Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They ran for the last 8 years on repealing Obamacare. They were elected to majorities in the house, the senate and to the white house. There isn't a branch of government they don't control.
No matter what we end up with, the republicans are now responsible for it. It's just like Trump now owns the war against ISIS.
Wrong, doofus, He can't record anyone without their knowledge. That's like saying the government can make secret recordings of me without my knowledge. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.Can't you get even one law right? In DC (it's different in maryland where Linda Trip did it) The federal statute allows parties to the conversation to record the conversation..
Comey isn't a "private party." He's an officer of the federal government. As such, he is not allowed to record people without a warrant or their explicit permission.
Wrong. If he's a party to the conversation, he can record anything he wants.
There may be state laws against it, such as maryland, but he's in Washington DC, and the federal statutes allow it.
Learn the law.
I responded on another thread about the issue, and I am honestly asking this question of those FEW right wingers still capable of thinking on their own.....
What would you (right wingers) be saying today had COMEY stated, "....Trump better hope that the there are no tapes of our conversation....."???
Would you, today, be "excusing" Comey for the implication asserted in the above statement?
Again, PLEASE don't forget the orange clown's promise that HIS HC plan would cover EVERYBODY, be CHEAPER and be BETTER..........Unfortunately, the Trumpster screwed even his stupid followers since NONE of those 2 factors have panned out.
I responded on another thread about the issue, and I am honestly asking this question of those FEW right wingers still capable of thinking on their own.....
What would you (right wingers) be saying today had COMEY stated, "....Trump better hope that the there are no tapes of our conversation....."???
Would you, today, be "excusing" Comey for the implication asserted in the above statement?
He's still not acting as a private citizen. It was obviously a business dinner where they discussed business matters. Comey doesn't ever become just a private citizen when he interacts with other government officials."Were that of a private citizen?" He's in the President's office during business hours, and he's supposed to be treated as a private citizen?
You are a major ignoramus.
You're the stupid one. It was dinner, which means AFTER HOURS.
You don't risk an perjury charges when the Special Counsel is your BFF.So everyone who testifies under oath tells the truth?
Hey, moron "kid".....the difference is that if you LIE under oath there may be repercussions of perjury....HOWEVER, if you lie and you're not under oath.....well, then you may be an orange clown.
beloved by fellow morons..........LOL
Wrong, doofus, He can't record anyone without their knowledge. That's like saying the government can make secret recordings of me without my knowledge. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.
Wrong, doofus, He can't record anyone without their knowledge. That's like saying the government can make secret recordings of me without my knowledge. That's a violation of the 4th amendment
That's like saying the government can make secret recordings of me without my knowledge. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.
You know they are when you call them - unless you're a moron, that is.That's like saying the government can make secret recordings of me without my knowledge. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.
Dial 911. and I bet the government is recording you without your knowledge or consent.
And you would be a moron not to know whos allowed to record you under 18 USC 2511.You know they are when you call them - unless you're a moron, that is.Dial 911. and I bet the government is recording you without your knowledge or consent.
No we wouldn't be excusing Comey, he was the FBI chief and would need to inform someone if he is recording for an official meeting. The President is allowed to tape himself during any such interviews if he so chooses.
Kind of like him joking that the Russians should look for Hillary's Emails. Some people just never get the sarcasm.
And you would be a moron not to know whos allowed to record you under 18 USC 2511.You know they are when you call them - unless you're a moron, that is.Dial 911. and I bet the government is recording you without your knowledge or consent.
You don't risk an perjury charges when the Special Counsel is your BFF.
LOL.....Yeah, now two republicans are colluding against a republican Wh and congress....Charming.
Government officials are not allowed to secretly record you without a warrant, moron. That's indisputable.
Comey isn't a Republican,
Government officials are not allowed to secretly record you without a warrant, moron. That's indisputable.
That's absolutely wrong. The USSC already ruled on it.
Google Scholar
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 (1966), which was left undisturbed by Katz, held that however strongly a defendant may trust an apparent colleague, his expectations in this respect are not protected by the Fourth Amendment when it turns out that the colleague is a government agent regularly communicating with the authorities. In these circumstances, "no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment is involved," for that amendment affords no protection to "a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it." Hoffa v.United States, at 302. No warrant to "search and seize" is required in such circumstances, nor is it when the Government sends to defendant's home a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the accused,Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 (1966), or when the same agent, unbeknown to the defendant, carries electronic equipment to record the defendant's words and the evidence so gathered is later offered in evidence. Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963).
