Besides the Comey firing, was not the claim of supposed obstruction of justice based on Comey’s claim that POTUS said something to the effect off “Flynn is good guy go easy on him?” If so, does the fact Flynn supposedly “cooperated” with SC and had absolutely nothing incriminating to offer on Russian collusion as evidenced by the revelation that the SC DISCOVERED NO EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLUSION along with SC’s sentence recommendation for Flynn being in effect “going easy on him” not completely exonerate POTUS’s suggestion to Comey as anything other than the exact same judgement Mueller demonstrated $40,000,000 and three years later? Am I wrong in questioning why know one else is making this point?
Besides the Comey firing, was not the claim of supposed obstruction of justice based on Comey’s claim that POTUS said something to the effect off “Flynn is good guy go easy on him?” If so, does the fact Flynn supposedly “cooperated” with SC and had absolutely nothing incriminating to offer on Russian collusion as evidenced by the revelation that the SC DISCOVERED NO EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLUSION along with SC’s sentence recommendation for Flynn being in effect “going easy on him” not completely exonerate POTUS’s suggestion to Comey as anything other than the exact same judgement Mueller demonstrated $40,000,000 and three years later? Am I wrong in questioning why know one else is making this point?
Phonefagging gimme a break…it’s in there maybe one of you autists can make the point more eloquently.
Lemme try this again.
Comey claims president saying something to the effect of, “Flynn is good guy, go easy on him,” amounts to obstruction.
Flynn offers absolutely nothing to offer Mueller against Trump otherwise AG could not say SC found no evidence…
Yet Mueller recommends absolutely no jail time.
Is that not “going easy” on Flynn? If so, how is Mueller not exhibiting the exact same judgement as POTUS? And, in so doing, does that not inherently exonerate POTUS on obstruction contrary to what the SC supposedly says in his report?
It’s a tricky point, but I don’t here any of the talking heads making it yet.
Understood, but I just trying play into the game the Dems are playing with the “muh no exoneration on obstruction BS” when in fact there actually is even though there need not be.
Thanks…tried to improve here:
Also, yeah to your question….he’s still not even been sentenced. It could be this whole three page summary along with the report it summarizes were deliberately written to get the Dems clamoring for all of to be released. If so, they couldn’t have done a better job….the Dems are apoplectic about getting it released.
I just can’t believe no one else is pointing to the contradiction on Flynn at the center of the obstruction BS. Maybe some journalist here can pick up on it.