So far the implication looks like a case of "no u".
Iike ive seen so far is "hypothetically, what if instead of the republicans doing this thing that nearly everyone thinks they did... What if the democrats did it instead!".
Ill have to remember that if im ever arrested for something.
"Oh yeah, well what if the officer made me rob that convenience store. You'd better recuse him and any of his testimony and for good measure that of any officer because they are obviously biased towards their fellow cops."
That type of logic is supposed to hold weight?
The difference would be that we have more than enough evidence that Clinton and DNC reached out to Russia (almost assuredly with Obama). So it's not a case of No U. It's a case of plenty of evidence for 1, literally none for the other, oh and by the way this guy who is doing the investigating is 1,000% involved with the group of Dems that have actually, you know... EVIDENCE that they reached out to Russia..
You mean evidence like the e-mails that Donald Trump Jr. personally released in which he colludes with a Russian operative?
Tell me when that has ANYTHING to do with Trump Sr. and his team. Hint. It doesn't.
Right, Trump Sr. didn't know anything about his son and several key campaign advisors meeting with a Russian agent in TRUMP TOWER while he (Trump Sr.) was in the building at the time. That makes total sense. Seriously, are you a fucking idiot? ---