@jonallendc how is this finding a vindication for both sides? Republicans weren’t upset Comey excoriated Clinton publicly. They were upset he didn’t indict her! Honest question- what do you mean here?pic.twitter.com/hTJgBLmVsp
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Since president said he fired Comey over Russia, it’s reasonable for people to wonder if the Sessions/Rosenstein version was the real motivation or if the president was being truthful about Russia. IG doesn’t answer that, but does provide justification for DOJ version of story.
Yeah no. That’s nuts.
Oh for god's sake, no it doesn't. We *already knew* Comey deviated from FBI procedure. We also already knew that's *not why Trump fired him*. This report doesn't provide extra justification for anything, because we already know Trump acted with corrupt intent. He admitted it!
If the DAG says "Trump did X because Y is true," and Trump later repeatedly says "Y is true, but I did X because Z," how does a report that proves Y is true give us any new information?
Fact is, Armando is right: while Republicans and Democrats superficially agree Comey acted improperly, this report doesn't vindicate "both sides" because both sides had very different views of *what* Comey did wrong.
Not certain how you reached that conclusion. Check out Lawfareblog's article on 9 takeaways from the report. It lays it out nicely.
WIttes wrote a Comey apologia? You got a link?
#ICYMI
PEOPLE HEARD TRUMP TELL LESTER HOLT ON NATL TV THAT HE FIRED COMEY OVER ***THE RUSSIA THING***
You go to far here. It provides justification for the DOJ criticism of Comey, NOT the "story." The "story" is a fraud, that leans the criticism of Comey as its fig leaf.
Lol what a rube you are.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.