Guess it's worth noting here: Huma is not being investigated for her husband sending dick pics to a 15-year-old.
-
-
Replying to @JohnSurico
Of course not, but she's "involved" in the investigation.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Yeah, but the investigation isn't focused on her misdoing. Just think it's fairly misleading to peg it as a HRC/ally investigation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JohnSurico
Again, I don't think so. There is ample factual basis to describe Huma as "involved" in the investigation focused on her husband
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
She's legally married to him, and it's part of procedure. To say she's under investigation is a wild misuse of the definition.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JohnSurico
I don't say she's under investigation, I say she's "involved" in the investigation.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ZalmanGelbman @mtracey
Precisely. If we're gonna air legal grievances, just wanna make sure we have a running list of all of them.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @JohnSurico @ZalmanGelbman
I mean, ok. None of those are criminal cases though.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
By all means mention them, but they're not criminal cases and shouldn't be portrayed as such.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey @ZalmanGelbman
To target one set of possible charges, be it civil or criminal, and totally ignore the other is just unfair.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JohnSurico @ZalmanGelbman
Agreed, I don't advocate ignoring them.
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
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.