Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can't get a subpoena without evidence of probable cause....There is no indication that there was any impropriety with the inaugural funds. Democrats simply want to see if there is, or can they fake one up if there isn't.
Yep, the kind where you actually catch big fish.It's the ultimate fishing expedition.
Who fucking lied to you?Can't get a subpoena without evidence of probable cause....
I guess we'll find out.Yep, the kind where you actually catch big fish.
Nope. But I'm not worried about that. Clearly these lying thiefs treated the inaugural fund like a personal piggy bank and used it to launder money.Are you going to eat a plate full of shit if the find nothing?
Clearly. One wonders why they even need a subpoena to "investigate" in the first place.Nope. But I'm not worried about that. Clearly these lying thiefs treated the inaugural fund like a personal piggy bank and used it to launder money.
Then that one would be a fool, because that is how you get evidence to use in court.One wonders why they even need a subpoena to "investigate" in the first place.
It's the corruption stupidClearly. One wonders why they even need a subpoena to "investigate" in the first place.Nope. But I'm not worried about that. Clearly these lying thiefs treated the inaugural fund like a personal piggy bank and used it to launder money.
Well, you're the one who said it was "clear." If so, why would they need to subpoena the records. They would already have the evidence they needed.Then that one would be a fool, because that is how you get evidence to use in court.
What corruption, stupid?It's the corruption stupid
Federal prosecutors subpoena Trump's inaugural committee
The pit of vipers never cease to amaze....what an open sewer this regime is....
I doubt they will get the records without raiding the Oval Office....
Criminals never give up easily.....
Where did the money come from and where did it all go?There is no indication that there was any impropriety with the inaugural funds. Democrats simply want to see if there is, or can they fake one up if there isn't.
It is,to me. But that's not the evidential standard for courts. I'm sure you understand the difference, all your trolling aside.Well, you're the one who said it was "clear."
Exactly. Reeks of money launderingWhere did the money come from and where did it all go?There is no indication that there was any impropriety with the inaugural funds. Democrats simply want to see if there is, or can they fake one up if there isn't.
And it will be interesting to see how a lot of the cash found its way back to the foreign entities. (Money laundering)Using straw donors, Saudi Arabia, and Russian oligarchs connected to Putin, donated to TRUMPs inaugural fund, which is against the law.
If there was a quid pro quo, and favors were given for those donations it breaks another law and becomes a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
