thing behind them.

There is clear evidence that Russia interfered with the election. Now does that mean, Trump, or people closely connected to him and his campaign, were directly involved? No. And most liberals would be okay if that was the end result of an independent investigation, so long as we found the means and methods of the interference and were able to learn actions to prevent further interference with future elections from any outside nation. However, the Republicans refuse to take the investigation into Russian interference seriously. The House investigation led by a guy who was on Trump's transition team, the Senate investigation seems more concerned about who leaked info about Trump than the fact a foreign threat to the security of the United States interfered with the election. They worry about leaks in a White House that looks at top secret information in a very public place, but the actions of a hostile state doesn't seem to concern them like it should.

Now we got Comey, who Trump and his people praised up and down during the campaign and soon after election, being fired right after he says he's going to devote more resources to the Russian investigation. We got a President who broke clear ethical rules (though perhaps no laws) in asking if he was under investigation, in a call which may have been about if he'd keep Comey on. Even the hint of Clinton being involved in even a far less serious offence made the right shout "lock her up", but for Trump the reaction seems to be "he's the greatest President ever, let me suck the chrome off his cock".

He, and the Republicans keep trying to distract the American people from the Russia investigation, which let's remind everyone, is mostly about the interference, and only possibly about his administration's complacency. It is more about the actions of a hostile state than him. It's almost as if they know the Russians interfered, and don't care because they won. If Democrats had won, thanks to the actions of an outside state, especially one as hostile to the US as the Russians, and there was even less proof that Clinton or her team may have been involved, the size of the committee and the depth of the investigation would be many times bigger than it is now. The outrage on the right would be larger than the outrage on the left as it stands now.

And, then right after the firing, Trump goes the extra step of letting only Russian official state media in on the meetings between him and Russian officials. He won't release visitor logs to the White House. He won't release visitor logs to the far more accessible Mar-a-logo, where he looks at top secret documents in the wide open. (Side note, he's cost the American tax payers about a 1/4 of what Obama's vacations cost in 8 years, in just 100 days, and all those people who bitched about Obama vacations, including Trump who complained about how much Obama played golf, are perfectly fine with what Trump has cost the American tax payers in his vacations.) So without those logs, and those of Trump Tower, we can't be sure there aren't more clandestine meetings like that blatant one in the White House. The refuse ANY degree of transparency. Again, if this was Clinton, the right would be demanding she be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and that's only a slight exaggeration, either way they'd demand she be locked up for the very things Trump is accused of.

Then there's his clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and the people who claim to be all about the Constitution, saying how the left have zero respect for it, who were in a furor over Clinton's possible violation of it with her foundation, don't care about Trump's violation of it. Suddenly, the Emoluments Clause, doesn't matter to the same people who cited it as a concern during Clinton's campaign.

Also, keep in mind, he made the decision to fire him, before the reasons why letters were penned, and were written to help defend it. Further, as pointed out, his own letter was about him, the guy is such a clear narcissist, he could have been like Sanders and I'd personally oppose him. Plus, Trump didn't have the guts to let Comey know in person, Comey had to find out on TV and think it was a practical joke. Again, if Clinton fired somebody like that, the right would be in arms, calling her chicken, and saying a real man would fire another person in person.

TLDR: If Trump fired Comey after the investigation into a hostile state's interference with the election, nobody would have cared, in fact he may have gotten mad props for letting the investigation go on without interference. It's the timing that is suspect.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Why would you lock animals up together that clearly don't like each other? What an asshole.

I'm glad he made the point that internal causes can't be separated from external causes. If you believe in determinism then you have to realize that before your birth everything that you will do was determined, but none of it was internal. And once you are born, how then do you become culpable for the initial state of the universe?

I agree with compatibilists on the broad point that determinism is largely compatible with holding people responsible for their actions. But I think they're too hung up on the idea of moral responsibility. Even without thinking anyone is the author of their own actions, it's still wise to lock people up who are an immediate threat to others, or use measured punishment as a deterrent, or hope to change future behavior with treatment programs. The only thing you don't get to do is be vindictive and cruel, thinking the perpetrator deserves to suffer. But I've never believed in punishment for the sake revenge anyway.

No, I don't think I said that. Again, it would be nice, but if she locks it up (not counting super delegates) then Bernie's run as a Democrat is over, as is all hope. I don't hold onto even a shred of hope that he'll sway her policy, no matter what he gets her to say during the election.
She's already been incredibly inconsistent on the minimum wage thing, actually taking 3 positions in one sentence in one debate. Can't trust her.
Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests.
A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between. Without that, we'll never get candidates that will work for us OR fix the system that supports them, or even be able to trust our elections. As I see it, Sanders is our one and only hope of fixing the system, so the only hope of saving the union.