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.
thehill.com
I would trust Nancy Pelosi's husband to drive me home before I would trust a D.C. jury to convict an anti-Trump political operative.
It was a slam dunk case, Dumbass.This is just bullshit. We said from the beginning that this was a Hail Mary attempt by Dunham to prosecute SOMEONE in his investigation of the investigators. The statute of limitations was running out and Dunham had NOTHING. No charges, no evidence. This case was so thin it was transparent.
Every time Republicans investigate Democrats, they're investigating rumours that Republicans have started about Democrats. They're inventing a crime, and then looking for evidence that Democrats committed that crime. That's how every Clinton Investigation started and finished - no charges, no evidence and no crimes.
Democrats wait until a crime is committed and then investigate. That's why Republicans get charged, and Democrats don't.
I don't speak for Trumpers, but I see nothing wrong with questioning the legitimacy of electors when there were that many questions about the actions, just as I didn't see anything wrong with Democrats trying to question the legitimacy of electors in the 2000 election when Al Gore refused to entertain their demands to challenge that election. I do question the tactics of demanding that electors become "faithless" as was demanded by the Hillary supporters in 2016.Small victories I guess, bro......
but since Trumpers are pretending to care about "wrong" and right.....
......would demanding a VP overturn an election be wrong or no??
Sussman not telling some FBI lawyer that he worked for the Clinton campaign even tho the FBI KNEW he worked for the campaign....is not the "wrong" you claim it is bro
How so?The jury was tainted from the git-go. They were desperate to protect Hillary.
Not sure anyone cares what a foreign troll has to say about Durham's investigation. He's got one guilty plea and another trial in October, AND he got information on the record about Hillary's role in the plot. His investigation doesn't seem to be in much trouble.This is just bullshit. We said from the beginning that this was a Hail Mary attempt by Dunham to prosecute SOMEONE in his investigation of the investigators. The statute of limitations was running out and Dunham had NOTHING. No charges, no evidence. This case was so thin it was transparent.
Every time Republicans investigate Democrats, they're investigating rumours that Republicans have started about Democrats. They're inventing a crime, and then looking for evidence that Democrats committed that crime. That's how every Clinton Investigation started and finished - no charges, no evidence and no crimes.
Democrats wait until a crime is committed and then investigate. That's why Republicans get charged, and Democrats don't.
www.foxnews.com
nypost.com
Yep, really hard case to prove. But then again how many of Trump crime family got convicted?You're an idiot. And that's being polite.
"The failure to convict today, largely was a result, in my judgment, of the fact that the FBI has to establish that not only was Jim Baker – their general counsel – lied to, but the lie was material," Vance told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell in the noon hour Tuesday. "And of course, the defendant Mr. Sussman maintained that he never lied about who he represented or why he was there. And also the lie even if there was one wouldn't have been material because the FBI would have still investigated this information."
"So this entire situation smacks of sour grapes," Vance continued, referring to the Durham investigation itself. "Perhaps, at best, an effort by former Attorney General Bill Barr to curry favor with the [Trump] White House. At worst an effort to appease Donald Trump and investigate one of his pet theories: what Trump always called 'the Russia hoax.'"
Hi, Buddy! Lurch here! How are you? Hey, you got a second to review the score how you sleazy diaper stains have failed, miserably over the past 50 years?Yep. The verdict was decided before the trial even began.
What Dems?...name them.Meh, the fix was in....I even saw some dems go WTF as far as the jury selection....Then they laughed.
Name them4 Clinton donors.
Hi, Buddy! Lurch here! How are you? Hey, you got a second to review the score how you sleazy diaper stains have failed, miserably over the past 50 years?
1. Whitewater. Nothingburger, finished in an embarrassing display from Staar and Clinton still was acquitted.
2. Benghazi - just pony show sleazed together by rednecks with the sole purpose of damaging Hillary for 2016. The hearings were shut down silently aquitting Hillary.
3. The Durham sham. This was the one where you trump suckers were going to expose that "Deep State". Stupid case dismissed.
Dude, that makes you knuckle-draggers Zero for Three, Mothafukah! Sorry, loser!
It was a slam dunk case, Dumbass.
He had overwhelming evidence Sussman lied to the FBI. You are just too fucking stupid to see it.
I'm wondering how much this failed investigation cost us?Well apparently both the judge and the jury were too stupid to see it too. Only YOU, the idiot FuckBoi, can see the truth.
