Folks: It is possible to believe (as I do) that people very close to Trump will be accused of some very ugly crimes. AND Believe that it violates the spirit of our Constitution to use the word "traitor" to describe Rand Paul's stupid comments.
-
-
I'm glad you think that. Mueller has a timestamp problem with G2:https://twitter.com/HisBlakeness/status/1018129641264074752 …
-
This is cute. Honestly cute like a child. Trust me, this doesn't show what you think it does. At all. But continue playing. It's a nice hobby you've got!
-
Educate me. What does it show?
-
Give it a few weeks.
-
Nope. Computer data doesn't have a new meaning "in a few weeks". You are bullshitting. C0 C2 C9 45 F6 C6 D1 01 won't have a "new meaning" in a few weeks. Don't ask us to "trust" you on it. You've demonstrated - clearly - that you are untrustworthy.
-
"Meaning." You invented that. I said "show." Your problem, little boy playing with toys, is that you are making false interpretations of what you're looking at. I don't care if you find me untrustworthy. I will continue to laugh at you as a confused little child.
-
False interpretations? Some timestamps? The stupidity of a hacker incriminating himself? The technical detail is there for all to see. Or those that *want* to see it. It's not an opinion, a bias, or a ruse. Investigative journalists - like you used to be - should follow it.
-
I'm familiar with the evidence. I just happen to understand what it means. Which is why I find you so childlike and sweet and naive and pathetic.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
These people are traitors. And I'm not going to shy away from that term bc some journalist who was a year late to the party is uncomfortable calling a spade a spade.
-
I spend a great deal of time covering "Espionage" (AKA leak) cases. I am well versed in the difference between these things. And, further, pretty fucking committed to defending the principles in the Constitution about wagging this around easily.
-
Instead of policing the language of the people upset about the Republican Congress complete abdication of responsibility and active attempts to stop investigations police the people actively attempting to aid the billionaires breaking the law. Friendly advice.
-
Hi. I went to the FBI and provided information on a source in this investigation. What basis do you have to lecture me on how I can defend the Constitution?
-
Aren't you the one giving the lecture? I'm just not in the mood to have liberals language policed as Republicans aid and abet a crime. I thank you for coming forward. That doesn't change the fact you were dead wrong for a year.https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/1018539997425594368?s=19 …
-
Well, let's see. You said "Instead of policing, ... police," which is grammatically a command. So, nope.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excuse me? That's a bizarre comment unless YOU think it's a witch hunt. GOP senators and Congress-folk have at least as much information as we do, and some far, far more. So, if you believe the investigation has merit, then that entire group knows it must as well.
-
Who are you talking about "we" here? No. I have stuff Congress doesn't have, including Intel, and Paul is not privy to that. The reporting has been shitty.
-
Your last comment supports what I wrote, assuming your inside info is consonant with the general narrative we've been attacked, and folks aligned with Trump have done some bad stuff. If that's so, no one should be calling it a witch hunt. Paul has at least as much info as I do
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Have you read the indictment?!?
-
The why is she posting assanine tweets?!? Mueller’s indictments couldn’t be any clearer. He even makes it clear further indictments are coming. DOJ policy dictates they’ll come after the Nov election.
-
“DOJ policy dictates they’ll come after November.” No, it doesn’t. It loosely states that no major election-related investigatory revelations should be made within 60 day’s of an election. But: 1) its guidelines, not “policy.” And 2) lot of time left before that window.
-
3) None of the targets are on the ballot 4) Mueller is going to move before that
-
Maybe one. A candidate for US Congress. Unless it's a Senator, or someone running for another office in 2018.
-
That person may well be running, but it’s likely not for office ;)
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.