3. Interview isn’t recorded. 4. Lead official (Mueller) doesn’t attend. 5. #2 official’s family has received large donations from Trump political friends. 6. Prior to the interview, lead official meets privately on plane tarmac with Trump's wife (to discuss grandchildren). (Cont)
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
7. Main interviewer has expressed disdain for Trump’s opponents, such as discussing an “insurance plan” with higher-ups to undermine them. If the same terms aren’t offered...Was Clinton’s interview process unfair? Or is the one proposed for Trump unfair?
#FairIsFairShow this thread -
8. As long as they believe Trump didn't intend any harm, he's let off the hook for any violations.
Show this thread -
9. If Trump becomes a target, it should be referred to as a "matter" not an investigation.
Show this thread -
10. Trump aides should be permitted to destroy subpoenaed or relevant public records and wipe relevant servers with a cloth or something.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
SHARYL. Do you relly need to ALLWAYS go back to HILLARY? Sounds like you're afraid Tump has something to hide! Wouldn't you want it ALL in the open?
-
Can you show me the "always" back to Hillary evidence? I rarely talk about her. Second, this has nothing to do with what either of them may have had to hide. Don't you agree both should be treated the same, now matter who you support or are against? That's all.
-
The GOP brings up HILLARY all the time as a way to distract. As far as being fair goes. You probably know every case is different! Mueller is a REPUBLICAN chose by a REPUBLICAN so why wouldn't you trust his decision on how to investigate?
-
Ok thanks for your correction, because I certainly don't "always" bring up Hillary. I didn't say I do or don't trust Mueller. I will say that since many (most?) Republicans oppose Trump, one cannot use partly alone to try to determine supposed fairness.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Amazing what Hillary got away with
-
It aint over for her yet!
-
"Why aren't I 50 years to life you might ask..."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is great. I would add one more: The over-arching criteria for any criminal indictment resolves around whether there was clear "intent" to commit a malicious act. Whether any laws were actually broken is immaterial.
-
This brings up a question...Is "Intent" part of the statute for Obstruction? Not a lawyer, just curious.

-
Intent is a required element. Funny thing is, intent was not a required proof of the charges against Hillary, but somehow her lack of intent kept her out of the pokey.
-
Ok, so w/that said, how would one Prove in Court someone's "Intent to Obstruct" if there was NEVER a Collusion crime? 1. I understand there's no statute per say, but... 2. The Obstruction relates to a perjury trap on Flynn, as opposed to Collusion. Seems like a stretch.pic.twitter.com/3Ms5qYaLWP
-
COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME! Why don’t you libtard idiots get this basic principle!
-
Slow your roll...I'm pretty sure there aren't any Libs on this thread. Actually, trying to figure out Mueller's angle based on what we know to be true (factual). Ps~I used the Cenk GIF to make fun of him, just in case that sent you off.
- 1 more reply
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.