Anonymous ID: e2d4da July 31, 2019, 8:42 p.m. No.7287772   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>7287456

It wouldn't have prevented her from taking office regardless, so the question

is moot.

 

Keep in mind, the email fiasco is small potatoes anyway. Even then it

was really a non-starter. It would have been easy to claim it was unintended

(in spite of the wording of the law) and that she had permission, just not

formal permission. She won't do any time for that. It is, however, a pretext

for probable cause, i.e., for search warrants.

Anonymous ID: e2d4da July 31, 2019, 8:44 p.m. No.7287814   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>7287767

I don't know about that, but I do know Joe has been wrong about nearly

every detailed claim he's ever made. He's being used to push disinfo, whether

willingly or not is left to debate, but anyone guessing could easily get to

the same track record he has.