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.
If you want my opinion, I think it is pretty obvious that Trump told Flynn to tell the Russians not to react to Obamas sanctions. There is no evidence of this, Flynn would have to rat out Trump which I don't see him doing. But I think this is the source of all the lies and cover ups and is why Trump wants to erase this whole thing.Why......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
Fast and Furious....................even went after reporters spying on them.....IRS scandal.................I have made points....you havent .......Then make your point man, don't make me keep asking for details... waste of time.He didnt need to fire anyone to impede an investigation....and there is no evidence Trump impeded an investiagtion.....I don't remember the time Obama impeded an FBI investigation that was looking into his administration by firing the director of the FBI. Please refresh my memoryDidnt abandon anything....if Obama can impede them a simple request into whether Comey could see a way to drop one is not illegal. That you cant see the difference simply shows your partisanshipThe fact that you just abandoned the argument to bring up Obama shows that you got nothing. Like I said, thanks for playingO shortcircuited several investigations,going beyond a simple inquiry if someone could see clear to dropping one........try to keep up.........
When did obama impede an investigation that was focused on the Obama campaign or administration?
Same logic applies to all of Obama scandalsTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
Sessions wasnt part of the campaignTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
Same logic applies to all of Obama scandalsTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
You have not made points, you are trying to divert the conversation into Obama and I don't know what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say it's acceptable for a president to impede on a FBI investigation?Fast and Furious....................even went after reporters spying on them.....IRS scandal.................I have made points....you havent .......Then make your point man, don't make me keep asking for details... waste of time.He didnt need to fire anyone to impede an investigation....and there is no evidence Trump impeded an investiagtion.....I don't remember the time Obama impeded an FBI investigation that was looking into his administration by firing the director of the FBI. Please refresh my memoryDidnt abandon anything....if Obama can impede them a simple request into whether Comey could see a way to drop one is not illegal. That you cant see the difference simply shows your partisanshipThe fact that you just abandoned the argument to bring up Obama shows that you got nothing. Like I said, thanks for playing
When did obama impede an investigation that was focused on the Obama campaign or administration?
He was absolutely a surrogate. He even said he was in his testimony to congressSessions wasnt part of the campaignTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
It's pure hypocrisy, after all the bitching they've done about Obamas actions, I guess that makes it ok for Trump to do whatever he wants.Same logic applies to all of Obama scandalsTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
when it comes to RW's and Obama there is no fucking logic, just TOTAL obsession,
mention Trump and without a damn doubt some dumbass RW'r tries to shadow the post with Obama ...
Obama didnt make Trump fuck up.
It's pure hypocrisy, after all the bitching they've done about Obamas actions, I guess that makes it ok for Trump to do whatever he wants.Same logic applies to all of Obama scandalsTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
when it comes to RW's and Obama there is no fucking logic, just TOTAL obsession,
mention Trump and without a damn doubt some dumbass RW'r tries to shadow the post with Obama ...
Obama didnt make Trump fuck up.
"The Justice Department says Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation only because he was involved in President Donald Trump's campaign."Sessions wasnt part of the campaignTrump personally wasn't under investigation but his campaign was, any findings of collusion impropriety would be politically damaging to himWhy......Trump wasnt under investigation.....per Comey...........Sessions had no part of Flynn affair......This is one of the lamest of the talking points. Do yourself a service and don't point to it again if you want to be taken seriously.Number ONE – James Comey justified in his statements that on February 14th he did not inform his recently confirmed boss Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of the content of the oval office meeting with President Trump – or his suddenly overwhelming feelings of impropriety, because he anticipated Jeff Sessions would be forced to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russian investigation..
There was nothing known on February 14th which would establish a need for Sessions recusal. There’s no reasonable basis for such an assumption on February 14th, unless it was Comey’s intention to leak FISA-granted surveillance of Russian Ambassador Kislyak, having an innocuous meeting with Senator Jeff Sessions, to the Washington Post. A disingenuous, albeit politically framed, leak did factually surface on March 1st. Same link
I could have told you the day Sessions got nominated as AG that he would have to recuse himself from an investigation that focused on a campaign that he was an active part of... especially given the communications he had with the Russians that he is now in hot water for lying about.
Do you really not understand the difference between the two situations?PRoving once again he is a political op things that are ok for him suddenly become bad for Trump.
Top Five Facts and Examples Showcasing Comey’s Political Motives…
Number FIVE – James Comey stated under oath, and included in his written statement, that it was his decision to speak alone, one-on-one to President-Elect Trump on January 6th in Trump Tower as Comey asked everyone else to leave the briefing. Comey held no issues with a private conversation with the incoming President.
However, a month later on February 14th, in the oval office, when President Trump asked everyone to leave the room for a one-on-one, James Comey testifies it was “inappropriate” for a private conversation.
He sure lapped it up when he crucified Clinton twice during the campaign. The fact that he did that completely negates your point, but nice try.I don't remember the time Obama impeded an FBI investigation that was looking into his administration by firing the director of the FBI. Please refresh my memoryDidnt abandon anything....if Obama can impede them a simple request into whether Comey could see a way to drop one is not illegal. That you cant see the difference simply shows your partisanshipThe fact that you just abandoned the argument to bring up Obama shows that you got nothing. Like I said, thanks for playingO shortcircuited several investigations,going beyond a simple inquiry if someone could see clear to dropping one........try to keep up.........
Why would he need to fire Comey, when it was readily apparent that he was Obama's lap dog?
well it isn't and comey stated so in the testimony yesterday.Didnt abandon anything....if Obama can impede them a simple request into whether Comey could see a way to drop one is not illegal. That you cant see the difference simply shows your partisanshipThe fact that you just abandoned the argument to bring up Obama shows that you got nothing. Like I said, thanks for playingO shortcircuited several investigations,going beyond a simple inquiry if someone could see clear to dropping one........try to keep up.........You make a compelling point but after consideration of such a brilliant argument I have to conclude that you lose. Thanks for playingNot.............In coordination with the DNI Comey was asked to brief the president elect alone about sensitive and embarrassing intel.
In an attempt to schmooze Comey and ask him to back off an investigation into Flynn Trump dismissed the room to send Comey the message in the Oval Office.
Very different situations
