Hasn't Mueller Heard? No one has to obey subpoenas anymore....

[Asclepias]

You're giving me mixed messages here. First you say the investigation never should have started, then you sound angry that Obama didn't start it earlier. Which is it?

I will type slower so hopefully you can keep up.

In 2014 Obama knew about the Russians interfering and trying to hack.
- In 2016 Obama tried to mock Trump by saying there was no way anyone could hack out elections...yet now he and snowflakes said they were...despite Rosenstein declaring the DNC's server was hacked - not the election - and no vote was changed durng the election.

Barry also knew about Hillary's national security-compromising server and e-mails. He lied abut knowing about it - as was revealed. He was e-mailing her and using an alias.

Barry could have shut both illegal operations down but CHOSE not to.


The investigation of Donald Trump and his team never should have happened. Mueller to this day can not provide one piece of evidence to support the BS claim of 'illegal collusion'...involving a Conservative / Trump No evidence could be provided warranting an investigation involving Trump, let alone a Special Counsel investigation.

The ONLY evidence of 'Illegal Collusion' was:
1. Obama knowing about Russian activity back in 2014 and his facilitation of it, not any attempt to stop it.

2. Hillary's willful compromise of our national security by running a known illegal unauthorized unencrypted unsecured server that fed 6 foreign entities TOP SECRET+ data...a crime Obama knew was going on and again CHOSE to allow it to happen.

THE ONLY INVESTIGATIONS OF ILLEGAL COLLUSION / ESPIONAGE / TREASON NECESSARY WAS OF OBAMA AND HILLARY FOR THEIR PROVEN CRIMES.

- BARRY, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IN 2014?

- BARRY, YOU WERE E-MAILING HILLARY'S ILLEGAL SERVER USING AN ALIAS SO YOU KNEW ABOUT HER BREAKING LAWS AND COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY - WHY DIDN'T YOU REIGN HER ASS IN?
(--- Because almost every agency and agency director under Obama were all using personal servers and aliases, etc....)


- HILLARY, YOU AREN'T THAT F*ING STUPID, SO WHY WERE YOU ILLEGALLY RUNNING AN UNAUTHORIZED, UNENCRYPTED, UNSECURED SERVER RESULTING IN 6 FOREIGN ENTITIES ACQUIRING TOP SECRET+ DATA?

This isn't rocket science, and even snowflakes aren't too stupid to comprehend all of it. They just like to PRETEND they are that stupid.

Okay, so you posted a lot of ranting towards Obama. And somewhere buried in your rant answered my question.

You think the investigation is nothing but a "deep state" attempt to get rid of Trump. You're a useful idiot for Trump.

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

Read the Mueller probe's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and the...

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

So how did they get an indictment? You dont seem to know how this works.

 

[Asclepias]

Okay, so you posted a lot of ranting towards Obama. And somewhere buried in your rant answered my question.

You think the investigation is nothing but a "deep state" attempt to get rid of Trump. You're a useful idiot for Trump.

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

So you believe Trump and Putin over the entire US intelligence agency and every serving member of Congress?

Bear in mind I'm not even discussing collusion. I'm only talking about Russian hacks.

yep! Tell you what, you present some evidence that says russia did anything and that that evidence came from our intelligence agency doing their job.

I already gave you the evidence but youre pretending you didnt see it. Here I will post it again.

Read the Mueller probe's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and the...

you presented no evidence. nadda. you can't cause there isn't any. you mean you posted someone elses opinion of what they said happened, but nothing factual.

OK.

 

[jc456]

I will type slower so hopefully you can keep up.

In 2014 Obama knew about the Russians interfering and trying to hack.
- In 2016 Obama tried to mock Trump by saying there was no way anyone could hack out elections...yet now he and snowflakes said they were...despite Rosenstein declaring the DNC's server was hacked - not the election - and no vote was changed durng the election.

Barry also knew about Hillary's national security-compromising server and e-mails. He lied abut knowing about it - as was revealed. He was e-mailing her and using an alias.

Barry could have shut both illegal operations down but CHOSE not to.


The investigation of Donald Trump and his team never should have happened. Mueller to this day can not provide one piece of evidence to support the BS claim of 'illegal collusion'...involving a Conservative / Trump No evidence could be provided warranting an investigation involving Trump, let alone a Special Counsel investigation.

The ONLY evidence of 'Illegal Collusion' was:
1. Obama knowing about Russian activity back in 2014 and his facilitation of it, not any attempt to stop it.

2. Hillary's willful compromise of our national security by running a known illegal unauthorized unencrypted unsecured server that fed 6 foreign entities TOP SECRET+ data...a crime Obama knew was going on and again CHOSE to allow it to happen.

THE ONLY INVESTIGATIONS OF ILLEGAL COLLUSION / ESPIONAGE / TREASON NECESSARY WAS OF OBAMA AND HILLARY FOR THEIR PROVEN CRIMES.

- BARRY, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IN 2014?

- BARRY, YOU WERE E-MAILING HILLARY'S ILLEGAL SERVER USING AN ALIAS SO YOU KNEW ABOUT HER BREAKING LAWS AND COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY - WHY DIDN'T YOU REIGN HER ASS IN?
(--- Because almost every agency and agency director under Obama were all using personal servers and aliases, etc....)


- HILLARY, YOU AREN'T THAT F*ING STUPID, SO WHY WERE YOU ILLEGALLY RUNNING AN UNAUTHORIZED, UNENCRYPTED, UNSECURED SERVER RESULTING IN 6 FOREIGN ENTITIES ACQUIRING TOP SECRET+ DATA?

This isn't rocket science, and even snowflakes aren't too stupid to comprehend all of it. They just like to PRETEND they are that stupid.

Okay, so you posted a lot of ranting towards Obama. And somewhere buried in your rant answered my question.

You think the investigation is nothing but a "deep state" attempt to get rid of Trump. You're a useful idiot for Trump.

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

Read the Mueller probe's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and the...

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

So how did they get an indictment? You dont seem to know how this works.

I know right?

 

[jc456]

Simple question for you. Did Russia hack us in an attempt to influence our elections?

no one has presented evidence they did. so no.

So you believe Trump and Putin over the entire US intelligence agency and every serving member of Congress?

Bear in mind I'm not even discussing collusion. I'm only talking about Russian hacks.

yep! Tell you what, you present some evidence that says russia did anything and that that evidence came from our intelligence agency doing their job.

I already gave you the evidence but youre pretending you didnt see it. Here I will post it again.

Read the Mueller probe's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and the...

you presented no evidence. nadda. you can't cause there isn't any. you mean you posted someone elses opinion of what they said happened, but nothing factual.

OK.

dude i'm all good, I love kicking your ass in here daily. you got nothing cause you start with nothing. I have everything cause you got nothing.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

 

[jc456]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

 

[Asclepias]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

It was a simple yes or no question, and they responded with deflections and partisan nonsense. But you're a blind partisan hack, so of course you thought it was fine.

 

[jc456]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

 

[Asclepias]

So your answer is yes. I had to dig through the partisan shit in your post, but it sounds like your answer was yes.

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

 

[jc456]

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

no they didn't, they gave an opinion. I'll quote it. cause the language they used was "on or about". If they had evidence dates would be available.

 

[Asclepias]

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

no they didn't, they gave an opinion. I'll quote it. cause the language they used was "on or about". If they had evidence dates would be available.

They gave an opinion on the evidence.

 

[hazlnut]

Trump has rejected Mueller's kind invitation to sit down and 'chat' ... Leaving Mueller to consider fighting to subpoena the President to force him to talk.

Silly co-conspirator....hasn't he heard? No one has to pay attention to / comply with subpoenas anymore.

Hillary's IT guy got immunity then pleaded the 5th. Hillary's aides were given immunity, refused to testify, and protected from indictment..

Hillary refused to testify under oath and Obstructed Justice by violating a subpoena...

Paige, Strzok...

Mueller doesn't have the balls to subpoena the President...especially when Rosenstein is about to be Impeached...and he himself being looked at.

He just implicated Russians so its time to cut his losses, wrap it up, and run before he gets indicted.


Trump resists Mueller interview, leaving decision on subpoena before fall elections

There's a thing called objective truth, you seem to not care.



Hillary never charged with Obstruction, so when you say "obstructed justice" and "violated subpoena" you are talking out of your ass. You are making shit up. You are in a fantasy world believing things that normal adults know are bullshit.


He indicted the Russians -- now anyone who who talked to the Russians, discussed emails and when to release them, is GUITLY OF CONSPIRACY.

CO-CONSPIRITORS are about to go down. Buh-bye Jarred.

Yes, No collusion. BUT CONSPIRACY... you're fucked Donny.

 

[MrShangles]

3 YEARS later Mueller, Libs, and snowflakes still don't have any evidence that a crime was committed warranting an investigation if Trump let alone a Special Counsel

You’re just not a serious person. You’re either legitimately brainwashed or woefully ignorant. How many witches has Mueller caught? Here’s www.foxnews.com:

Who's been charged by Mueller in the Russia probe so far?

All the Americans that have been indicted had nothing to do with Russians or Trump, and the Russians being charged were never expected to show for court and when one did show for court, Muller wouldn’t show the evidence.

At some point Mueller will finally have to show his super super secret evidence that he obviously doesn’t have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

wacky you must stop drinking the Kool-Aid... I never answered "yes" to anything...

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

post the piece from the indictment that shows evidence, I saw the term Guccifer 2.0. Well that was what the 3rd party hacks the DNC claimed to use to show the hack. but they lied about it. Now no where does it state in the document evidence collected by the intelligence agency X. nope no where. so you go right ahead and post the evidence that's there. just one line i'll go read it.

Got to get passed this:

New fight over who hacked the DNC

"But others say The Nation story makes no sense. “The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to ‘metadata,’ the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection,” wrote New York Magazine, which deemed the story “incoherent.” “Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.”

 

[Asclepias]

So your post was full of useless deflection and partisan bullshit then.

You are incapable of answering a simple yes or no question. Your partisanship has robbed you of simple thought. You have my sympathy.

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

post the piece from the indictment that shows evidence, I saw the term Guccifer 2.0. Well that was what the 3rd party hacks the DNC claimed to use to show the hack. but they lied about it. Now no where does it state in the document evidence collected by the intelligence agency X. nope no where. so you go right ahead and post the evidence that's there. just one line i'll go read it.

Not going to do that. I gave you the link. Its your responsibility to read it. They have dates and facts in there that you claimed were not.

 

[jc456]

I thought he answered you appropriately.

You also think indictments are obtained without evidence.

I have no idea what was used for the indictments, but let me see the evidence that was used. Why can't they show us, will we die, our limbs fall off, blind, incapacitated/ what for god sake what will happen if we knew the evidence? ahahahhhahahahahaha

BTW, the fact you don't ask for the evidence shows you to be a parrot.

They did show us in the indictment.

post the piece from the indictment that shows evidence, I saw the term Guccifer 2.0. Well that was what the 3rd party hacks the DNC claimed to use to show the hack. but they lied about it. Now no where does it state in the document evidence collected by the intelligence agency X. nope no where. so you go right ahead and post the evidence that's there. just one line i'll go read it.

Not going to do that. I gave you the link. Its your responsibility to read it. They have dates and facts in there that you claimed were not.

I read it, sorry, Guccifer 2.0 isn't evidence. That came from Crowdstrike which were hired by the DNC. got to give me something an agency actually pulled.

 

[Synthaholic]

Mueller has caught no one connected to illegal collusion with Russians.

You’re talking out your ass, as always.

You have no fucking clue what evidence Mueller has.

 

[jc456]

Mueller has caught no one connected to illegal collusion with Russians.

You’re talking out your ass, as always.

You have no fucking clue what evidence Mueller has.

nor do you, so you have no idea and no authority to say otherwise unless you have evidence. which you don't. Without evidence, he's correct.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hillary's IT guy got immunity then pleaded the 5th.

But he showed up and pleaded the fifth, right? Trumpy should do that.

Trump has no need to agree to an attempted 'gotcha' interview because Mueller has shown no evidence of anything worthy of investigating Trump for - no crime, no evidence.

And Mueller is currently guilty of Obstruction / refusing to comply with a Congressional Subpoena....why grant an interview with a criminal desperate to justify his witch hunt and own crime?

Thank you for admitting that your "Hillary’s IT guy" analogy was total bullshit.

You’re no challenge, dope.