Under oath, John Kelly raises serious allegations against Trump
Under oath, John Kelly raises serious allegations against Trump
It’s not every day when a former White House chief of staff implicates a former president — under penalty of perjury — in an impeachable offense.
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're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
It's sad because "both sides bad" can be a valid argument, if it hadn't been coopted as an undercover facist dog whistle.
True. In some cases it's important to bring up.
Everything needs context.
Anything to prevent "we don't want to live under a 2 party dictatorship anymore" from being an option, right?
Definitely don't want to suppress that fact, not disagreeing with you.
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.
"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 🤦🏼♂️