Links? Tweets are often "wonderfully" ambiguous as to exactly which topics they refer.But trump also has explicitly said that he fired comey because of the investigation.
Links? Tweets are often "wonderfully" ambiguous as to exactly which topics they refer.But trump also has explicitly said that he fired comey because of the investigation.
Unsure on what this site's bias is, but they source all statements made and cover the different reasons given and inferred back then: FactCheck.Org - Why did Trump fire Comey?Links? Tweets are often "wonderfully" ambiguous as to exactly which topics they refer.
relevant excerpt said:NBC News posted the full interview with Trump. The president said that he thought about “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia” when he decided to fire Comey.
“[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”
They have a more updated article on Flynn specifically that provides a timeline too: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/Unsure on what this site's bias is, but they source all statements made and cover the different reasons given and inferred back then: FactCheck.Org - Why did Trump fire Comey?
Apparently they got subpoenaed several weeks ago, it's just now we're finding out about it.Mueller subpoenaed trumps personal finances today.
Already posted in the political thread.Oh, hey, now we have the "gloves are COMPLETELY off" situation.
Russia Banned from 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics
Well, I mean, it's not like Drumpf has any sway with the IOC.Connection: how to REALLY piss off Putin.
He's the best at getting athletes out of tight situations!I'm not sure how Trump would be involved, either...
He thought they were hostages.He's the best at getting athletes out of tight situations!
I don't see Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones there. Oh right, they complained about somebody POWERFUL and so were ridiculed and attacked because their perpetrator was (and is) powerful. They weren't believed, and thus didn't start a movement. And it took Judd around 20 years to be believed. No wonder her career cratered. I would 100% believe it was Harvey that did that. It's about 30 years after Broddrick was raped. I wonder if he'll ever at the least be ridiculed. Convicted would be better.He is going to melt. The fuck. Down.
Probably not in the US. Most crimes have a statute of limitations of 6-10 years (depends on state). Only certain egregious crimes (first degree murder, and in some states particularly bad child sex crimes) have longer statutes of limitation or no statute of limitation.I just hope it actually results in both convictions
Dude, he loses it every year. Every year. He's gon be mad.Trump won't care. He'd only flip out if it was Kaep.
Also, if going by the standards Time theoretically sets for this, Trump is the 100% obvious choice.
Juanita Broaddrick's testimony is considered to be questionable because during the Paula Jones case, she gave a sworn affidavit that she had never had sexual contact of any kind with Bill Clinton. Testifying otherwise would mean she had perjured herself, so the Starr inquisition decided her case could not be used.I don't see Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones there. Oh right, they complained about somebody POWERFUL and so were ridiculed and attacked because their perpetrator was (and is) powerful. They weren't believed, and thus didn't start a movement. And it took Judd around 20 years to be believed. No wonder her career cratered. I would 100% believe it was Harvey that did that. It's about 30 years after Broddrick was raped. I wonder if he'll ever at the least be ridiculed. Convicted would be better.
Ranting aside, I do wish they went with a single person, but barring that (that ship sailed years ago), I'd say it's a good choice for the cover and title for this year. I just hope it actually results in both convictions, and permanent black-balling. Of the PERPETRATORS I mean. What will more likely IMO happen is the victims will get black-balled.
And we really dodged a bullet when we dismissed one of his many enablers from holding office in 2016.Great. Let's make sure Bill Clinton never holds office again.
It was news the first few times.That seems like as much news as congress voting to repeal Obamacare at any point from 2011-2016.
It's got more evidence than your side of the story does, broheem.@Null you HONESTLY believe Clinton's "clean" on those, and wasn't using power and influence to shut them up? REALLY? I think that requires a lot larger "leap of faith" in this one than "they were intimidated to lie under oath once, and then after that they're totally screwed no matter what."
In this case, however, the democrats supported trump, so it's nothing at all like your hypothetical where I'm sure the republicans would have voted to repeal the ACA:That seems like as much news as congress voting to repeal Obamacare at any point from 2011-2016.
Which speaks quite well towards the democrats who voted against it, since these articles clearly don't meet the requirements for impeachment....a majority of Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the [impeachment].