Who do you think will be frog marched in cuffs on Monday?

[Frankeneinstein]

lol

Frankie Please tell me what it's called when a president fires a head of the FBI for investigating him A good move??

it's called "take that beyatch"...why?

you old enough to remember Watergate?? was that obstruction of justice too?

I was 15 on june 22nd 1972 when the story broke, nixon fired mitchell? or sirrica[sp] so the answer is no it doesn't ring a bell...btw, watergate was nothing more than a 3rd rate burglary and the GOP has become quite adept at dispensing with these bogus claims because of watergate...but you can keep insisting it is relevant if you like.

there

lol

Frankie Please tell me what it's called when a president fires a head of the FBI for investigating him A good move??

it's called "take that beyatch"...why?

you old enough to remember Watergate?? was that obstruction of justice too?

I was 15 on june 22nd 1972 when the story broke, nixon fired mitchell? or sirrica[sp] so the answer is no it doesn't ring a bell...btw, watergate was nothing more than a 3rd rate burglary and the GOP has become quite adept at dispensing with these bogus claims because of watergate...but you can keep insisting it is relevant if you like.

he Saturday Night Massacre refers to U.S. President Richard Nixon's orders to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson andDeputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal.
Saturday Night Massacr

I forgot about cox....he was replaced by sirrica? that is one of my most favorite times in American political history...didn't click your link but I am quite familiar with watergate and the players involved

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh what a sight to see. Who do you think will be charged on Monday? Carter "The Mouth" Page? Paul "Short time on staff" Manafort? Donald "All about adoptions baby" Trump Jr.?

Kelly Ann Conman? IDK, she just should be arrested for air pollution and bold faced liary

Who you got?

I would normally go with the sure bet PODESTA but you limited it to Monday and with all the baggage that needs to be unloaded with him it will probably take much much longer than Monday just to list the charges so I will go with "Clinton Accomplice" from that list

Soo, dont keep us all in suspense. Who do you think will be in the cross hairs?

 

[S.J.]

Mueller coming after you?? Attack Mueller.

You mean like Ken Starr? Paula Jones? Linda Tripp? Juanita Broderick? Save your bullshit for somebody stupid like another Democrat.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't get your hopes up lefties. You might find yourselves back out on the street smashing windows and torching cars after you were disappointed. Sources claim the indictment(s) have nothing to do with the President.

Yes, an investigation into the Trump campaign has issued indictments but those indictments have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Huzzah!

That was the deal democrats made. Mueller could investigate anything at all. Where ever the evidence led him, he could go there.

And today is Saturday because that's the deal democrats made. Both have nothing to do with what I said.

 

[easyt65]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

 

[jillian]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

no....puppet.. Hillary Clinton has never been found guilty of anything.

 

[eddiew37]

Mueller coming after you?? Attack Mueller.

You mean like Ken Starr? Paula Jones? Linda Tripp? Juanita Broderick? Save your bullshit for somebody stupid like another Democrat.

stupid ?? You're a republican, probably supporting Trump the AH and you have the fn nerve to call anyone stupid? dummy

 

[easyt65]

As far as any decision that comes out of this committee, it should be rendered 'invalid'.

The committee is 'tainted'.

Mueller's relationship with Comey

Mueller hiding the Russian Scandal...
...until the Uranium One deal was done

Mueller, Holder, and Obama all in on it

Mueller handpicked the Special Counsel

The Counsel consists of partisan libs...
...of DNC donors, of Clinton Foundation
Lawyers ..the same foundation that took $145 million from the Russian Hillary took money from - money for influence in the sale of Uranium...part of what Mueller covered up...

...and IMO, Muellwr is still covering up 'sins of the past'...

 

[S.J.]

Mueller coming after you?? Attack Mueller.

You mean like Ken Starr? Paula Jones? Linda Tripp? Juanita Broderick? Save your bullshit for somebody stupid like another Democrat.

stupid ?? You're a republican, probably supporting Trump the AH and you have the fn nerve to call anyone stupid? dummy

What's wrong *****, can't rebut what I said?

 

[easyt65]

no....puppet.. Hillary Clinton has never been found guilty of anything.

Of course not. She has been protected her whole life...

...BUT YOUR STATEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, DOES NOTHING TO DISCREDIT THE FACT I POINTED OUT, WHICH WAS:

BY DEFINITION, BY LAW, HILLARY CLINTON UNDENIABLY BROKE THE LAW BY NOT TURNING IN THOUSANDS OF OFFICIAL, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW...

...but thanks for throwing that tantrum...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

So when it's your time at the mic your key piece of evidence for a person responsible for several crimes is missing a requirement for emails? Whoa, what''s next? She removed the tag off of all her pillows PUNISHABLE BY LAW? (Caps used for effect)

 

[eddiew37]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

So when it's your time at the mic your key piece of evidence for a person responsible for several crimes is missing a requirement for emails? Whoa, what''s next? She removed the tag off of all her pillows PUNISHABLE BY LAW? (Caps used for effect)

Got to remember ,,,
he Saturday Night Massacre refers to U.S. President Richard Nixon's orders to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson andDeputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal.
Saturday Night Massacr

As far as any decision that comes out of this committee, it should be rendered 'invalid'.

The committee is 'tainted'.

Mueller's relationship with Comey

Mueller hiding the Russian Scandal...
...until the Uranium One deal was done

Mueller, Holder, and Obama all in on it

Mueller handpicked the Special Counsel

The Counsel consists of partisan libs...
...of DNC donors, of Clinton Foundation
Lawyers ..the same foundation that took $145 million from the Russian Hillary took money from - money for influence in the sale of Uranium...part of what Mueller covered up...

...and IMO, Muellwr is still covering up 'sins of the past'...

Remember easy
But guilt or innocence still has to be determined in a court of law. Before I draw any conclusions, I'm going to wait and see the outcome in the judicial system."

Mueller coming after you?? Attack Mueller.

You mean like Ken Starr? Paula Jones? Linda Tripp? Juanita Broderick? Save your bullshit for somebody stupid like another Democrat.

stupid ?? You're a republican, probably supporting Trump the AH and you have the fn nerve to call anyone stupid? dummy

What's wrong *****, can't rebut what I said?

did I say dems were without fault ? I also remember how your repubs went after Bill and then his wife Just like to see you MF's get your shit back in your face

 

[Borillar]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

You know, to be guilty of crimes, there have to be charges and convictions. Where are they?

 

[eddiew37]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

You know, to be guilty of crimes, there have to be charges and convictions. Where are they?

hopefully your answer will be coming soon

 

[S.J.]

did I say dems were without fault ?

No, you just ignored the question (as expected).

I also remember how your repubs went after Bill and then his wife

No, you remember the Republicans went after Bill for perjury. Nobody went after his wife. His wife went after her husband's victims. What a selective memory you have.

 

[Borillar]

Berstein stated 'Trump officials are looking at 20...30...40...50 years for WHATEVER these charges are'.

'Whatever they are'? That's someone talking out of their ass.

If they have evidence someone broke the law that person needs to be held accountable.

I only wish that happened equally across the board, not partisanly. If that happened, they would need to build a prison just for politicians because there would be so many.

So when is Hillary going to be held accountable?

First you have to find something to actually hold her accountable for.

Hillary has already been proven to be guilty of numerous crimes.

The really ... REALLY ... pathetic thing is Snowflakes like you already KNOW that, despite how you repeatedly argue / declare otherwise....and despite knowing otherwise you protest her innocense you continue to declare her to be guilt-free.


For example, the FBI has THOUSANDS of official documents pulled from Hillary's server, documents never turned in to the govt AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. By definition, by law, UNDENIABLY, she broke the law.

Snowflakes, in the face of this UNDENIABLE evidence, who claim Hillary did not break the law are like small children throwing a tantrum, demanding they are right, demanding they want what they want for no other reason than they want it (to be so).

You know, to be guilty of crimes, there have to be charges and convictions. Where are they?

hopefully your answer will be coming soon

Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[easyt65]

So when it's your time at the mic your key piece of evidence for a person responsible for several crimes is missing a requirement for emails?

Do you TRULY not hear / understand how STUPID you sound right now, 'oh little child throwing a tantrum'?!

It is not 'REQUIREMENTS' she 'missed'.

It is two LAWS - the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Records Act - she intentionally VIOLATED ... over 20,000 times.

Your claim that she simply 'missed a couple of requirements' proves my original point and makes you look like an imbecile.

 

[easyt65]

You know, to be guilty of crimes, there have to be charges and convictions. Where are they?

No, idiot, to be PROSECUTED for committing a crime all of that is necessary.

If you walk outside and shoot your neighbor in the head then escape to a country that does not extradite people for crimes, you're STILL GUILTY of committing murder. You are just not getting PROSECUTED.

 

[OKTexas]

It’s interesting that this indictment news is getting nothing more than a whisper on Fox News while they continue to be quite loud about the Clinton collusion conspiracy theory. Makes me think the inside scoop is leaning towards an indictment of a Trump staffer.

Manafort and Flynn are the obvious suspects but it could also be a lower level staffer.

Also, I find it interesting that I don’t hear people from the Right spinning the scenario that the FBI informant who Trump just freed from the “gag order” may have provided evidence that could incriminate a Clinton associate.

What do you think is going to happen?

An unconfirmed rumor is all it is at this point...

You can only play that card for a few days but we all know something is coming. Reporters saw Mueller meet with the grand jury and they had inside sources tell them an indictment is coming. Question now is who? And why is Fox avoiding the story and not running with the Podesta/Clinton scenario? I would think this news would fall right in line with the narrative of their Clinton collusion story they’ve been pounding into for the past few days.

Stop lying already, the story was covered in every show last night and this morning on Fox. They just said they have yet to independently confirm it. It's amazing how easily you regressives lie your ass off.


.

I watched The Five and Tucker last night and heard zero mention. I watch Fox and Friends this AM and heard no mention. I watched two or three other shows this morning on fox and heard a couple 30 second headline mentions. Of course I may have missed some. Please point to any significant discussion about it and I’ll check it out

Here's one from last night.

'Extraordinary Development': Kurtz Reacts to Right-Wing News Site Paying Dossier Firm For Oppo Research

Also being covered extensively on Judge Jeanine tonight. If you want more feel free to look them up.


.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So when it's your time at the mic your key piece of evidence for a person responsible for several crimes is missing a requirement for emails?

Do you TRULY not hear / understand how STUPID you sound right now, 'oh little child throwing a tantrum'?!

It is not 'REQUIREMENTS' she 'missed'.

It is two LAWS - the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Records Act - she intentionally VIOLATED ... over 20,000 times.

Your claim that she simply 'missed a couple of requirements' proves my original point and makes you look like an imbecile.

Ok, she violated email laws. That's your lead for a criminal mastermind as you say?

Email?