No. You're misreading what you're looking at. You're misreading the precedence of one over another.
-
-
And the REASON why I'm saying you invented it is bc for YOUR argument to be true something from that statute would necessarily be listed. It is not. Ergo, you have invented it bc if you didn't you would have to start managing your cognitive dissonance.
-
Here's statute in Manafort warrant. A different statute in George P's doesn't prove anything. But let's say Mueller wasn't looking for obstruction in M warrant.* All you cay say is that he *might* have shown probable cause for a Russia conspiracy case. Ok, he hasn't charged one.pic.twitter.com/d6V7gkBmTT
-
*and btw, I never declared that he was, I just raised it as one possibility, which you then mischaracterized.
-
I didn't mischaracterize it. I laughed my ass at the fact you were so desperate as to suggest it, and then tried to crawl your way out of that desperate situation. I'm still laughing.
-
assuming you know what the word "could" means, then you mischaracterized. Compare your rendering of my words to my actual words. Happy laughing:pic.twitter.com/eVWa8L9Dg9
-
Still laughing Aaron. There was never a chance it "could" be obstruction, given the warrant. It was just a desperate fantasy you invented to put off cognitive dissonance.
-
I keep following this exchange with the hope that eventually I’ll Get It
- 18 more replies
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.