My point is simple. This *looks* very bad (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454543/mueller-investigation-too-many-anti-trump-coincidences …) and opens the door for Trump to attempt to discredit the investigation. Mueller should have vetted his team.https://twitter.com/BLFactsRule/status/943673615672922112 …
-
-
No. It doesn't. Either you operate by the rule of law or you don't. Either you put your career first or the country. Pick a side Matt. It seems you are on the side of obstruction and conspiracy theories rather than lifelong Republicans like Mueller who served the country.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Optics" isn't a real story. Do real stories.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then shut the damn door, since it's bullsht
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But don't they need fact to prove the case? Not by opinions?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah but the argument you're making is that Trump can't be investigated by people who don't like Trump. That argument would not fly with Hillary. I mean do you not see how problematic only pro Trump people can investigate Trump is?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, those over $200 are. And some campaigns choose to report those under that amount, too. Obviously, if you're arguing that you have clout with small donors, it behooves you to report amounts under that.
-
But separately, yes, there's the appearance of rabidity, though in the case of the guy calling Trump an "idiot," I actually think that's benign. Hard to think he's a great criminal mastermind who's guilty if he's an "idiot."
-
We're MUCH more concerned about the "insurance policy" text.
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.