No one is saying election tampering. The collusion case has become a full blown financial case plus the usage of the hacked email content.
People like yourself keep thinking they're being accused of tampering with the machines and votes, which isn't the case and hasn't been for awhile. The claim being made is that members of Trump's campaign used Russian connections to broker deals and launder money into the Republican campaign to fund the huge propaganda and fake news initiatives.
It wouldn't be Trump going down with that knowing what kind of fucking imbecile he really is. It would be Manafort, Page, Cohen, Flynn, Stone, Kushner, Sessions, and any GOP officials who knowingly laundered the funds. Trump is fucking himself by obstructing the investigation to defend his friends regardless of his own personal innocence or guilt in the actual claims being made.
I checked on the Donald earlier. Had a big thread with a headline praising Rubio. How he had redeemed himself.
When I listened, and read the transcript, it sounded more to me like a man who was building a hard "Russia messed up Narrative. I'll lead us out of it!"
- Lars
It is absolutely insane to me that people are still trying to defend Trump.
It's like we are literally living in completely different worlds. How are people so far apart in their perception of base reality that they can't even meet in the middle like this? Like I'm just so confused every day that I can't understand some of my fellow americans on any level.
They would have a point if the president himself was under investigation and was actively trying to abuse his constitutional authority to subvert investigations of himself. This isn't the case. Trump isn't under investigation. Trump is the president, has constitutional authority and discretion to direct the FBI director as he is managed by the executive branch. He didn't order, command, or otherwise ask Comey in any fashion, even Comey himself asserts this. Say Flynn gets charged with a crime as a result of some investigation. Trump could pardon him, still wouldn't be obstruction.
Daily reminder, it doesnt matter he Donnie did something criminal, just makes it easier to kick him out. Presidents are held to a different legal standard anyway -- lot of stuff overlooked, smaller stuff might get them in a lot of trouble.
The impeachment process doesn't require that something criminal has taken place either.
What we do have have, and thats just from what can be said in public, is testimony from a credible source that Donnie was up to some fuckery.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
Ahhh...what a great day to be coming back from my latest 2 week "vacation".
The sky is blue, birds are happily singing, and the entire narrative from the anti-Trumpers has been laid to waste.
Let's recap, shall we?
Wednesday 06/07/2017
The Director of the NSA empathically states: "In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate".
The Director of National Intelligence states: "I've never been pressured, never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to ongoing investigations."
Whaaaaaat? No strongarm tactics from Trump, trying to quash the "Russia" investigation? Whaaaaaaat?
Thursday 06/08/2017
FORMER FBI Driector James Comey testifies that PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump is not - and has never been - under ANY type of investigation either a criminal or counter-intelligence. Comey completely vindicates Trump's "thanks for telling me " tweet.
Now, for those of you who actually took the time to read Comey's prepared testimony, instead of relying on the "fake news" (BTW - you did see that Comey again vindicated Trump by saying that many reports in the NY Times were bullshit.....right?) let's break down what he actually said:
1) Trump wanted loyalty.
So what? He didn't ask for fealty. Big difference. After all of the leaks that had already started he wanted to know if Comey was someone he could trust and be loyal to Office of the President. Turned out, he was right to ask - as soon as Comey got fired he started leaking.
2) Trump wanted him to not investigate Flynn
Trump asked Comey to cut Flynn some slack. So what? They both agreed that Flynn is actually a good guy! Regardless, Trump did not bring it up again, Comey makes no further reference to it- so Trump DID NOT pressure Comey. He asked him one time - and that was on 02/14/2017. Comey was not fired until TWO MONTHS later.
3) Trump wanted "the cloud" about Russia removed
Comey had told Trump 3 times that he was under NO investigation, yet the media - and the anti-Trumpers - were running rampant every day INSINUATING that Trump was in bed with Russia (in other words, nothing but CONSPIRACY theories) so he asked Comey: "Hey, you have told me 3 times that I am not under ANY kind of investigation - would you please tell THAT to the MSM so they can SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!
And that is it - and nothing else. Nada. Zilch. Zippy.
The Russian wall that the anti-Trumpers have been building has lost a few bricks and is about to come tumbling down on their heads. No worries - President Trump has you covered. He is getting ready to build a new "wall". A beautiful "wall". The Trump admin is currently in the 2nd of 3 rounds of the bidding process. Moving along quite nicely.
Trump 2020! Making America Great Again!
You clearly didn't listen to Comey's testimony. He said he wasn't ordered or commanded to do so but the statements made in the context they were made could be taken as trying to influence him.
Say you're a shift manager at a job and you witness another manager doing something totally wrong and you go up the line with it. If your boss pulls you aside one on one and asks if you like your job and starts telling you how great of an employee that other manager is and it'd be a shame if something happened to them, that can still be taken as trying to influence you.
That is correct, he didn't overtly order or command. And you're correct that pardoning would not constitute obstruction. But Comey's testimony was this:
Considering these statements and Trump's follow-up about loyalty, I do not think that Comey's interpretation of Trump's statements to be unreasonable.He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” . . . I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.
At some point, after the bars shut close on Trump, you may find some free time to go back and actually read Comey's testimony. When you do, you'll see that Comey said almost exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. He also reiterated the point that Trump himself admitted to another instance of Obstruction - Comey got a two-fer. Trump fired Comey for the Russia investigation (Trump's words, not read into official Congressional Record - a fact you seem to ignore) and then Comey's testimony/notes regarding Trump privately asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
But enjoy your delusional spin for now - it's all you'll have later.