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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
You did not read the article or have horrible reading comprehension skills. It is not an attack piece. It makes clear that an obstruction of justice charge is far from reality unless more evidence is acquired by investigators. The point of the article was that if such a charge were eventually made, his own words would be used against him and that he should be speaking to legal counsel about what he should and should not say in public.Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
By "experts", you mean expert DNC shills. How anyone can take this seriously is beyond comprehension, but of course, W.Po readers just regurgitate everything they read like the good sheep they are. Indeed, some people actually consider this news rather than a rhetorical attack piece.
This doesn't constitute an obstruction of justice in any way, why would it? Delusional...
Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
Once again, we are dealing with alleged tapes in the Oval Office.More innuendo and commie bullshit. The president can fire the director at anytime for any reason or no reason at all, he serves at the pleasure of the president. And as McCabe said this week, all previous investigations are moving forward.
Clear evidence there is nothing too stupid for this once great newspaper to publish.Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
What would the charges against Clinton be, kyzr? Other than Trump (and/or Flynn), who has made a credible charge against Clinton or their Foundation? I think you are stuck on campaign slanders rather than believe your lying eyes and ears.This Trump stuff (collusion" is total bullshit with no credible evidence (or Rice would have leaked it). I'm waiting for the real indictments to start coming for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, that's where the real crimes are.
Quite reasonably the President seems to have decided that nailing the Clintons and the people in the Obama administration who may have committed crimes to aid them, such as Rice, Lynch, Comey and Brennan would only be distractions from doing the nation's business and in 2018 and 2020, voters will not be interested in what came before the Trump administration but what that administration has accomplished for America. America will benefit from viable healthcare reforms, tax reforms and deregulation that encourage economic growth, strict enforcement of our immigration laws and progress in dealing with difficult foreign relations problems, such as eastern Europe, Korea, the ME; it would not benefit from long trials of of the Clintons or those in the Obama administration who corrupted the instruments of government for political gain no matter how guilty they are.This Trump stuff (collusion" is total bullshit with no credible evidence (or Rice would have leaked it). I'm waiting for the real indictments to start coming for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, that's where the real crimes are.
what about the pedophile porno ring she was running out of a Pizza shop?This Trump stuff (collusion" is total bullshit with no credible evidence (or Rice would have leaked it). I'm waiting for the real indictments to start coming for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, that's where the real crimes are.
Well, Loretta Lynch gave Clinton's top staff immunity from prosecution for their actions in the private email cover up and shut down the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation over the objections of the investigating FBI agents, so there is good reason to believe criminal charges could be brought against Clinton, her staff and Lynch, herself.What would the charges against Clinton be, kyzr? Other than Trump (and/or Flynn), who has made a credible charge against Clinton or their Foundation? I think you are stuck on campaign slanders rather than believe your lying eyes and ears.This Trump stuff (collusion" is total bullshit with no credible evidence (or Rice would have leaked it). I'm waiting for the real indictments to start coming for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, that's where the real crimes are.
Zero to Nixon in 120 days...Impressive
"May be" - the liars creed.Donald Trump's recent words have contradicted his early claims that the firing stemmed from Comey's alleged handling of the Clinton email investigation. This has led some experts to see the firing as the crime of Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing ComeyWashington Post (May 12, 2017): In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.
