things said by lawyer:A(admit),B(chatlogs) You: A partially true, and makes indictment look weak You: B is false, makes indictment weak yes?
3 of those are 1) immediately moving goalposts 2) conflicting claims FROM DOJ 3) evidence not strong enough for indictment.
-
-
That doesn't mean the case is shit. It means those are things that DOJ has a pattern of doing that sometimes indicate weak cases.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have they done #3?
-
LOL. With that apparently bad faith question, I'm tuning out. Thanks for playing.
-
I'll take that as a yes. "evidence not strong enough for indictment." holy shit, there is no way this cannot mean "indictment is WEAK"
-
Or maybe you can't distinguish between indictment and prosecution? Try that unimagined possibility, huh?
-
This is not about an indictment. It is about a prosecution, of which the indictment is now 1/3 public statements, all which conflict.
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.