Kimmel's monologue versus Moore is pretty win: Jimmy Kimmel delivers scathing response to Roy Moore after their ‘Twitter war
It'd get compressed here anyways, so you may as well click, but it's pretty win and IMO worth it. It'd be even more epic if Moore said "sure." Just to escalate, because like @HCGLNS I think I'd
at that. Moore called Kimmel out, Kimmel said yes, so let's do it!
It'd get compressed here anyways, so you may as well click, but it's pretty win and IMO worth it. It'd be even more epic if Moore said "sure." Just to escalate, because like @HCGLNS I think I'd
at that. Moore called Kimmel out, Kimmel said yes, so let's do it!
Here's the video for those that prefer that:
Well, lets hope the dominoes are starting to fall.
MORE: Michael Flynn "is prepared to testify...against Pres. Trump, against members of the Trump family, and others in the White House,"@BrianRoss reports. http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq
MORE: Michael Flynn "is prepared to testify...against Pres. Trump, against members of the Trump family, and others in the White House,"
figmentPez
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
The other one wasn't freakin' animating for some reason.
Damn, you beat me to it.
I've been avoiding damping everyone's enthusiasm for the idea that Trump is on the precipice, but the reality is that it's hard to impeach a president.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
All this "We got him!" really amounts to nothing. Even if the FBI decides he's complicit, it doesn't matter unless congress acts on it.
The earliest that will happen is the midterms, and only if Democrats gain a solid majority.
The republicans will talk back to him, and make a show of standing against him, but it's currently in their interest to have him in place, even if they publicly pretend otherwise.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
All this "We got him!" really amounts to nothing. Even if the FBI decides he's complicit, it doesn't matter unless congress acts on it.
The earliest that will happen is the midterms, and only if Democrats gain a solid majority.
The republicans will talk back to him, and make a show of standing against him, but it's currently in their interest to have him in place, even if they publicly pretend otherwise.
I think I'm missing something big here. I thought that Trump fired Flynn back in the spring because he talked to the Russians without authorization? Or the timing thereof? Or something? That was bad (optics or otherwise) so he was fired. At least that was my understanding. So what's new right now other than the indictment/deal and talking with the FBI about it? I'm missing something big here, but there's a ton of noise in the "regular" news, so I'm not seeing the "obvious" connection they're making.
Help please.
Help please.
The new thing is that trump actually admitted it.
That he knew Flynn was breaking the law and still fired Comey to cover it up.
The Roy Moore thing is not new.
Blots, you're the closest thing to a straight answer here, but I'm still not getting something. Why is firing him for X reason translated as obstruction of justice? I would have thought being outside of the government would mean less protection from "official secrets" and such and make Flynn more vulnerable, not less, and thus how did Trump "obstruct justice" by firing him?
I hope I'm being specific enough in trying to ask about the connection I'm not understanding. Also why @sixpackshaker is mentioning the firing of Comey and how this links in would help too.
If Trump asked Comey to lay off Flynn and then fired him when he didn't, AND Trump knew in advance that Flynn was breaking the law, that's obstruction.
Cool, thanks. @Denbrought's post had everything except that. I was about to ask for what exactly happened around what Trump asked Comey, and who said what when, but your summary is good.
The timeline (as I can tell) is "roughly" this that everybody agrees on publicly, correct?
1. Sometime between Election and Inauguration - Flynn contacts Russians, ostensibly about working together on ISIS, terrorism, etc, but who the hell knows what for sure.
2. Sometime after above - Flynn lies to FBI by saying he has no Russian contacts/meetings
3. Feb 13 - Trump fires Flynn after finding out about step 2 above.
4. Trump fires Comey from head of FBI
What's above is purely what "all sides" agree on happened, right?
The part that there is disagreement on IIRC is that between step 3 and 4 Comey says Trump asked Comey to lay off investigating Flynn which would be obstruction of justice.
Have I "got it" more or less?
But trump also has explicitly said that he fired comey because of the investigation.