Like in this tweet she quickly moves to attack NYT before elaborating on the spy thing. That’s her trick. Her argument is scattered all over. She knows that if you think about it, you would realize that spying is justifiable with strong evidence of illegal activities.
-
-
-
That’s basically what I was getting at. Are presidential campaigns are above the law (at least if their party doesn’t control the White House)? If they’re not, it’s a question of evidence. If she wanted to argue there’s no evidence warranting investigation, fine. But she didn’t.
-
The ambuguity here is head-scratching.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Given what we know of the evidence so far, yes, it's hypothetical.
-
That's why I asked hypothetically. What's your answer?
-
Oh, B for sure. And then tell the investigators you'll throw the whole team under the bus if there are leaks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The worst part about Kim Strassel is that her writing looks principled, but when you actually follow it through, you realize it’s just a web of crap.
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.