What if both are true, as in you are wrong about them not being real and are using some loose associations, but right in that this cluster has been identified
in either case i like the way you think
Im surprised no one specifically asked this but Gowdy touched on it:
If no questions about intent are made to the principals of the investigation than how can you have evidence of intent?
The implicit statement is that the prosecutors could not find evidence of intent because no evidence was referred to them by investigators.
IG was careful in his language: ' The prosecutors chose not to prosecute based on the evidence they had; and they themselves were not infected by bias'
BUT the evidence or LACK thereof WAS influenced by BIAS.
No one on the committee asked the question or layed out the scenario:
Could it be that the prosecutors made their determination because they werent given full or correct evidence by those who CLEARLY favored Clinton?
Bigger thinking.
But as its laid out now, there is plenty of groundwork to prosecute. Rep Jackson brought up Huber and U1! and suggested Sessions was violating his recusal by referring investigation into U1!
WE knew this in advance
TRUST SESSIONS
_X
Image not seen without user moding.
Q likes to involve us.
as in here's dinner
Now cook it.