Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone wonder why the GOP is going to such great lengths to protect him? It can't be just for political reasons. This must go way beyond that. This is why I have no faith in them EVER impeaching him no matter what comes out. They are actively trying to cover things.

'

We already know the answer:

1) GOP has taken millions of dollars directly and indirectly from Russians, both through SuperPACs and NRA etc.
2) GOP emails were hacked too, kompromat


Trump is holding the contents of the emails over the victims. Rather than go to the authorities, they have played along thinking they could come out ok.

They were wrong.

So far they've gotten a tax cut and a Supreme Court justice out of it. Looks pretty OK from a Republican perspective to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

The FBI, via Comey, in an unusual step, publicly explained what they were doing with respect to Clinton.

They were totally silent, with no leaks, about what they were doing with the other presidential candidate, who was also under investigation at the time. Would you have preferred Comey to make a statement about Trump, too?

Anonymous wrote:Partially tied to Mueller having resigned his membership at Trump National previously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he would have had every legal right to do so. So what?

He has the right to fire his subordinates. He does not have the right to obstruct justice. If he fires someone in order to obstruct justice, it is a criminal act. You, as an employer, can fire someone because you don't like them, but you can't fire them because they are black or Jewish.

Hope that helps, but I'm guessing not.

No firing, no obstruction. Mueller wasn't fired. Got it? What he wanted to do and what he did do are two different things.

Despite what Hannity said tonight, even contemplating obstruction is obstruction under the law. But sure, you can live in your own legal world.

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he would have had every legal right to do so. So what?

He has the right to fire his subordinates. He does not have the right to obstruct justice. If he fires someone in order to obstruct justice, it is a criminal act. You, as an employer, can fire someone because you don't like them, but you can't fire them because they are black or Jewish.

Hope that helps, but I'm guessing not.

No firing, no obstruction. Mueller wasn't fired. Got it? What he wanted to do and what he did do are two different things.

Anonymous wrote:
People!

This is why Trump walked into the White House press room without warning and told them "on the record" that he would love to talk to Mueller!

Damage control. Trump knew the news that he had tried to fire Mueller was about to spill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors that Ryan won't seek re-election.

Hmmm

These have been rumors for a while. Admittedly, Ryan is a pretty lousy Speaker, but then, it's a hard job. I thought he was in a solid district, I don't know why he's thinking of not running again.

Anonymous wrote:


People!

This is why Trump walked into the White House press room without warning and told them "on the record" that he would love to talk to Mueller!

Damage control. Trump knew the news that he had tried to fire Mueller was about to spill.