An explicit quid pro quo? No. But conservatives argued - properly so - that when Obama mused aloud about siccing the IRS on political opponents or prejudged that Hillary had done nothing indictable, he didn't have to be 100% explicit for it to be bad. Apply the same logic here.
-
-
Yes, there is no direct evidence of Obama interfering with the IRS but he must be guilty! I did not like how the IRS occurred but stating Obama mused about IRS is incorrect whataboutism here.
-
Considering what grifters a lot of the political groups tend to be, there is reasonable concern but like a lot of Holder's actions it was incompetently performed.
End of conversation
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.