12 May 17
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/11/brutal-rnc-releases-video-mashup-of-democrats-calling-for-comeys-firing-n2325654
Here is a long list of Dims who wanted Comey fired.
Of course, they were for it before they were against it cuz they are cutting edge Progressives.
12 May 17
Originally posted by whodeyThe hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/11/brutal-rnc-releases-video-mashup-of-democrats-calling-for-comeys-firing-n2325654
Here is a long list of Dims who wanted Comey fired.
Of course, they were for it before they were against it cuz they are cutting edge Progressives.
12 May 17
Originally posted by sh76Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
12 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseVery possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.
Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
12 May 17
Originally posted by sh76Well that's that then.
Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.
So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
Fold up the chairs and go home.
12 May 17
Originally posted by sh76How about this situation:
The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:
1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR
2) B refuses to have sex with A.
is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
12 May 17
Originally posted by sh76Nixon didn't personally burglar the Watergate either. Nor is there evidence he knew it would be burglarized.
Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.
So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
12 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person C to now scream about how Boss A is bad for firing Receptionist B.
How about this situation:
Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:
1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR
2) B refuses to have sex with A.
is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
If Person C wants to criticize Boss A for making sexual advances towards Receptionist B, he should do so on those terms (and it would be especially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
12 May 17
Originally posted by no1marauderThen I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.
Nixon didn't personally burglar the Watergate either. Nor is there evidence he knew it would be burglarized.
Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
12 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76In this case, A had his mouthpieces say he fired B for reason 1, but then turned around and contradicted them. He also repeatedly tweeted that he'd like to have sex with B.
Of course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person ...[text shortened]... cially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
EDIT: In case it's confusing:
Reason 1 are the ones outlined in the Rosenstein memo.
Reason 2 is a desire to shut down the Russia investigation.
12 May 17
Originally posted by sh76Well sure, but Trump is clearly trying to shut down the investigation before evidence of Step 1 can be produced IF it exists.
Then I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.
Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
