Go along with the decision to drop this case.
-
-
Replying to @Patterico
Which is not the subject that led to her arguing with me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
True; the subject that led to her arguing with you is your refusal to acknowledge the counterintelligence predicate for the interview.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
I'm going to end the discussion because I have learned to recognize when you are ignoring something and it's happening here. You aren't going to address the counterintelligence predicate, we both know it, and you will continue to talk about something else.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Patterico
Whereas you are ignoring the fact that the intel predicate is irrelevant to the 'proposal' as Popehat framed it & I was discussing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Patterico Retweeted Dan McLaughlin
I already read your piece, twice now. I am not interested in the proposal. I'm interested in addressing your tweet falsely claiming that the only rationale the FBI had for the interview was the Logan Act. That is false, and you should admit it. You won't.https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1259219769007407105 …
Patterico added,
Dan McLaughlinVerified account @baseballcrankThe latter was the original theory for investigating Flynn, but the FBI had run out of arguments to keep it going, which is why it fell back on the never-enforced Logan Act as the fig leaf for the interview. Both theories raise serious Qs going forward. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ending-the-flynn-false-statement-case-was-the-right-judgment/ … https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1259217696039862273 …3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Patterico
My article explained why I think they were stretching to claim that they should continue a counterintel investigation in that situation; the fact that they were citing the Logan Act is proof of what a stretch it was at that point. You can keep pretending I've not discussed it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Your article and tweet suggest that citation of the Logan Act shows they had run out of reasons to investigate the counterintelligence angle.
@Susan_Hennessey's piece shows they had not. Screenshot #1 is amply refuted by screenshot #2.pic.twitter.com/OAwcvPsf23
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And this tweet is very likely to be replied to by reference to some irrelevancy to *this* discussion, such as "we were talking about the 1001 proposal" or whatever. Shock me by actually replying to the argument Susan made. If you don't, I'm out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
OK, so you admit that you're trying to ignore the fact that her response to me was a non-sequitur.
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.