None of whom are named "Mueller".
Fox News host Sean Hannity pushes another conspiracy theory: Trump is facing a secret ‘soft coup’
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fox-...e+Raw+Story%29
I don't follow this greasebag, but along with the Seth matter, he sure seems to have gone off the deep end. asshole getting into Alex Jones territory.
Maybe he's jealous of Tucker Carlson selling my ads than Billo.
Swalwell has the goods, folks
Swalwell has the goods, folks
his last take
get on your knees ill show you swallowswell
You're a bottom and a swallower.
the financial corruption guillotine keeps picking up speed
US House Dems reject Deutsche Bank privacy claim in Trump query
U.S. S. House Democrats rejected an assertion by Deutsche Bank that privacy laws prevent it from sharing information about President Donald Trump’s finances, as they investigate possible collusion between his campaign team and Russia.
In a letter to the bank’s lawyers made public on Thursday, five Democrats who have been seeking financial information about Trump argued U.S. federal laws protecting banking customers’ confidentiality did not apply to requests from Congress.
The bank could also cir vent privacy concerns by obtaining disclosure consent from the president and his family, they said.
“Given President Trump’s repeated assertions that he does not have ties to Russia, such disclosure would ostensibly be in his interest,” they wrote.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/us-h...e+Raw+Story%29
Is evidence more or less likely to be produced after an investigation into breaches of the law?So you have no evidence to base your theory on
Your "no evidence" schtick fails before the investigation has finished.
It is like saying "where is your evidence that I killed that guy" to the police before they search your house for the murder weapon.
This really is one of the dumber things you have said in the course of this thread.
You have no evidence they denied access.
It can't be dumber than your "no evidence" theory of collusion
Is evidence more or less likely to be produced after an investigation into breaches of the law?
They've been looking for almost a year. Maybe Mueller and his army of lawyers will have better luck than FBI, NSA, etc...
So you are saying that sworn testimony of officials and reports cons utes sufficient evidence to conclude something as a fact?
Really?
What specifically have they been "looking into", and who exactly this "they"? Be as specific as you can.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
