More statements made (evidence) without presenting facts.
If 'evidence' exists(ed), under 'broad' scope #1, would Mueller have the auth to pursue?
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Because no evidence exists(ed) and/or was found by SC/Mueller, was scope #2 enacted in an attempt to go outside of the 'intended engagement'?
Why is scope #2 classified only to AG/DAG and a select few others (read at terminal only)?
If 'evidence' exists(ed), why did R+D members of the Senate conclude NO DIRECT EVIDENCE EXISTS …………..?
If 'evidence' exists(ed), as per your statement released today, again, why did the SENATE (R's + D's) JUST CONCLUDE NO EVIDENCE EXISTS?
When will Americans wake up to the [D]
party con that is continually pushed without facts, without support, and supported and further pushed by the media arm of the [D]
party [FAKE NEWS MEDIA]
Reading the comments on these Tweets further demonstrates the seriousness of media brainwashing in our Country whereby statements are considered fact w/o the need to provide proof.
Control of the Narrative.
If enough people state the same thing w/o providing evidence and/or support does it become FACTUAL to those caught in the loop?