In other words you have no basis for your belief that Clinton’s server was hacked, or that it was unprotected, whatever you mean by that. If by news you are referring to the regular flood of nonsense from Fox and the like, then they are simply doing the same thing, expressing random opinions with no basis in reality.
I do not need to site the laws they were sited by the director of the FBI.
I’m fine with letting things play out.
It doesn't prove the moon is made out of green cheese either; I mean speaking of irrelevant points. Moreover point to me where I made that "what it proves conclusion"? This is what I will tell you about subpoenas come the Trump circle. They avoid them like a crab avoids a pot of boiling water. And when all the fighting and excuse making is over and they do have to testify, we usually get a the pleading of the 5th on steroids.
nothing inconsistent in those two statements now is there? Was Trump convicted of any crimes regarding these events, NO so what is your point?
Actually I changed my response seeing someone else other than you made that claim. However given your response I suggest you actually read the Muller report.
I believe you posted "We have verified facts that they were subpoenaed" as if that was proof of something. And now you feel that Trump should be faulted for simply exercising his legal rights. Does that seem fair?
on the contrary feel free to point out where it indicates that Trump violated the law in his relationship with Russia, I would love to see what you think it says.
I said that because someone said this, ""people familiar with the inquiry said on Monday." Again who are those people? Frankly I am tired of the MSM creating false news and innuendo by using unverified sources, the public deserves real news and real facts that have been verified." As if the story of subpoenas being issued was fake news. Even though the lawyers of those being subpoena confirmed those actions. You may recognize the quoted claim.
Please read the report. You make the claim Trump not being convicted I guess not being aware that Mueller once again went out his way to explain why HE or ANYONE else couldn't indict a sitting president. Just your commit alone tells me you never read it. It's reason why Trump even resorted to a coup to keep himself from facing any indictments. But that didn't work out so well for him.
You are right that Donald did not destroy the evidence, but that isn't what he is accused of. He is suspected of hiding the evidence, obstructing an investigation and lying about it.
many things, read the inventory, right off hand, tax papers, attorney communications, his passport, newspaper articles.
Trump has not been charged with any crime nor is there evidence that he did anything illegal
That is true. Yet once again he lost his executive privilege with the loss of his presidential position, and now you see the investigations galore. Again, the dire need to retain that bullet proof vest is reason he had no problem with his VP being hung. That says a lot about the nature of the person when it comes to flouting the law, and a long history of it.
