Complete waste of taxpayers money.....and paper

[Straw Man]

Let me know which indictments had anything to do with “Russian collusion”

When those come out you'll say "what's wrong with colluding with a foreign adversary to undermine out democracy"?

[LurkerNoMore]

Let me know which indictments had anything to do with “Russian collusion”

Hell, the fact that there are 20+ indictments and multiple people cooperating with the feds now would be worrisome enough.  Just be patience, pretty sure more is on the way.

Benghazi - 4 years = 0 indictments.
Email scandal - 2 years = 0 indictments.

Trump administration - 17 months = 20+ indictments.

[Coach is Back!]

Hell, the fact that there are 20+ indictments and multiple people cooperating with the feds now would be worrisome enough.  Just be patience, pretty sure more is on the way.

Benghazi - 4 years = 0 indictments.
Email scandal - 2 years = 0 indictments.

Trump administration - 17 months = 20+ indictments.

And you can't figure out why? Seriously? You really believe she's innocent despite the hard evidence, don't you?

[chaos]

Did you throw up your arms in news of the DNC rigging the election in favor or Hillary?

As a matter of fact, I did. I think it's bullshit killary was pushed so hard and given so many advantages. Best part is, she still lost to Trump!!!

Hell, the fact that there are 20+ indictments and multiple people cooperating with the feds now would be worrisome enough.  Just be patience, pretty sure more is on the way.

Benghazi - 4 years = 0 indictments.
Email scandal - 2 years = 0 indictments.

Trump administration - 17 months = 20+ indictments.

This speaks more to the corruption and collusion within the FBI and CIA than it does the guilt or involvement of Russia in the US election.

[Primemuscle]

And you can't figure out why? Seriously? You really believe she's innocent despite the hard evidence, don't you?

You are powerless to do anything with regards to these issues except whine and complain about them. What you think is hard evidence must not be so hard after all.

[LurkerNoMore]

This speaks more to the corruption and collusion within the FBI and CIA than it does the guilt or involvement of Russia in the US election.

So you think these indictments are false?

[chaos]

So you think these indictments are false?

I don't know, haven't seen the evidence like we did when killary was being investigated and not indicted because she knows too much on too many people. When investigators investigate the very people that gave them their jobs, do you think they will find fault?

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't know, haven't seen the evidence like we did when killary was being investigated and not indicted because she knows too much on too many people. When investigators investigate the very people that gave them their jobs, do you think they will find fault?

Killary was investigated but not indicted.  So that means she is guilty.  Right?

What does it mean for those who have been investigated and indicted?  Super guilty?

So Republicans investigating Democrats are not getting indictments because they are shady or Hillary knows to many people.   But Republicans investigating Republicans are returning with indictments..... why?

[Conservative Coach]

Killary was investigated but not indicted.  So that means she is guilty.  Right?

What does it mean for those who have been investigated and indicted?  Super guilty?

So Republicans investigating Democrats are not getting indictments because they are shady or Hillary knows to many people.   But Republicans investigating Republicans are returning with indictments..... why?

Trumptards don't use logic, just emotion.

[Dos Equis]

Trumptards don't use logic, just emotion.

There is nothing logical about what Lurker said.  You have to look at the evidence.  There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton mishandled classified intel. 

[LurkerNoMore]

There is nothing logical about what Lurker said.  You have to look at the evidence.  There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton mishandled classified intel. 

And yet... no indictment.  Why is that? 

It's completely logical that either Clinton didn't get charged because _____fill in the blank_____  or that the Republicans are just too stupid to get an indictment.   Republican's obviously run the most incompetent and ass backwards investigations ever to occur.   When it concerns Dems.  When it concerns other Repubs, they seem to land these indictments and guilty pleas pretty easily.

[LurkerNoMore]

And you can't figure out why? Seriously? You really believe she's innocent despite the hard evidence, don't you?

My post had neither the words "guilty" or "innocent" in it. 

What it does have is "indictments" in it.  Obviously Republicans can't turn hard evidence into an indictment against a Dem, but they can sure turn fake news into indictments and guilty pleas for other Repubs.

[Dos Equis]

And yet... no indictment.  Why is that? 

It's completely logical that either Clinton didn't get charged because _____fill in the blank_____  or that the Republicans are just too stupid to get an indictment.   Republican's obviously run the most incompetent and ass backwards investigations ever to occur.   When it concerns Dems.  When it concerns other Repubs, they seem to land these indictments and guilty pleas pretty easily.

Go back and read what she was charged with, what the law required, who investigated her, how the investigation was conducted, the reason given for not charging her, and figure it out.  It's not hard. 

[chaos]

Go back and read what she was charged with, what the law required, who investigated her, how the investigation was conducted, the reason given for not charging her, and figure it out.  It's not hard. 

OH goodness no, all those guys her husband and obama appointed would never turn a blind eye to her traitorous handling of classified info.

[Dos Equis]

OH goodness no, all those guys her husband and obama appointed would never turn a blind eye to her traitorous handling of classified info.

Right?

[Coach is Back!]

Killary was investigated but not indicted.  So that means she is guilty.  Right?

What does it mean for those who have been investigated and indicted?  Super guilty?

So Republicans investigating Democrats are not getting indictments because they are shady or Hillary knows to many people.   But Republicans investigating Republicans are returning with indictments..... why?

I think you should back read my response to this on the thread, stud. You obviously can’t comprehend

[LurkerNoMore]

I think you should back read my response to this on the thread, stud. You obviously can’t comprehend

I see  Repubs can indict Repubs, but not Dems.  Wonder why?

[Coach is Back!]

I see  Repubs can indict Repubs, but not Dems.  Wonder why?

I know you wonder. That's whats troubling

[Primemuscle]

And yet... no indictment.  Why is that? 

It's completely logical that either Clinton didn't get charged because _____fill in the blank_____  or that the Republicans are just too stupid to get an indictment.   Republican's obviously run the most incompetent and ass backwards investigations ever to occur.   When it concerns Dems.  When it concerns other Repubs, they seem to land these indictments and guilty pleas pretty easily.

Silly me, I believe the judicial system is responsible for bringing criminal charges and not one political party or another.

[Primemuscle]

My post had neither the words "guilty" or "innocent" in it. 

What it does have is "indictments" in it.  Obviously Republicans can't turn hard evidence into an indictment against a Dem, but they can sure turn fake news into indictments and guilty pleas for other Repubs.

Not sure the judicial system considers fake or not news as evidence.

[Primemuscle]

Go back and read what she was charged with, what the law required, who investigated her, how the investigation was conducted, the reason given for not charging her, and figure it out.  It's not hard. 

HRC was charged? -News to me. I thought her email actions were investigated. The reason she wasn't charged is because if there was any evidence of a wrongdoing, it wasn't enough to charge her. Since she was never charged, it would require new evidence to reopen an investigation. That is unlikely to happen since most people have moved on.

[Primemuscle]

OH goodness no, all those guys her husband and obama appointed would never turn a blind eye to her traitorous handling of classified info.

Which "guys" would they be?