Whitewater, they would argue. And they were never dinged for Whitewater itself.
-
-
Replying to @DavidMDrucker @greatwetshart
Others were convicted on Whitewater. So some crime existed. What statute would hypothetical collusion violate? Still no evidence, after a yr
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nadinecarroll @greatwetshart
And some crime might exist here, which we'll find out if the investigation plays out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker @greatwetshart
Shouldn't we have some probable cause first, before investigating? There was for Whitewater, Fast and Furious, emailgate...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nadinecarroll @greatwetshart
...that both sides tend to view this stuff the same. The other guy was clearly guilty, my guy clearly not. It's how everyone FEELS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker @greatwetshart
But your job is facts, not feels.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nadinecarroll @greatwetshart
When I cover campaigns, which I do regularly, I ask how voters feel about economy, D.C., etc, to understand how they're voting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker @greatwetshart
Got that. But after a year of investigation, isn't a review of hard evidence in order?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nadinecarroll @greatwetshart
Wasn't my original point but I don't have a problem with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker @greatwetshart
Good. I hope to see one from you then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not my beat. ... But good discussion.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.