Obama knew. Clinton knew. Biden knew. Comey knew. Brennan knew. McCabe knew. Strzok knew.Clapper knew.Schiff knew.FBI,CIA,DOJ knew...

[The5thHorseman]

I realize it may be tough for you, but won't is not the same as can't.

Perhaps, but not in this case.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You obviously can't handle the Truth.

Everybody funny.
Now you funny too.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Everybody funny.
Now you funny too.

It's an objective truth you refuse to accept....as if that were an option.

 

[SeaMajor7]

It's an objective truth you refuse to accept....as if that were an option.

"They don't think it be like it is, but it do."

 

[The5thHorseman]

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

Now you can't even articulate an opinion.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Now you can't even articulate an opinion.

No more road apples from you!

 

[The5thHorseman]

No more road apples from you!

All I asked was a simple question.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since the impeachments never went anywhere, there is no real recourse left anymore, but the point is they were still based on lies and caused harm.
Everyone involved with both impeachments and the Mar-a-lago raid should all be in jail.

I do not like Trump, but he was illegally abused.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of an impeachment. Both were successful and neither were based on a lie. The Shakedown in the Ukraine was corrupt as was Benedict Donald's role in trying to overturn the fair and honest elections of the 50 states in 2020.

Let the Trumpyberra have his day in court. I just hope Hillary will get a chance to visit that piece of shit while he is in prison over his obstruction in the Mar-a-Lagoon Documents case.

 

[BlindBoo]

Fuck you and your idiotic mudslinging.

This kind of bullshit is why people HATE LEFTARDS.

Don't like it? Don't be it.

It's why you never have any real facts and you're almost always wrong.

It's funny as shit and thanks for the laughs

hahah no Mueller didn't prove clinton right.....in fact just the opposite....Mueller concluded there was no conspiracy between Trump, his campaign and Russia

Nope, he concluded that he didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy because he did not have access to the Russian side of the equation.

 

[struth]

It's why you never have any real fact and you're almost always wrong.

It's funny as shit and thanks for the laughs

Nope, he concluded that he didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy because he did not have access to the Russian side of the equation.

oh please quote him saying that...either from the report or from the transcript of his testimony.

I'll wait

 

[BlindBoo]

oh please quote him saying that...either from the report or from the transcript of his testimony.

I'll wait

Feel free to quote him saying there was no evidence of any conspiracy whatsoever.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

 

[struth]

Thank you.

So, you lied...again.

where did I lie?

 

[struth]

oh please quote him saying that...either from the report or from the transcript of his testimony.

I'll wait

so you can't quote him saying he could't find evidence of a conspiracy because he didn't have access to the Russia side? Gotcha.

", the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."- Mueller Report https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

 

[BlindBoo]

so you can't quote him saying he could't find evidence of a conspiracy because he didn't have access to the Russia side? Gotcha.

", the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."- Mueller Report https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Well at least you tried. Did not establish? What does that mean?

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States."

 

[struth]

Well at least you tried. Did not establish? What does that mean?

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States."

tried? I literally quoted the report.

hahah there are always limits to any investigation....always....the reality is this was a very intense deep probe...and they found nothing.

Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript

Read the testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller after questioning by lawmakers about possible obstruction of justice by Trump and the 2016 Russia Investigation.

www.nbcnews.com

COLLINS:

OK. In your report -- I'll make this very simple -- you did a lot of work, correct?
MUELLER:

Yes, that I agree to.
COLLINS:

A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers...
MUELLER:
A lot of subpoenas.
COLLINS:

OK, we'll walk this really slow if we need to.
MUELLER:

A lot of search warrants.
COLLINS:

All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.
MUELLER:

What?

COLLINS:

In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?
MUELLER:

Yes.
COLLINS:

Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation -- given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER:

We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.

 

[BlindBoo]

tried? I literally quoted the report.

hahah there are always limits to any investigation....always....the reality is this was a very intense deep probe...and they found nothing.

Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript

Read the testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller after questioning by lawmakers about possible obstruction of justice by Trump and the 2016 Russia Investigation.

www.nbcnews.com

COLLINS:

OK. In your report -- I'll make this very simple -- you did a lot of work, correct?
MUELLER:

Yes, that I agree to.
COLLINS:

A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers...
MUELLER:
A lot of subpoenas.
COLLINS:

OK, we'll walk this really slow if we need to.
MUELLER:

A lot of search warrants.
COLLINS:

All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.
MUELLER:

What?

COLLINS:

In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?
MUELLER:

Yes.
COLLINS:

Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation -- given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER:

We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.

Insufficient evidence is not Mueller concluding there was no conspiracy between Trump, his campaign and Russia.

 

[struth]

Insufficient evidence is not Mueller concluding there was no conspiracy between Trump, his campaign and Russia.

hahha of course it is, it means there literally isn't sufficient evidence to conclude there is evidence to support the accusation that there is a conspiracy.

what in the world are you talking about? hahahha geez man, you are trying really really hard here to ignore reality...

 

[BlindBoo]

hahha of course it is, it means there literally isn't sufficient evidence to conclude there is evidence to support the accusation that there is a conspiracy.

what in the world are you talking about? hahahha geez man, you are trying really really hard here to ignore reality...

If Mueller had found no evidence he wouldn't have said insufficient evidence and listed reason why it was insufficient like: "And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States."

 

[The5thHorseman]

where did I lie?

Where was money "laundered"?

 

[struth]

Where was money "laundered"?

through Perkins Cole…they claimed it was legal fees, it was in fact campaign funds to pay for russian disinformation