Jump to content

Mueller probe 'close to being completed' -acting U.S. attorney general


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 Flame ignored.

 

 Can you remind us all exactly how these charges against 35 people show that Trump colluded with Russian players to explicitly cause the rightful winner(Hillary) to lose the 2016 election? I don't care about lies, financial irregularities, buying alcohol without valid ID or jaywalking. That is what this witch hunt is about - I hate to have to remind you.

Okay, you don't seem to care about things most of us do care about........so pray enlighten us, what do you care about besides yourself?

  • Heart-broken 1
Posted

A post with an incorrect quote has been removed.

A couple of duplicate posts have been removed

A post with a giant emoji has been removed

  • Like 1

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"

Arnold Judas Rimmer of Jupiter Mining Corporation Ship Red Dwarf

Posted
12 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:
15 hours ago, atyclb said:

what a silly statement;

 

lots on non jews are zionist

 

deep state is non partisan

 

 

Deep state, any proof there?

 

"Deep state, any proof there?"

 

nah, its just an expression with no basis in reality

 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 1/29/2019 at 6:24 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

I suspect this silly 2 year "probe" will show no concrete proof that Trump colluded with Russian players to cause Hillary to lose her election. What happens after that? Well, in light of the fact this witch hunt has not allowed Trump to effectively be President I think i would be fair to start Trump's first 4 year term again. These unhinged dems must learn to respect democratic principles such as the electoral process. The only real collusion I am aware of is Donna Brazille leaking thetelevised debate questions to Clinton - erm.. didn't notice a with hunt over that? 

 

 If anyone still thinks there is a smoking gun after Muellers hasty smackdown of the Buzzfeed fake news media, you are nuts.

 

Anyone who still thinks there was no collusion after the arrest of Roger Stone for lying about having colluded must be a simplton.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

nah, its just an expression with no basis in reality

Kinda like the Trump Presidency!

  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 1/29/2019 at 12:23 PM, TopDeadSenter said:

 Flame ignored.

 

 Can you remind us all exactly how these charges against 35 people show that Trump colluded with Russian players to explicitly cause the rightful winner(Hillary) to lose the 2016 election? I don't care about lies, financial irregularities, buying alcohol without valid ID or jaywalking. That is what this witch hunt is about - I hate to have to remind you.

 

Sure, what is there to suggest that Trump colluded, just his campaign team, his aids and his lawyers, but Trump must be innocent because he said it was a witch hunt, got it.

  • Like 2
Posted
6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:
6 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

"Deep state, any proof there?"

 

nah, its just an expression with no basis in reality

 

Thought so

 

 

google . "no brainer baiting"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 1/29/2019 at 6:24 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

I suspect this silly 2 year "probe" will show no concrete proof that Trump colluded with Russian players to cause Hillary to lose her election. What happens after that? Well, in light of the fact this witch hunt has not allowed Trump to effectively be President I think i would be fair to start Trump's first 4 year term again. These unhinged dems must learn to respect democratic principles such as the electoral process. The only real collusion I am aware of is Donna Brazille leaking thetelevised debate questions to Clinton - erm.. didn't notice a with hunt over that? 

 

 If anyone still thinks there is a smoking gun after Muellers hasty smackdown of the Buzzfeed fake news media, you are nuts.

You want to reset Trump back to ground zero? And you're talking about unhinged dems?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

LOL!  You're using Rachel Maddow as your source for information???!!   LOL!!

The reasonable approach to disseminating information is to rationalize for what it says, not for who says it, necessarily ... unless it's from known extremist propaganda sources such as FOX News (Trump TV), RT (Putin TV), Brietbart, Info Wars, Rush Limbaugh, The National Inquirer or Donald J. Trump himself.

  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

LOL!  You're using Rachel Maddow as your source for information???!!   LOL!!

"The hammer is coming soon"  LOL!! 

Where have we heard that type of thing before "the beginning of the end for Donald Trump"  People have been saying that since 2015.  Clue:  He's still president.

 

Rachel Maddow is refering to the sworn the testimony of Trump Jr., she is not claiming to be a source of info.  LOL

 

Clue:  She linked to her source in her tweet.  LOL

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 0

      Female Local Government Officer Gunned Down in Her Grocery Shop in Pattani

    2. 16

      Thailand Live Monday 9 June 2025

    3. 0

      Police Raid Counterfeit Brand Warehouse in Prominent Bangkok Mall

    4. 16

      Thailand Live Monday 9 June 2025

    5. 16

      Thailand Live Monday 9 June 2025

    6. 0

      Construction Firm Director Arrested for Using 522 Fake Tax Invoices, Causing Over 10 Million

  • Popular in The Pub

×
×
  • Create New...