Catsnmeters
Gold Member
- Sep 19, 2022
- 15,218
- 5,904
- 208
Yeah. Like he said, there was evidence in plain site.Did you ever get any from Schiff?
Did you miss it?
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.
Yeah. Like he said, there was evidence in plain site.Did you ever get any from Schiff?
all of themNo, you need evidence for Trump too.
What indictments or charges has Trump been subject too that had no evidence?
so plain it disappeared and no one could find it. hilarious.Yeah. Like he said, there was evidence in plain site.
Did you miss it?
Then tell us what it was.Yeah. Like he said, there was evidence in plain site.
Did you miss it?
Asking for new evidence is hysterical?Whether new evidence is presented isn't the point of this hearing. A lot of voters, like the kind that watch fake news, have never heard any of this evidence. It's clear from your posts that you haven't heard the evidence. That's why you're so hysterical.
Never. Collusion is not a federal crime and there was never any investigation for collusion.When did you see any evidence for Russian collusion?
can't make it up. hilarious.Never. Collusion is not a federal crime and there was never any investigation for collusion.
Mueller Report was unnecessary then? 43 million dollars? hahahahaahahhahaahhahaNever. Collusion is not a federal crime and there was never any investigation for collusion.
Did you read Jack's indictments because pictures and texts were included in the indictments.all of them
You're the one who believes we shouldn't watch the evidence, douchebag.Asking for new evidence is hysterical?
Why do you have such disdain for evidence.
But thank you for answering my question.
As I stated many posts ago, nothing new; just rehashing old testimony that offered nothing but the conjecture, theory and inference that was offered before.
That is why when Comer speaks of the evidence he doesn't answer with yes or no. He says things like "appears to be" "the behavior suggests" "could have" or "might have".
Maybe next time, Skippy.
So Mueller's investigation was a pointless witch hunt?Never. Collusion is not a federal crime and there was never any investigation for collusion.
It didn't disappear. It's part of the public record.so plain it disappeared and no one could find it. hilarious.
….and one that cost the taxpayers $30 million.So Mueller's investigation was a pointless witch hunt?
Manafort paid for most of it but regardless, it was a republican investigation anyhow.Mueller Report was unnecessary then? 43 million dollars? hahahahaahahhahaahhaha
What are talking about?can't make it up. hilarious.
So link the evidence and please include why no charges have been recommended or filed.You're the one who believes we shouldn't watch the evidence, douchebag.
Who do you think you're fooling?
The evidence is so old that you're never heard of it. It's hardly nothing but conjecture, theory and interference. Is everything you post on this subject a lie. What question about the evidence have an answer of "yes" or "no."
Your such a scumbag it defies belief.
Wrong. It was a deep stat witch hunt. Comey is the kind of Republican who voted for Hillary.Manafort paid for most of it but regardless, it was a republican investigation anyhow.
Not really. It did better then most republican investigations. It did show several example of obstruction of justice but Trump was president so evidently he can obstruct justice and it's ok.So Mueller's investigation was a pointless witch hunt?