That is what the intelligence agencies are working on determining and there are separate investigations into separate issues going on simultaneously.
As Comey has already admitted that he isn't generally that familiar with mr Trump, what value then are his interpretations? His own dismissal of his familiarity implies that his analysis is at best superficial.
I could make an argument that it was partly Trump's fault - by publicly encouraging the hacking, promoting false stories, and attacking the intelligence agencies. And the hacking potentially did impact those states because your question ignores the possibility that Hillary would have won those states by an even larger margin.
No, that's Trump's inability to lead, handle controversy, or to promote a supportable legislative agenda which is to blame.
Maybe they're watching a live stream over on CNN or some other MSM. I could have sworn I'd heard it as well.
He thinks it proves 'collusion', but not even a kangaroo court would accept a statement as fact LOL. A statement can't even prove INTENT. Just like Mike Rogers put dents in the Democrats conspiracy theory, Comey's unwitting incompetence is putting it on gasoline fire.
You seem to not be able to keep up here. Trump's ask was for who had Hillary's email, not on effective methods for hacking election machines. Of course, these little facts don't stop you from conflating them...which if frankly laughable.
Comey was so disturbed that he never thought about resigning and still reported to Trump he was not under investigation.
Oh, I see. You interpret the reference in that clause to a "trial" as the need to go to a courtroom? No. The Senate does lead a trial - in the Senate chambers - and that trial does not comport to the same rules of evidence which would apply in a courtroom. Similarly, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would warrant impeachment is pretty much whatever 2/3rds of the Senate agrees as qualifying. They could impeach the President for crossing the street improperly if they like and they could do so without even presenting proof that he had done such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...s_Constitution#Clause_6:_Trial_of_Impeachment
LOL, just asked why he still talked to Trump on the phone but was 'afraid' of talking to him alone in a room.
The more I watch, the more I see the ego of the man who thought he was his own oligarch. A master of his universe, who couldn't be "touched" by the ill smelling political class.... Poor him. Out in the cold, now. Perhaps he can start up a go fund me page.... Come doesn't know the President, cannot comment on state of mind or intent, but, is perfectly wiling to push his own "feelings" as a substitute. He's laughable.
I would presume that any president would have confidence in his/her own appointees and will maintain his/her confidence in them as long as it is earned. So? I can't think of any reason why I should care or be concerned that no one has jumped to answer that question in a time frame that suits the president's opponents.
There is nothing objective about your opinion here or you would have quoted specifically where in the law Trump obstructed justice.
