T And T Garage wrote on 05/10/17 at 14:30:59:raydawg wrote on 05/10/17 at 14:19:20:Huh..... its supposition and theory, you got a smoking gun?
He said, she said, taunting online, etc....
This is worthy of impeaching??!??
I don't see how.
OK - that's a fair enough statement.
If you truly stand by it, then you must also now defend Clinton in his impeachment and say that it was unjustified, yes? (or is that somehow different?)
Remember, "taunting online" is not what tweety did. It was obstruction of justice. Implicating the former president - in print - is not just "taunting". That one incident is worthy of impeachment.
That's not me saying that - that's the law. Well, according to your statement and interpretation, then I guess we would have to extend that same impeachment consideration to Obama, as he said Hillary had done nothing wrong, while still under investigation....
That is not true, she did, they just didn't assign intent.
That to me seems to fit obstruction too.
Or how about the time Obama accused a white cop of racism, wrongly, and then had a beer summit to patch up his error.
Shouldn't he had just stayed out of it until the investigation was completed?
That kid in Florida with skittles?
Also, after inexhaustibly trying to find context and root to the headlines Comey asked for more money, help, etc, just says before Trump fired him....
Was because he was answering a democrat, and a republican senator, to please hurry up his investigation, that is when he asked for more resources.
That is the only true context I can find.
Pages: 
