Why are paid legal expert punditeers still playing along with Trump's "it's just obstruction" line? Is the TV gig too time consuming to look at the actual evidence, rather than listen to Rudy?
-
-
The pundits don’t care. Cillizza (still mad I can spell it) earns millions while you linger in relative obscurity. Size and reach of audience matters more than correct analysis.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you know, i could just do without pundits in general. One person shows are fine but huge panels are really horrible for news period.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The sad thing is that there are so many smart experts out there who could provide such amazing insight. But those people never get hired as pundits.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They've been annoying me lately-I've been noticing a lot of groupthink among the punditry as of late, and a lack of getting below the surface.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Anyway, the answer to both is yes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
AFAIK, it's the same question -- whether his status as sitting POTUS exempts him from responding to a subpoena, and what showing gov't has to make. Subject matter shouldn't make a difference.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Couldn’t agree more. More substance on policy, immigration, NK. The constant speculation on less important issues feeds 45’s narcissistic diet.
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.