Getting information public officials would prefer not to be made public from sources is a core function of political journalism, and the story is clearly newsworthy and material to the performance of a public official -- what is the problem supposed to be here?
-
-
Show this thread
-
The argument would seem to be that it's bad that the sources had hard evidence rather than just he-said-she-said, and to describe that argument is to refute it
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A “neighborhood group text” seems much more analogous to a message board than a 1:1 conversation.
-
The iMessage group had at least 10 members, likely a lot more. You wouldn’t say anything in that group chat if you didn’t want it to be public.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That was a Cheap Trick you pulled there . . . :-)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Anything in service of the battle against the Clinton's is OK. Right there in Article 9 of the constitution
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.