The investigation had to happen to prove that this was actually a “hoax”, which shows that it was never a hoax to begin with; just an investigation that proved the accused innocent.
-
-
without a tangible crime and what seems to be (at best) a subjective argument on what constitutes obstruction - jamming up a sitting President for it would never fly politically or legally; and remember the more this garbage is pushed the stronger it makes Trump
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
name one legal case that even comes close to this outside of a philosophical ethics class repeat: if Mueller has some rock solid tangible evidence of obstruction he would have pursued, but he doesn’t because he clearly didn’t no crime, weak obstruction (maybe) = nothing burger
- Show replies
-
-
-
Also it's illegal for law enforcement to fabricate a crime, so obstructing their illegal fabrication is, in fact, legal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
a) I don’t see why not. These are distinct crimes we’re talking about. One is the alleged “hoax”, the other is the obstruction. Just bc innocent of one doesn’t make innocent of other. b) Moving goalposts
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.