-
-
Replying to @maggieNYT
Maggie is a reporter for the NYT and they are not allowed to editorialize on Twitter. Their articles are supposed to be impartial.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tiny_direwolf @maggieNYT
I don't think Maggie pointing out an article is the real problem, especially when it's unclear why she pointed it out. The problem is that NYT authors wrote and editors accepted that article.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundPol @maggieNYT
I don't know, the article just seems to lay out the known facts such as the Bannon and Clinton Cash connection and Trumps frustration over the Mueller investigation & pressure on the DOJ to do this (unethical at best).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tiny_direwolf @maggieNYT
The article has a "Is there anything to this?" section and is first quoting a Hillary spokesperson, and then mentions a prosecution that was stopped due to lack of evidence. Without setting the scene about what this is about, this looks like a political denial, and lack of facts
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundPol @maggieNYT
Gotcha. I'm 100% Hillary supporter and think the allegations r pure political retaliation and a distraction from the SC investigation. Maggie perflexes and aggravates me but I read a piece on journalism and the expectations of reputable reporting ad decided to cut her some slack
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yea, I'm not complaining about Maggie here, but the authors of the piece (and said so in another tweet). Her comment-less posting of the link doesn't imo allow judging her intent. FWIW, not a 100% Hillary supporter (far from 0 tho).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.