In which Byron York notes EVEN non-Mueller investigations show collusion which he takes as proof Mueller hasn't found collusion.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/why-is-mueller-handing-off-key-cases …
-
-
No I read it just fine. There is no evidence of collusion anywhere, neither on Cohen, nor the show Russian indictments, nor on Manafort. Mueller’s got nothing.
-
In that case please quote the first sentence in “THE MUELLER QUESTIONS MAP OUT CULTIVATION, A QUID PRO QUO, AND A COVER-UP (PART ONE, CULTIVATION),” which you consider incomplete, inaccurate, or false. https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/05/02/the-mueller-questions-map-out-cultivation-a-quid-pro-quo-and-a-cover-up-part-one-cultivation/ …
-
Questions is it? Heck, who needs evidence when you got questions? If you weren’t so bamboozled you’d recognize a fishing expedition when you saw one.
-
What does, "who needs evidence when you got questions" mean? Why are you spamming ew's tl? Could you make restitution by donating here? https://www.emptywheel.net/support/ You're not an antiques dealer are you? Is living in Vermont a lie too?
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.