Napolitano spills the beans. Hannity removes him from x-mas card list.

What Trump son, son-in-law, and campaign manager??

Who is this Trump fella??

 

Don't know huh? I know about one the lawyer babe at the set up.

 

Except that never happened. So anyways back to THIS topic...

 

Obama didn't like it that some were not playing along.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.


October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.


♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held. Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.


♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director ike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.


♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

 

Yeah well, all your fantasizing doesn't make the spying any more true. It's still a whackadoddle CT, and apparently all you've got, since you fail to adress the thread and hijack it with your silly whatabout lunacy.

 

LOL, spying on the Trump campaign does not equal spying on the Trump campaign. Priceless.

 

WRONG! Trump can ask the AG to fire the special counsel and it's NOT obstruction as the president can give orders to AG and CAN fire special counsel. THIS IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE UNLESS THERE IS AN UNDERLYING CRIME.

Nixon WASN'T impeached when he fired AG and had new AG fire special counsel... He was impeached because they later found evidence he was covering up ACTUAL CRIMES...

ALL of you are wrong, this is just DREAMING of a way to remove Trump from office. Under the constitution, Trump can, through AG, get rid of special counsel. There is absolutely NO WAY to argue this is obstruction UNLESS there is a cover up of a crime. What justice would he be obstructing btw? if there is no justice to be served due to a crime. Get it?

 

No, can you quote Mueller saying that Trump firing Comey and Trump telling McGahn to fire Mueller amounts to Obstruction of Justice?

 

What do you mean Fox News "mouthpiece?"

"NOW saying?" Was he previously saying something about the judge?

 

A very reasonable take from a liberal law professor. Of course, leftists would call him a FAR RIGHT law professor!

 

Used to lurve the judge, now He hates the judge.

 

You can drop the joke now. Liberal my dictator.

 

What joke?

 

How do you know?

 

Because the judge felt confident in ASKING for a seat on the supreme court?

And spring his friend?

 

Didn't you say that Trump might be lying about the judge asking for a seat on the SC?

 

Might not too.

 

So you can't say for certain that Trump "used to lurve the judge" can you?

 

I can fairly certainly say,Trump only lurves Trump. But yeah.

 

Here's a pop quiz. Why hasn't the Liar-in-Chief lied under oath?

 

It's sad you think writing that line in capital letters makes it true. It doesn't.

 

You don't have to be James Holzhauer to answer that one....

 

Here's what wouldn't have been OOJ.... should it have occurred (which it didn't)

Trump could have called Rosenstein directly (instead of going through McGahn like the p*ssy he is) and ASKED Rod if there were any possible reasons to remove Mueller as SC, since the act must by law come from the AG (or non-recused DAG in this case).

Rosenstein would have said, like he did several times to the public, there is no legit reason to remove Mueller. No conflict, no misconduct.

That would have been legal, if obviously slimy and acting guilty.

The way Trump went about it was clearly attempted OOJ, which by the law, IS OOJ... That I won't look up for you.

Bottom line, it's what the House Judiciary Committee says it was.... and they'll base that decision after hearing from McGahn...

 

If all Hilary did was talk about destroying documents and never actually did so, we would not be discussing her.