Comey's book


It’s still referred to as a ‘wiretap’. Just like the accelerator pedal on electric cars might still be called the ‘gas’?


No “mental gymnastics” are necessary to understand that listening in on phone conversations–regardless of the means–equates to “wire-tapping.” NORMAL people understand this. Why can’t you on the left?



The simple answer is because they don’t want to understand.

The left’s cherry picking of words and pretzel logic would make Aristotle roll over in his grave.

The temporary ban on immigration from 8 terrorist infested countries magically becomes a “moslem ban”.

His accurate statement in his candidacy announcement speech about rapists and criminals coming in our open borders becomes a racist slur that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.

They then double down and state that these are “code words” and “dog whistles” for the of millions of racist, islamophobe, xenophobe supporters who got him elected. I wonder why they all didn’t get together and prevent the Magic Mullato Moslem from getting elected (twice). Maybe we hate Mormons more? And, of course, we want school children to starve or get slaughtered and the poor to die without medical care.

These people make me want to :face_vomiting:.

They are not “NORMAL” people. They don’t give two ***** about truth, justice and the American way. Their constitution was written by Saul Alinsky and their founding fathers are Marx, Lenin and Che.


Trump was not the target of any type of surveillance.


The only twisted logic is that it was about “terrorists” when the 9/11 hijackers were from a nation that wasn’t included in the ban.

If Trump isn’t capable of understanding how his words will be perceived he either doesn’t care or he is unaware, either way it shows the President was never about uniting the country, just consolidating his base.

Keep telling yourself that.


Andrew Napolitano (no Trump fan) disagrees:


Just to be perfectly clear it was Manafort who was the “target” . Nevertheless, Trump Tower was wiretapped just like he claimed.


BS. When you “surveille” Trump campaign workers, you are, in fact, at least HOPING to catch Trump on the phone in an indiscretion that can be used against his campaign. If you believe otherwise, then you know NOTHING about intel gathering.


Although I don’t like how we cozy up to Saudi Arabia (which several administrations have done; although Obama did it more), they aren’t the ONLY source of Islamic terrorism. Not buying.


What exactly aren’t you “buying”? I mean I’m right. IF this is about terrorism, shouldn’t we address the actual sources of terrorism first?

This is the equivalent of someone saying they are on a diet and ordering a triple cheeseburger, bacon cheezy fries and a Tab (sure you’re all old enough to remember Tab?) and then saying, “Hey, I’m on a diet!”.

That’s not a diet and Trump’s ban, whatever its motivations, doesn’t address terrorism. That is, unless the goal of addressing terrorism is to start with the least effective means in reality but create the perception that something is being done. If it’s the latter, then I concede something has been done.

Addressing the “Muslim ban”. Generally speaking, I think the president is pretty insensitive to anyone and everyone that doesn’t at a given moment serve his interests as some means-to-an-end. Conversely, if insulting or insinuating wrongdoing on a person or group will get him traction he will do it. In that sense, I don’t see the president as an overt racist, I think he insults anyone if it serves him.


Before I take any time to refute this claim, do you make a distinction between being the target of surveillance and being caught up in “inadvertent” surveillance?

And would you agree that the President, in his public comments insinuated that he was the target of “illegal” surveillance, which isn’t true.


That’s the essence of all politics, ain’t it?


That’s a pretty cynical view, but I’d agree that it is increasingly becoming that way.


Please notice that I put “target” in quotation marks. My opinion is that the “target” named in whatever warrant was a ruse.


There certainly is an element of political expedience in it, and I don’t like it. But he hardly targetted the majority or even a large minority of Muslim nations. So no, I’m not buying that his choice of targetted nations constitutes bigotry or anything.


I’m not saying that his choices constituted bigotry, I didn’t even use that word or imply it. I simply stated that he chose a very ineffective method (travel bans or whatever you want to call it), if his stated goal was the protect people from terrorism given that most terrorists are homegrown and Saudi Arabia was left off the list.

Of course, the low info masses on the right (present company excluded of course) at it up and all slept better after it’s implementation despite the facts.

It’s sort of like when your kids were scared and you placed some object in their room and convinced them it would protect them from monsters. It didn’t really do anything, but that wasn’t really the point, was it?

I give Trump his props where they are due. He’s a great salesman to those he knows he can win over.


I’m no shill, and I concede you might be right, but you still have a lot of work to do to convince me and nothing anyone here has presented even comes close.

Trump made a claim the HE was the target. There is no evidence to the contrary, especially at the time, so if you believe it, it’s because you want to, even if in reality, a reality you don’t know, you are correct.


What you’re ignoring is the FACT that restricting travel from those 7 countries is based on our INABILITY to properly “vet” immigrants from those countries BECAUSE of their chaotic governments. Who would you go to in Somalia, for example, if you wanted to know the birth date, educational level, political affiliations of a Somali 20-year-old? The answer, of course, is that you CAN’T find out any of that information BECAUSE the government of Somalia doesn’t HAVE that information.


We could also actually discuss the book. I’m currently reading it. My honest opinion is that Comey is a sincere Christian, genuinely trying to figure out what is the right and moral path.

He’s not perfect, but if all of this country’s public servants were as decent and honorable as Comey, we might actually have a chance at MAGA. As it stands, Trump seems intent on turning the swamp into a tar pit.

From the book:

“All people have flaws and I have many. Some of mine, as you’ll discover in this book, are that I can be stubborn, prideful, overconfident, and driven by ego. I’ve struggled with those my whole life. There are plenty of moments I look back on and wish I had done things differently, and a few that I am downright embarrassed by.”

This simple Christian attempt to come to terms with one’s own flaws has almost completely vanished in modern American public life. It’s a quality utterly lacking in a Trump, who is practically defined by his lack of introspection and self-criticism. Want to MAGA? How about a return to public servants with at least a shred of interest in being decent human beings.


Also, those who have been around this site long enough to remember when I actually had time to post know that I have a fairly intense interest in Protestant theology, Luther in particular. From Comey’s book, I can say that this is a man with a professorial intimacy with Protestant thought. His reading is impressive.


Anyway, I’m about 1/3rd of the way through, and I can say without reservation that I am about as close to certain as I’ve ever been of anything that Comey is telling the truth, and Trump is shamelessly lying, about their interactions.