It was her failure to read the tweet.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Patterico @Susan_Hennessey
You seem not to have read the part immediately after the highlighted section, which is why I think they were grasping at straws to use a phone call they had transcribed to restart the counterintel probe. You keep knowingly falsely asserting I did not discuss this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Susan_Hennessey
They used *the knowledge that Flynn had lied about that call* to Pence. I assert you did not discuss this, and I assert you ignore it over and over again while accusing me of dishonesty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Patterico @Susan_Hennessey
Wait, your entire argument here is that the FBI should be policing discussions between Flynn and Pence, based on listening to what Pence said on TV?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Susan_Hennessey
My argument is contained in the screenshot to Susan’s article. Should you ever decide to grapple with it, let me know. Have a nice Saturday.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, I don't think "we heard Pence on TV and his answer conflicts with what the call transcript says" is much of a basis for restarting a moribund investigation under the circumstances I noted in my piece. Frankly, the last bullet point fails the straight-face test.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @Susan_Hennessey
I never said anything about TV, but check your email.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.