But . . but . . . I was absolutely assured that the DOJ is not investigating Trump.
My position has been: I'll take Merrick Garland at his word because I have no reason not to, and Garland said the DOJ is working its way up and following the facts.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
My position has been: I'll take Merrick Garland at his word because I have no reason not to, and Garland said the DOJ is working its way up and following the facts.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
There is no ticking clock. That's an invented thing.
There is nothing for me to be "right" about.
I promise no results.
I'm simply repeating what Garland said because I have no reason to think he's lying or conducting this investigation incompetently.
There is nothing for me to be "right" about.
I promise no results.
I'm simply repeating what Garland said because I have no reason to think he's lying or conducting this investigation incompetently.
Defendants tend to do things like that.
https://twitter.com/MJWilliams1975/status/1483566252379545602
It seems to me there are two approaches to the question:
#1: Take Merrick Garland at his word and assume he's competent until there is reason to think otherwise
#2: Search for clues to support the opinion that in fact, Garland has made an advance decision about Trump.
#1: Take Merrick Garland at his word and assume he's competent until there is reason to think otherwise
#2: Search for clues to support the opinion that in fact, Garland has made an advance decision about Trump.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
