The reason why Hillary was never indicted and Trump will be Impeached

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What evidence? Give me something that's not an unproven allegation by unnamed or anonymous sources, Mamooth! Since there's SO MUCH "damning evidence" you should have no problem providing some...right?

If there is no evidence as you claim, then what is driving the investigation forward?

media frenzy and democrat corruption.

That's what has Republicans supporting the investigation?

Many Republicans do not like Trump either. Too bad, so sad!

They've also been briefed on the investigations.

What investigations? The ones that have found NOTHING?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

You may be on to something here. Although Hellary, like all politicians, has proven she has no issues with lies and deceit, she did tread lightly with the FBI. Trump is not so political savvy, and the most recent report does seem to suggest he is concerned with the ongoing investigation. Each day this Russia probe does seem to smell more like Watergate. It isn't there yet to be sure, but Watergate wasn't Watergate until it was. One has to wonder why Trump is so anxious to have the investigation end. Investigators have an instinct which tells them "if somebody tells you there is nothing over there to see, there is probably something over there they should look at".
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to deny evidence of Russia collusion

 

[CowboyTed]

About the first thing Trump did in office was declare war on all the intelligence agencies. Given how much criminality he's engaged in, that means he's a moron.

The intelligence agencies are going to continue leaking out the evidence, a bit at a time. It won't stop, ever, because there's more than enough damning evidence to last for however long Trump's term is.

What evidence? Give me something that's not an unproven allegation by unnamed or anonymous sources, Mamooth! Since there's SO MUCH "damning evidence" you should have no problem providing some...right?

Here is how it goes:

1. Newspaper has story from Anonymous source...
2. Someone from Admin is placed in front of a mic and says the story is false
3. Trump proudly says the story is true and he should be allowed to do that..
4. Then it shown that he isn't or shouldn't
5. Someone from Admin tries to defuse the bomb after it has gone off...

Earlier on they went for all out refusal but got there ass handed to them over crowd size....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And the reason that Hillary wasn't indicted was that the Director of the FBI thought she was too stupid to understand she had broken Federal law!

Then you on the left wonder why she lost the election?

The "what evidence?" narrative y'all are playing right now is gonna be remembered as one of the dumbest yet. Even if no charges are brought forth. They aren't investigating nothing

actually they are investigating nothing. There is no evidence of collusion. The leaks revealed corruption within the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the media. Those facts MAY have cost her the election. Funny how the truth affects voters, isn't it?

It may be true that Putin hated the Clintons and tried to help Trump. BFD. The USA has tried to influence the elections in other countries for years. Obama personally tried to keep Netanyahu from winning in Israel.

This entire topic is bullshit and should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

It's moved well beyond mere collusion.

Prove it kid. You seem to have some "secret" knowledge, please share it with us?

That's the thing, dope.
It's not secret at all.


is trump obstructing justice - Google Search

 

[Doc1]

And the reason that Hillary wasn't indicted was that the Director of the FBI thought she was too stupid to understand she had broken Federal law!

Then you on the left wonder why she lost the election?

The "what evidence?" narrative y'all are playing right now is gonna be remembered as one of the dumbest yet. Even if no charges are brought forth. They aren't investigating nothing

actually they are investigating nothing. There is no evidence of collusion. The leaks revealed corruption within the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the media. Those facts MAY have cost her the election. Funny how the truth affects voters, isn't it?

It may be true that Putin hated the Clintons and tried to help Trump. BFD. The USA has tried to influence the elections in other countries for years. Obama personally tried to keep Netanyahu from winning in Israel.

This entire topic is bullshit and should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

It's moved well beyond mere collusion.

Prove it kid. You seem to have some "secret" knowledge, please share it with us?

That's the thing, dope.
It's not secret at all.


is trump obstructing justice - Google Search

I asked you for proof, not the silly innuendo you've chosen to accept as "truth". C'mon kid, share your "secret" knowledge.

 

[Crixus]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

Libs and never trumpers don't get it. Ted Cruze and 16 other candidates for president diddnt get it either and that's why they lost. I said a week or so ago that this investigation bull shit would fade away. That will happen because the democrat party knows a guy like Muller can go in any direction with a criminal investigation. That investigation would surely mention Half Black Jesus and Hillary would not likely get away clean either. Aslde from Miken Flynn, so far no one in Trumpsncam is under any investigation new investigation. Teumps in. Deal with it.

 

[Redfish]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

You may be on to something here. Although Hellary, like all politicians, has proven she has no issues with lies and deceit, she did tread lightly with the FBI. Trump is not so political savvy, and the most recent report does seem to suggest he is concerned with the ongoing investigation. Each day this Russia probe does seem to smell more like Watergate. It isn't there yet to be sure, but Watergate wasn't Watergate until it was. One has to wonder why Trump is so anxious to have the investigation end. Investigators have an instinct which tells them "if somebody tells you there is nothing over there to see, there is probably something over there they should look at".
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to deny evidence of Russia collusion

OH, holy shit----------Watergate. one political party breaks into the office of the other political party and the president tries to cover it up. Big fuckin deal.

All Nixon had to do was say: "yeah they broke in, they should not have done it, I will make sure they are prosecuted" The cover up is always worse than the crime. Duh, Hillary and her illegal email server.

 

[iceberg]

The "what evidence?" narrative y'all are playing right now is gonna be remembered as one of the dumbest yet. Even if no charges are brought forth. They aren't investigating nothing

actually they are investigating nothing. There is no evidence of collusion. The leaks revealed corruption within the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the media. Those facts MAY have cost her the election. Funny how the truth affects voters, isn't it?

It may be true that Putin hated the Clintons and tried to help Trump. BFD. The USA has tried to influence the elections in other countries for years. Obama personally tried to keep Netanyahu from winning in Israel.

This entire topic is bullshit and should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

It's moved well beyond mere collusion.

Prove it kid. You seem to have some "secret" knowledge, please share it with us?

That's the thing, dope.
It's not secret at all.


is trump obstructing justice - Google Search

I asked you for proof, not the silly innuendo you've chosen to accept as "truth". C'mon kid, share your "secret" knowledge.

i'd rather they just kept their bullshit to themselves.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

About the first thing Trump did in office was declare war on all the intelligence agencies. Given how much criminality he's engaged in, that means he's a moron.

The intelligence agencies are going to continue leaking out the evidence, a bit at a time. It won't stop, ever, because there's more than enough damning evidence to last for however long Trump's term is.

What evidence? Give me something that's not an unproven allegation by unnamed or anonymous sources, Mamooth! Since there's SO MUCH "damning evidence" you should have no problem providing some...right?

If there is no evidence as you claim, then what is driving the investigation forward?

Non stop innuendo provided by "unnamed or anonymous" sources?

I give you the same challenge I gave Mamooth, Hutch! Show me some evidence of collusion by Trump. Mamooth claims that there is an abundance of "damning evidence" so it should be a simple matter to provide some examples that AREN'T innuendos by shadowy figures hiding in the dark. Let's see them!

Obviously the evidence you seek has not been made public. Nice straw man.
You need need to listen and watch what those who know the evidence are saying and doing. What do grand juries do?

Yet you assume that there is indeed evidence. As the famous saying goes "A prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". You've had Yates, Comey, Clapper and McMaster tell you that there is no "there" there.

Simple question.
Why and how would multiple investigations continue without evidence?

 

[Doc1]

actually they are investigating nothing. There is no evidence of collusion. The leaks revealed corruption within the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the media. Those facts MAY have cost her the election. Funny how the truth affects voters, isn't it?

It may be true that Putin hated the Clintons and tried to help Trump. BFD. The USA has tried to influence the elections in other countries for years. Obama personally tried to keep Netanyahu from winning in Israel.

This entire topic is bullshit and should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

It's moved well beyond mere collusion.

Prove it kid. You seem to have some "secret" knowledge, please share it with us?

That's the thing, dope.
It's not secret at all.


is trump obstructing justice - Google Search

I asked you for proof, not the silly innuendo you've chosen to accept as "truth". C'mon kid, share your "secret" knowledge.

i'd rather they just kept their bullshit to themselves.

We all would, but they are all owned by the same people and those people are no shall we say "truth friendly".

 

[Doc1]

What evidence? Give me something that's not an unproven allegation by unnamed or anonymous sources, Mamooth! Since there's SO MUCH "damning evidence" you should have no problem providing some...right?

If there is no evidence as you claim, then what is driving the investigation forward?

Non stop innuendo provided by "unnamed or anonymous" sources?

I give you the same challenge I gave Mamooth, Hutch! Show me some evidence of collusion by Trump. Mamooth claims that there is an abundance of "damning evidence" so it should be a simple matter to provide some examples that AREN'T innuendos by shadowy figures hiding in the dark. Let's see them!

Obviously the evidence you seek has not been made public. Nice straw man.
You need need to listen and watch what those who know the evidence are saying and doing. What do grand juries do?

Yet you assume that there is indeed evidence. As the famous saying goes "A prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". You've had Yates, Comey, Clapper and McMaster tell you that there is no "there" there.

Simple question.
Why and how would multiple investigations continue without evidence?

You should have said "simple deflection".

 

[easyt65]

'The reason why Hillary was never indicted...'

Hillary was protected by Obama, Eric holder, Lynch, Comey....

Comey testified that Hillary violated numerous laws. There is more than enough evidence to support this, while snowflakes can't present the 1st shred of evidence to support their false claims against Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If there is no evidence as you claim, then what is driving the investigation forward?

media frenzy and democrat corruption.

That's what has Republicans supporting the investigation?

Many Republicans do not like Trump either. Too bad, so sad!

They've also been briefed on the investigations.

What investigations? The ones that have found NOTHING?

You mean the five in Congress and the FBI?

 

[Doc1]

'The reason why Hillary was never indicted...'

Hillary was protected by Obama, Eric holder, Lynch, Comey....

Comey testified that Hillary violated numerous laws. There is more than enough evidence to support this, while snowflakes can't present the 1st shred of evidence to support their false claims against Trump.

Comey was a Clinton appointment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If there is no evidence as you claim, then what is driving the investigation forward?

Non stop innuendo provided by "unnamed or anonymous" sources?

I give you the same challenge I gave Mamooth, Hutch! Show me some evidence of collusion by Trump. Mamooth claims that there is an abundance of "damning evidence" so it should be a simple matter to provide some examples that AREN'T innuendos by shadowy figures hiding in the dark. Let's see them!

Obviously the evidence you seek has not been made public. Nice straw man.
You need need to listen and watch what those who know the evidence are saying and doing. What do grand juries do?

Yet you assume that there is indeed evidence. As the famous saying goes "A prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". You've had Yates, Comey, Clapper and McMaster tell you that there is no "there" there.

Simple question.
Why and how would multiple investigations continue without evidence?

You should have said "simple deflection".

You displayed that play very well.

It's obvious that you cannot answer that very simple question without blowing your entire premise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

On what charge will Trump be impeached?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

'The reason why Hillary was never indicted...'

Hillary was protected by Obama, Eric holder, Lynch, Comey....

Comey testified that Hillary violated numerous laws. There is more than enough evidence to support this, while snowflakes can't present the 1st shred of evidence to support their false claims against Trump.

Comey was a Clinton appointment.

Comey was a Clinton appointment.

Dope.

 

[easyt65]

On what charge will Trump be impeached?

'MURDER': He KILLED Hillary's chances of ever becoming a US President.

 

[Doc1]

Non stop innuendo provided by "unnamed or anonymous" sources?

I give you the same challenge I gave Mamooth, Hutch! Show me some evidence of collusion by Trump. Mamooth claims that there is an abundance of "damning evidence" so it should be a simple matter to provide some examples that AREN'T innuendos by shadowy figures hiding in the dark. Let's see them!

Obviously the evidence you seek has not been made public. Nice straw man.
You need need to listen and watch what those who know the evidence are saying and doing. What do grand juries do?

Yet you assume that there is indeed evidence. As the famous saying goes "A prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". You've had Yates, Comey, Clapper and McMaster tell you that there is no "there" there.

Simple question.
Why and how would multiple investigations continue without evidence?

You should have said "simple deflection".

You displayed that play very well.

It's obvious that you cannot answer that very simple question without blowing your entire premise.

No, it's obvious you have nothing, no evidence, no "secret" knowledge, just a full blown hatred. Comey, Clapper and Yates already told you that thy had "no evidence".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obviously the evidence you seek has not been made public. Nice straw man.
You need need to listen and watch what those who know the evidence are saying and doing. What do grand juries do?

Yet you assume that there is indeed evidence. As the famous saying goes "A prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". You've had Yates, Comey, Clapper and McMaster tell you that there is no "there" there.

Simple question.
Why and how would multiple investigations continue without evidence?

You should have said "simple deflection".

You displayed that play very well.

It's obvious that you cannot answer that very simple question without blowing your entire premise.

No, it's obvious you have nothing, no evidence, no "secret" knowledge, just a full blown hatred. Comey, Clapper and Yates already told you that thy had "no evidence".

Post each of them saying that, dope.