Correcting this tweet after watching Horowitz testify. He made it clear he believes the 17 FBI "errors" are likely intentional, but it is not his job to read minds, and it can't be confirmed by existing documents or testimony.https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1204830588877692928 …
-
-
If I had the mounds of evidence the IG has, then I think so. If I know you own a blue car, and you leave with your keys in your hand, walk out the door, and a blue car drives away, it’s reasonable to assume you get in your car and left.
-
Ever see a rabid anti-Trump reporter, and you can't quite figure out whether they're intentionally lying or just so delusional that they actually believe their own BS? That's the question here. Of course either way, they can't be trusted.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The Left want both. It is a multi-variable scenario.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's a sheepish assertion. Even if you grant them a moral defence of "protecting the country from a monster" you're still surrendering to an unelected authority, to be an arbitor of something they have no legal right to pursue. This is slavish, anti freedom type thinking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Protecting the country from a monster is a power grab. Take the power away from the monster. More concerning, to me, is how often have they done this in other cases believing they were “protecting” the country? What % of innocents effected is ok?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Power is being grabbed in either case. Assume all political animals are corrupt.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.