Which raises the question, if there was no evidence - of collusion, why did we need Posted: Sep 16th, 2018 - 12:53 pm In Reply to: Special counsels are only supposed to be for evidence of - a crime, not to search for one.
a special prosecutor?
Answer: We didn't, but people don't know the purpose of a special prosecutor. They think it's to investigate, but it's not. The media ignored this because they hate Trump and it doesn't fit their narrative. People believe it because they want to. The Rule of Law has been spit upon once again.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
- Lisa Page testimony: Collusion still unproven by the time of - Mueller's special counsel (Views: 155, 2018-09-16, 10:23 am)
- Special counsels are only supposed to be for evidence of - a crime, not to search for one. (Views: 156, 2018-09-16, 10:26 am)
- Russian interference - sm (Views: 152, 2018-09-16, 11:18 am)
- If - in the course of the investigation (Views: 144, 2018-09-16, 12:00 pm)
- Nope - sm (Views: 168, 2018-09-16, 12:27 pm)
- Which raises the question, if there was no evidence - of collusion, why did we need
|
