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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Hey Franco, how is our resident hater dupe doing today?Nobody in their right mind cares about your propaganda only bs committee and the non-existant e-mail scandal about a non-existant Bengazi scandal, hater dupe.
Nobody in their right mind cares about your propaganda only bs committee and the non-existant e-mail scandal about a non-existant Bengazi scandal, hater dupe.
Hey Franco, how is our resident hater dupe doing today?Nobody in their right mind cares about your propaganda only bs committee and the non-existant e-mail scandal about a non-existant Bengazi scandal, hater dupe.
You just don't want to produce it because you know it was sent via e-mail and never handed directly to Clinton. There is proof it was sent to a lawyers office, but no proof Clinton ever saw it.Find it yourself. If you can't, get a kid in 6th grade to help you. Are you really this Dysfunctional ?cl
link?After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton. Evidently you do not fact check your statements. The subpoena was to Hillary. The subpoena is on line dumb one. Read it.
There was no request in the subpoena for Clinton to show up anywhere. That portion of the subpoena is left blank. The materials requested were turned over on time. There was no reason for Clinton to have any knowledge of the alleged subpoena.
The bottom line is a good lawyer would have kept her in the dark if there was plausible deniability for her receiving the subpoena. It is only a biased opinion that she received the subpoena. Thing about subpoenas is that you have to prove the party received one before you can take any action against them.You just don't want to produce it because you know it was sent via e-mail and never handed directly to Clinton. There is proof it was sent to a lawyers office, but no proof Clinton ever saw it.Find it yourself. If you can't, get a kid in 6th grade to help you. Are you really this Dysfunctional ?cl
link?After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton. Evidently you do not fact check your statements. The subpoena was to Hillary. The subpoena is on line dumb one. Read it.
There was no request in the subpoena for Clinton to show up anywhere. That portion of the subpoena is left blank. The materials requested were turned over on time. There was no reason for Clinton to have any knowledge of the alleged subpoena.
The Bottom Line is she knew she had been served. The end!
Idiotic talking points and stupid insults from the dupes and Pubtrolls...
The bottom line is a good lawyer would have kept her in the dark if there was plausible deniability for her receiving the subpoena. It is only a biased opinion that she received the subpoena. Thing about subpoenas is that you have to prove the party received one before you can take any action against them.You just don't want to produce it because you know it was sent via e-mail and never handed directly to Clinton. There is proof it was sent to a lawyers office, but no proof Clinton ever saw it.Find it yourself. If you can't, get a kid in 6th grade to help you. Are you really this Dysfunctional ?cl
link?After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton. Evidently you do not fact check your statements. The subpoena was to Hillary. The subpoena is on line dumb one. Read it.
There was no request in the subpoena for Clinton to show up anywhere. That portion of the subpoena is left blank. The materials requested were turned over on time. There was no reason for Clinton to have any knowledge of the alleged subpoena.
The Bottom Line is she knew she had been served. The end!