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.
-
-
Oh? Julian Assange has said publicly he has physical evidence proving Russia was not Wikileaks source? When did Mueller interview him?
-
He was most likely lying, or has "evidence" that doesn't prove what he thinks it does.
-
An investigation is an examination of all possible pieces of evidence. If he found Assange's evidence was unreliable, he would dismiss it. He didn't. He ignored it. Wikileaks and Assange have a 100% accuracy rate.
-
I think they probably already had all the evidence they needed, and therefore didn't need Assange's input.
-
No they did not. Again they would have interviewed him. It helps the case of Assange's evidence was not credible. They ignored it. Which means the were not worried about it's accuracy. It means they're hiding what Assange's evidence was.
-
Oh, so you personally know they didn't have sufficient evidence and therefore needed Assange's testimony.
-
Try reading.
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.