Bluebyrd:

Stop making a fool of yourself, what protection from Barr's DOJ? The same Barr's DOJ that couldn't protect them from being charged with process crimes? Some people like Flynn were even charged because they didn't couldn't recall some events exactly the way it happened. Mueller had two years without constraints and with unlimited resources available to him to find one shred of evidence of collusion and he didn't find anything. Barr's DOJ may interfer with the prosecution process but there's no way they could prevent Mueller from indicting them if they actually found any collusion. Mueller didn't spare anyone, he indicted people for even unrelated offenses just to please those that brought him in e.g manafort was charged for things he did in Ukraine before he even joined the Trump campaign and you are now telling me that Mueller could have seen evidence of collusion but couldn't even indict the people involved because of Barr? The same Barr that couldn't prevent him from charging the same people with process crimes and things that were even unrelated to what he was asked to investigate.

What a stupid brainless son of perdition. Barr intervened in the Mueller report, intervened in Flynn, Stones and all the Trump - Russia stuff. You are head up far in Drumpf asss loser.

benalvino2:


Lol, they were literally saying Russia stole the election and Russia hacked it.

I am not talking about Facebook post.

Russia did attempt to hack some state utility services prior to the elections I think and failed, can't remember details but the Russia issue was mostly about collusion between Russia and the trump campaign, if the democrats really did believe hacking of electoral systems took place to aid trump they would have contested the results and they'd have been right to do so but seeing as Hillary didn't contest the results which is exactly what trump is doing now then your argument is moot

BraniacX:
my apologies, it was some character bluebyrd or something like that, all you pro trumpets are blending into one singular nameless moniker in my head now

How many times will I make it clear that I was only reporting on what the Trump campaign lawyers said at their press conference and that it was up to them to bring the evidence they have to the courts? So if I say that a Mr X held a press conference today and this is what he said, does that mean that I am now endorsing everything Mr X said? Some of you were even asking me to provide evidence for the things Giuliani said as if I was the one that said it. The Sidney Powell in question has even been cut off by the Trump campaign lawyers as of now. I repeat again, the people that held the press conference are Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, I only reported what they said and now it's up to them to provide their evidence before the courts.

wirinet:

Watching the videos is a waste of time and bandwidth. It's just dialogues between fox and friends on what they think Comey said or did and the crimes they think Comey and Clinton commited. They forgot to add that Hillary went through 2 years of senate and FBI investigations and she was given a clean bill by Republican controlled senate.
Clinton had left government for 5 years and the Justice department is controlled by Trump's houseboy, Bill Bar while the Senate is still Republican controlled. So, why hasn't charges been filled against Hillary Clinton?

Now, watch out for Trump. The minute he looses immunity, you will see dozens of criminal charges brought against him by both the justice department and southern district of New York among others.

thanks for saving my data and sparing my mind the assault on its decency from deplorable talking heads

Bluebyrd:
For the liberal puppets at CNN to attack Trump for not "respecting norms" is the height of irony after the last four years. What "norms" did these clowns not trample on in the last four years in their desperation to damage Trump?

clown, your lawyer and her kraken have both proven to be duds! When are you apologising?

Kophschmerzen:



What a stupid brainless son of perdition. Barr intervened in the Mueller report, intervened in Flynn, Stones and all the Trump - Russia stuff. You are head up far in Drumpf asss loser.

You are the fool that is a stupid brainless son of perdition. Did Barr prevent Mueller from indicting any of the people you mentioned? If Mueller could indict them on process crimes and unrelated matters then why couldn't he indict them if he had evidence of collusion which was the main thing he was commissioned to investigate?

BraniacX:
clown, your lawyer and her kraken have both proven to be duds! When are you apologising?

Who is my lawyer and why should I apologize to you for reporting what someone else said?

Bluebyrd:

I wasn't wrong when I called people like you morons because that's what you are. I am talking about you idiots going on and on claiming for the last four years that Trump colluded with Russia to rig and steal the 2016 elections. I am challenging you now to name a single person that has been convicted of colluding with Russia to steal the elections and you are telling me about obstruction of justice and an impeachment that had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You are the one that needs to shut your mouth and stop talking from you anus.

obstruction goes to show that the investigations into the claims was impeded by the presidency at every turn which circumstantially validates the claim that there was collusion in the first place, this is simple logic or are you logically challenged?

Kophschmerzen:


Morron!!! How do you indict folks that gat protection from Barr's DOJ? It's obvious your brain is only a solo voyage.

You just have to tune out these brainless cultists who knows nothing about how things work in America. I have to give you and our other guys your due props in dealing with these crackpots.

BraniacX:
obstruction goes to show that the investigations into the claims was impeded by the presidency at every turn which circumstantially validates the claim that there was collusion in the first place, this is simple logic or are you logically challenged?

Obstruction doesn't validate anything. Trump believed the Mueller probe was a witch hunt and therefore he didn't want his people cooperating with them. It's not any evidence of anything, the FBI have investigated this, A special counsel has also investigated it and all found no evidence of collusion.

BraniacX:


"Based on evidence from the investigation" implies that we are not in disagreement, after the affidavit, evidence is still required meaning affidavits in and of their own aren't sufficient in proving a claim or allegation! So now that we are both agreed on that, what was the evidence from investigations so far? What was the verdict of the DHS, election observers, party poll watchers et al?

what warrants do you think are required and who apart from the election officials and poll watchers who have already green lighted the current election will be qualified to be the acceptable umpires in this hypothetical scenario of yours? Because it seems the trump campaign is crying foul against everybody involved in the elections in places where he did not win! And what is this about signatures not matching? Is it meant to invalidate mail in votes? Are signatures always exact or are you grasping for straws? If a states election statutes does not include that, should a court still go ahead and make it a requirement?

Affidavit is enough.

How do you think police get search warrant? A witness tell them there are drug dealings going on in a house. The court will give them search warrant to search for evidence.

Whether someone saw a car speeding down the street minutes after an accident or they were inside a store when it was robbed, eyewitnesses are often the first source police turn to when gathering information about a crime.

Eyewitness testimony frequently serves as the main lead in an investigation. It can lead to arrests, fuel the interrogation of suspects, and direct the creation of a lineup.

On Jan. 2, 1996, according to Jackson and Long, “operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.”

So they let them go through the ballots to challenge signatures because that is where the evidence is. So why can't trump and his lawyers get access to the ballot to check for irregularities after eyewitness av testify?

We talking about evidence but the evidence are the ballot.

I see Michigan certifying at some point today 3 to 1.

ono:


you know, I had high hopes for the guy. He dashed it. Why are we blacks like this??

No be small. He even spied on German chancellor I don't know if he was trying to see her naked. Hahaha

He was tired of mitche Obama's manhood so he wants to see puss cee hahaha XD

Bluebyrd:

How many times will I make it clear that I was only reporting on what the Trump campaign lawyers said at their press conference and that it was up to them to bring the evidence they have to the courts? So if I say that a Mr X held a press conference today and this is what he said, does that mean that I am now endorsing everything Mr X said? Some of you were even asking me to provide evidence for the things Giuliani said as if I was the one that said it. The Sidney Powell in question has even been cut off by the Trump campaign lawyers as of now. I repeat again, the people that held the press conference are Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, I only reported what they said and now it's up to them to provide their evidence before the courts.

do you espouse or disavow their views? That was the crux of the matter! I disavow their views and view them as dingbats! You obviously don't disavow them so do you espouse them or not? Mind you there is no fence to sit on or middle ground here

BREAKING: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has granted an expedited review for President Trump’s election lawsuit in Pennsylvania so activist judges are just there throwing cases away but let's see where they go from here.

benalvino2:

Affidavit is enough.

How do you think police get search warrant? A witness tell them there are drug dealings going on in a house. The court will give them search warrant to search for evidence.

Whether someone saw a car speeding down the street minutes after an accident or they were inside a store when it was robbed, eyewitnesses are often the first source police turn to when gathering information about a crime.

Eyewitness testimony frequently serves as the main lead in an investigation. It can lead to arrests, fuel the interrogation of suspects, and direct the creation of a lineup.

On Jan. 2, 1996, according to Jackson and Long, “operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.”

So they let them go through the ballots to challenge signatures because that is where the evidence is. So why can't trump and his lawyers get access to the ballot to check for irregularities after eyewitness av testify?

We talking about evidence but the evidence are the ballot.

Wait, are you saying the courts should have issued warrants for search and seizures that neither the Trump lawyers nor law enforcement requested?

Bluebyrd:

How many times will I make it clear that I was only reporting on what the Trump campaign lawyers said at their press conference and that it was up to them to bring the evidence they have to the courts? So if I say that a Mr X held a press conference today and this is what he said, does that mean that I am now endorsing everything Mr X said? Some of you were even asking me to provide evidence for the things Giuliani said as if I was the one that said it. The Sidney Powell in question has even been cut off by the Trump campaign lawyers as of now. I repeat again, the people that held the press conference are Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, I only reported what they said and now it's up to them to provide their evidence before the courts.

That's how they reason sadly

LordReed:


Wait, are you saying the courts should have issued warrants for search and seizures that neither the Trump lawyers nor law enforcement requested?

There claims are ballots were added after the election was over, backdating was taking place and people filled blank ballots. Common sense will tell anyone okay let's settle this once and for all. Let's look at the ballots for what you claim. Instead they are throwing case out.

benalvino2:

There claims are ballots were added after the election was over, backdating was taking place and people filled blank ballots. Common sense will tell anyone okay let's settle this once and for all. Let's look at the ballots for what you claim. Instead they are throwing case out.

LMFAO! So in essence you are asking the court to do the job of law enforcement ie investigate. Wonderful. Bwahahahahaha!

Bluebyrd:

Who is my lawyer and why should I apologize to you for reporting what someone else said?

you can quote technicalities all day long but the bottom line is on this thread and on this particular topic we are all partisan, you posted what they said because you espouse their views not disavow them outright! If they had pulled through with their spurious claims you wouldn't have hesitated to rub it in our faces now that they turned out to be the tripe the rest of us knew it to be in the very beginning we, sorry i don't care to rub it in your face, just your admission that you were wrong once again is all that is required

LordReed:


LMFAO! So in essence you are asking the court to do the job of law enforcement ie investigate. Wonderful. Bwahahahahaha!

Thats not what I am saying. But ok

Bluebyrd:

I wasn't wrong when I called people like you morons because that's what you are. I am talking about you idiots going on and on claiming for the last four years that Trump colluded with Russia to rig and steal the 2016 elections. I am challenging you now to name a single person that has been convicted of colluding with Russia to steal the elections and you are telling me about obstruction of justice and an impeachment that had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You are the one that needs to shut your mouth and stop talking from you anus.

Paul Manafort you dumb bitch
can debase myself or waste my time to name others

nateevs:
It's all about money. It's always been all about money. Just check out this crazy link below. Like I said previously, anyone who falls for this, deserves to be conned.

https://defendingtherepublic.org/

A clear case of 419

Bluebyrd:
That many people actually still believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 elections after all these years just shows you how much damage the fake news media has done. Even Muller after his two year witch hunt couldn't find any collusion, he very clear that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the elections yet the fake news media have put out so much bullshit out to their listeners that many of them actually still believe this lie till this day.

Big lie.
Mueller never concluded that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia. What Mueller concluded was that he could not prove collusion Trump campaign and Russia because Trump was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. He refused to testify, he refused to released documents Mueller asked for and refused to allow his people to testify. Mueller also concluded he could be prosecuted once he leaves office.

Bluebyrd:

Obstruction doesn't validate anything. Trump believed the Mueller probe was a witch hunt and therefore he didn't want his people cooperating with them. It's not any evidence of anything, the FBI have investigated this, A special counsel has also investigated it and all found no evidence of collusion.

I am accused of stealing stuff and stuffing my pockets with it and I deny, my accuser says I should empty my pocket for all to see and prove my innocence and him a liar, naturally I refuse because it is just a witch hunt and I have absolutely nothing to hide in my pockets seeing as I stole nothing and my bulging pockets are filled with rocks, me being the avid rock collector that i am and since the man accusing me is an employee of my dad, I slice my thumb across my throat while looking directly at him as a reminder of my great friendship with him, naturally, he backs down and doesn't accuse me as aggressively anymore while my dad is in one corner looking daggers at him so, naturally, all this is because i am definitely innocent right? I ask again, are you logically challenged?

wirinet:

Big lie.
Mueller never concluded that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia. What Mueller concluded was that he could not prove collusion Trump campaign and Russia because Trump was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. He refused to testify, he refused to released documents Mueller asked for and refused to allow his people to testify. Mueller also concluded he could be prosecuted once he leaves office.

Lol. Liar

benalvino2:

Thats not what I am saying. But ok

What are you saying?

America is slowly coming back

BraniacX:
I am accused of stealing stuff and stuffing my pockets with it and I deny, my accuser says I should empty my pocket for all to see and prove my innocence and him a liar, naturally I refuse because it is just a witch hunt and I have absolutely nothing to hide in my pockets seeing as I stole nothing and my bulging pockets are filled with rocks, me being the avid rock collector that i am and since the man accusing me is an employee of my dad, I slice my thumb across my throat while looking directly at him as a reminder of my great friendship with him, naturally, he backs down and doesn't accuse me as aggressively anymore while my dad is in one corner looking daggers at him so, naturally, all this is because i am definitely innocent right? I ask again, are you logically challenged?

Let me also ask you, are you logically challenged? You are making a very absurd comparison of two scenarios that are not even remotely the same. If you see a group of people who are desperately trying to pin something on you to the extent that the used a fake dossier manufactured by your political opponent to start harrasing your campaign staff even when they already knew the dossier was fake, They went and lied to the Fisa Court, presented fake documents and used it to get a warrant to interrogate your campaign staff and try to force them to testify against you on something they know that didn't happen, will you still have confidence in the impartiality of such a group of people? People that were caught changing witnesses statements to change their meaning to something incriminating and discussing how to wear a recorder and get Trump to say something incriminating on tape. All these things are on record in declassified materials or confessed to by the FBI themselves so Trump was very right to distrust such a group of people. Again, that is in no way any evidence of collusion with Russia. You are just beating about the bush because you know the only truth here is that after all the relentless investigations, not a single shred of evidence was found about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.

wirinet:

Big lie.
Mueller never concluded that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia. What Mueller concluded was that he could not prove collusion Trump campaign and Russia because Trump was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. He refused to testify, he refused to released documents Mueller asked for and refused to allow his people to testify. Mueller also concluded he could be prosecuted once he leaves office.

You are a ridiculous liar, Mueller never said he couldn't prove collusion because of obstruction. His report was in two parts,in the first part he focused on collusion and said he couldn't find any evidence of collusion, in the second part, he spoke of obstruction and simply said that the terms of guidelines given to him did not allow him to make any determination on obstruction.

Obrigardo:


Paul Manafort you dumb bitch
can debase myself or waste my time to name others

Look at this ignorant liberal making an utter fool of himself. You are the one that is obviously a dumb bitch here because you keep showing that you know nothing. Manafort was convicted for his political activities in Ukraine before he even joined the Trump campaign. What he was convicted of was completely unrelated to the Russian collusion hoax.

Bluebyrd:

Look at this ignorant liberal making an utter fool of himself. You are the one that is obviously a dumb bitch here because you keep showing that you know nothing. Manafort was convicted for his political activities in Ukraine before he even joined the Trump campaign. What he was convicted of was completely unrelated to the Russian collusion hoax.

Dumb bitch
Manafort supplied polling data and voter information to Russian hackers
Dumb bitch