Annachie wrote:Smr. Ptesident Trump actually saying that the "Russia investigation" was part of his thinking when he fired Comey is not factual evidence of possible obstruction of justice with regard to the Russia investigation?
Seriously??
What would be factual evidence?
What about in the firing of Bharara?
Surely firing someone who was investigating Trump administration officials for corruption after the President offered to keep him on also smacks of obstruction.
Someone whose biggest scalps for corruption were Democrats I might mention.
Surely firing Sally Yates while she was investigating Trump administration officials for corruption is possible obstruction?
You know what they say.
Once is happenance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times ...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
There´s an article in Time that gives some interesting insights into how Trump works, oh right, found it:
http://time.com/donald-trump-after-hours/Try reading it, you might find some of it enlightening.
Then go back and figure out how you could miss the really superb job of character assassination the article does on him.
Thing to remember about Trump is that he is NOT a politician. He runs the presidential position like he would run just another corporate CEO position.
In short, he simply does not do things the "proper" way, and then he´s confused when people interpret his actions based on what we would expect from a politician.
Not saying whether that firing was suspect or not, because it could be either way, as it goes perfectly along with his personality and "leadership" style either way.