You know about the @realDonaldTrump - Russia probe. But there's another Big Investigation that appears to be claiming scalps you haven't heard as much about. https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/25/investigating-the-investigators-at-doj-and-fbi/ …https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/945646491955290113 …
-
-
3. So I don't discount the entire article. Only the initial opening which I believe, when you look at it as a rhetorical device, serves to bias the reader and minimize the actions of DoJ & FBI against possible backdrop of Trump/Russia collusion.
-
4. Readers tend to fill in vague/unsourced/generalized statements with what they imagine might be true. That's how confirmation bias works. Your statement reads as if there is evidence against Trump/Russia collusion without providing any specifics as to what you are referencing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
2. Your link on news coverage comes up with this.pic.twitter.com/XegcX3MkHk
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1.What I ineffectively tried to point out is that the statement "much of it apparently correct" has no link to verify that statement. After all this time I really haven't seen anything that verifies collusion between Russia and Trump. But your statement implies that there is.pic.twitter.com/pYhLhB7yxK
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.