"Partly" obstruct is still a crime.He never said to "end" the investigation. I dare you to find me a video of Trump saying that. He did say he fired Comey partly because of the Russia investigation. But he had several other reasons as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Partly" obstruct is still a crime.He never said to "end" the investigation. I dare you to find me a video of Trump saying that. He did say he fired Comey partly because of the Russia investigation. But he had several other reasons as well.
Why are you asking these questions when your mind is already made up and you have no intention of changing it no matter what you hear or see?um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?
And it also shows him admitting firing Comey to shut down the investigation.People who don't even read or watch their own links. They just search titles and post them.
The video did show Trump saying he wanted to fire Comey since his inauguration.
Spoken like a true fascist. Just like Nunes. You have no valid argument, so you try to silence the critics. Let's all go back to Germany in the '30's.yep. would not make me cry for temp banning for that shit.
Historically, the President doesn't interfere with the DOJ. Not in Trump world...If that were even remotely true, there would have been an investigation. The DoJ falls under the Executive Branch. The President of the United States is the “chief executive” of the executive branch.
You’re lying as usual. Sad that you feel the need to resort to lying.
Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.Bwahahaha! Good grief...where to even begin with this gem? Let’s start with this - that campaign rally and that meeting both occurred before he was elected President. You cannot violate the Emoluments Clause if you don’t hold a public office.
How many years has the ACA been in effect? I have had employer-provided health insurance this entire time. I didn't lose my insurance.This is now the second lie I’ve caught you in just in this one post alone.
Less than a million, uh snowflake?The 5 million-plus Americans who’ve seen their health plans canceled thanks to ObamaCare will be joined by millions more this year — because the Affordable Care Act makes their employer-provided policies illegal, as well.
Another 25 million ObamaCare victims
Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.Bwahahaha! Good grief...where to even begin with this gem? Let’s start with this - that campaign rally and that meeting both occurred before he was elected President. You cannot violate the Emoluments Clause if you don’t hold a public office.
And it also shows him admitting firing Comey to shut down the investigation.People who don't even read or watch their own links. They just search titles and post them.
The video did show Trump saying he wanted to fire Comey since his inauguration.
"Partly" obstruct is still a crime.He never said to "end" the investigation. I dare you to find me a video of Trump saying that. He did say he fired Comey partly because of the Russia investigation. But he had several other reasons as well.
Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.Its amazing to me that somebody of that stature could be so stupid as to assume this lawsuit could work.Maybe this well go to the high court to end the debate about social media.
Luckily, we still have institutionalized discrimination and this isnt a protected class.
I cant wait for the outcome!
He's doing it for political clout...I cant believe that he assumes he'd win.
Free (POLITICAL!) speech is already ruled on as protected speech, for private corporations, by the Supreme Court. Twitter is ALLOWED to have a political bias. They're not a tax-payer provided service ->
And that ruling aside, since when does a right-leaning politician not believe in a private business' right to disallow whatever they wish on their platform? Are we bringing cakes up in a minute, I know we're not about to talk about cakes...
I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.Its amazing to me that somebody of that stature could be so stupid as to assume this lawsuit could work.Maybe this well go to the high court to end the debate about social media.
Luckily, we still have institutionalized discrimination and this isnt a protected class.
I cant wait for the outcome!
He's doing it for political clout...I cant believe that he assumes he'd win.
Free (POLITICAL!) speech is already ruled on as protected speech, for private corporations, by the Supreme Court. Twitter is ALLOWED to have a political bias. They're not a tax-payer provided service ->
And that ruling aside, since when does a right-leaning politician not believe in a private business' right to disallow whatever they wish on their platform? Are we bringing cakes up in a minute, I know we're not about to talk about cakes...
Yes sir. Thats why i want this settled. People have been screaming about this for years now.I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.Its amazing to me that somebody of that stature could be so stupid as to assume this lawsuit could work.Maybe this well go to the high court to end the debate about social media.
Luckily, we still have institutionalized discrimination and this isnt a protected class.
I cant wait for the outcome!
He's doing it for political clout...I cant believe that he assumes he'd win.
Free (POLITICAL!) speech is already ruled on as protected speech, for private corporations, by the Supreme Court. Twitter is ALLOWED to have a political bias. They're not a tax-payer provided service ->
And that ruling aside, since when does a right-leaning politician not believe in a private business' right to disallow whatever they wish on their platform? Are we bringing cakes up in a minute, I know we're not about to talk about cakes...
One thing that might make the false advertising one a bad argument, is that Twitter is an unpaid platform.Yes sir. Thats why i want this settled. People have been screaming about this for years now.I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.Its amazing to me that somebody of that stature could be so stupid as to assume this lawsuit could work.Maybe this well go to the high court to end the debate about social media.
Luckily, we still have institutionalized discrimination and this isnt a protected class.
I cant wait for the outcome!
He's doing it for political clout...I cant believe that he assumes he'd win.
Free (POLITICAL!) speech is already ruled on as protected speech, for private corporations, by the Supreme Court. Twitter is ALLOWED to have a political bias. They're not a tax-payer provided service ->
And that ruling aside, since when does a right-leaning politician not believe in a private business' right to disallow whatever they wish on their platform? Are we bringing cakes up in a minute, I know we're not about to talk about cakes...
Lets put it to bed.
So your position is, if something didn’t happen to you, it didn’t happen?How many years has the ACA been in effect? I have had employer-provided health insurance this entire time. I didn't lose my insurance.
why do you post shit you can't back up and then try to back it up with a video that says nothing about what you say it is?Why are you asking these questions when your mind is already made up and you have no intention of changing it no matter what you hear or see?um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?
You're like the line in a song by Bob Dylan...
"How many times can a man turn his head,
pretending he just doesn't see"
like hiring a former brittish agent to get dirt from russia to use on an opponent?Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.Bwahahaha! Good grief...where to even begin with this gem? Let’s start with this - that campaign rally and that meeting both occurred before he was elected President. You cannot violate the Emoluments Clause if you don’t hold a public office.
you're the dick-fart that posted a video that doesn't say what you said it does. critique all you want. stop lying along the way.Spoken like a true fascist. Just like Nunes. You have no valid argument, so you try to silence the critics. Let's all go back to Germany in the '30's.yep. would not make me cry for temp banning for that shit.
Historically the DOJ is run by a crony of the President.Historically, the President doesn't interfere with the DOJ. Not in Trump world...If that were even remotely true, there would have been an investigation. The DoJ falls under the Executive Branch. The President of the United States is the “chief executive” of the executive branch.
You’re lying as usual. Sad that you feel the need to resort to lying.
President Donald Trump tried to order prosecutors at the Department of Justice to indict two of his political enemies — 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey — this spring, according to the New York Times.