Mueller report concludes it was not needed to begin with

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you don't know?

Citing the location where the answer can be found is hardly evidence I don't know but instead would be proof I do know.

Can you read the paragraph? Or are you restricted to only being able to understand 4 word sentences?

[Truth Detector]

Page 1, paragraph 2.

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

And not ONE vote was affected or changed as a result. Shouldn't we be investigating Obama on why he allowed this to happen?

[Truth Detector]

Once again, Mueller didn't go looking for a crime, he was appointed by a Trump Justice Dept, picked by a Trump appointee, to investigate Russians influence in the election, and I don't know how it could be a fishing expedition given the number of indictments and guilty pleas he attained in just two years

There was no crime for him to investigate; why have one? You keep bleating the same dumb talking points over and over again like a robot.

[Legion]

Citing the location where the answer can be found is hardly evidence I don't know but instead would be proof I do know. Can you read the paragraph? Or are you restricted to only being able to understand 4 word sentences?

I know trolls don't like hearing this, but if you make the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

[Legion]

There was no crime for him to investigate; why have one? You keep bleating the same dumb talking points over and over again like a robot.

Indeed he does, TD.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Russian influence, yes,
Trump, no.
They should have investigated Bama...........he was aware of it in '15.

Obama is bad because he didn't order an investigation and Obama is bad because he did order an investigation.

Your argument is now completely off the rails as you prove you can't think logically.

[Legion]

Russian influence, yes,
Trump, no.
They should have investigated Bama...........he was aware of it in '15.

Didn't the DNC refuse to cooperate with the FBI after they determined their systems had been hacked, Ms. Stretch?

[Legion]

Obama is bad because he didn't order an investigation and Obama is bad because he did order an investigation. Your argument is now completely off the rails as you prove you can't think logically.

Obama ordered an investigation of Trump?

[Truth Detector]

So, your argument is in the case of Hillary you need no evidence but in the case of Trump you can just ignore the evidence.

Ass backwards you insufferable idiot; there WAS evidence of a crime with Hillary. There was NO evidence, nor is there still, of a crime committed by Trump or his campaign.

You should want to read it because it is the only way to make rational arguments against what is in it. Without reading it, you are simply waving your hands in the air and making irrational sounds. A sound argument would list Mueller's arguments and then show why his arguments are wrong with sources to support your claims.

See above.

Once again, you simply make a claim with no evidence. The Mueller report includes much of the information and evidence that led up to the investigation. Unless you can dispute what is laid out in the report your argument about "deep state creeps" makes you look unhinged. Courts rely on evidence and arguments that are well thought out with valid support. Investigators rely on the same thing. They also rely on the same standard the Mueller lays out. Unless there is enough evidence to charge and convict of a crime that is actually on the books, they will not bring any charges.

There was NO evidence of any crime committed by Trump or his campaign. There never has been. The only piece of evidence provided by Comey was a pile of hearsay and a salacious lie filled dossier bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign. So it begs the question, why investigate? Why wouldn't they be investigating Hillary and Obama?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Proof usually involves pointing to a valid source of information that supports a position. It's called a citation, such as saying it is in the Mueller report, page 1, paragraph 2.

You might want to think a little more before next time before you post.

[Truth Detector]

Hillary is "whataboutism". If Hillary is guilty of a crime then Kushner, Gates and Manafort would also be. But the reality is that none of them knowinlgy destroyed evidence under subpoena so none of them are guilty. But it doesn't change the fact that evidence clearly was deleted contrary to Truth Detector's claim.

I am fully aware of the Espionage Acts that Hillary could have been charged with. It seems it is you that that lacks awareness. Feel free to cite the act you think makes gross negligence a felony. It requires one be grossly negligent about specific things that lead to a specific result. I doubt you will provide a link to any law. And it is even less likely you will provide any evidence to show how Hillary's actions meet the standard of the law.

We're going to need hip waders for this bullshit.

[Truth Detector]

Citing the location where the answer can be found is hardly evidence I don't know but instead would be proof I do know.

Can you read the paragraph? Or are you restricted to only being able to understand 4 word sentences?

Poor Richard; he was born without a brain.

[Truth Detector]

Obama is bad because he didn't order an investigation and Obama is bad because he did order an investigation.

Who is making that claim scarecrow? Nice stack of strawmen you got there. Dunce.

Your argument is now completely off the rails as you prove you can't think logically.

Your argument is laughably stupid.

[Truth Detector]

Didn't the DNC refuse to cooperate with the FBI after they determined their systems had been hacked, Ms. Stretch?

They refused to even allow an examination of the presumed hacked server. I wonder why that would be?

[Truth Detector]

Proof usually involves pointing to a valid source of information that supports a position. It's called a citation, such as saying it is in the Mueller report, page 1, paragraph 2.

You might want to think a little more before next time before you post.

I R O N Y!!!!