...dangling the possibility of a special prosecutor to investigate the President's opponent, particularly when the attorney general's job is on the line, you have to take seriously the possibility that an egregious abuse of power is either taking place or being contemplated.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @benjaminwittes @PaulaReidCBS and
I read it to say almost exactly the opposite--and I'm not usually inclined to give WBSIII the benefit of the doubt!
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @marty_lederman @PaulaReidCBS and
See the rest of the thread.
1 reply 2 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes @PaulaReidCBS and
I largely agree with Ben -- this is his way of telling Senators that nothing's coming.
10 replies 37 retweets 155 likes -
Replying to @marty_lederman @benjaminwittes and
That may or may not be the case. Letter was written many months after initial congressional letters and very shortly after POTUS voiced upset. A presumption seems unwarranted given all that.
10 replies 10 retweets 71 likes -
Replying to @maggieNYT @marty_lederman and
It came the day before Sessions testifies before Goodlatte's committee, so, better to respond the day before than face it there for the first time, yes?
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @marty_lederman and
What's the substantive difference? I understand the surface difference.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @maggieNYT @chrisgeidner and
The substantive difference is that one reading implies that the AG is preparing to name a special counsel. The other reading suggests that the AG—or the DAG—is preparing NOT to name a special counsel.
4 replies 12 retweets 100 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes @maggieNYT and
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying your read is wrong. As my thread makes clear, in the current climate/context, one has to take the possibility seriously. I just think it's important to emphasize that there is another way to read it—and that it may be more likely.
3 replies 8 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes @maggieNYT and
I agree with Ben and Chris. But Maggie's suspicion certainly worth flagging, too.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, and certainly flagged the White House line from the NYT story in my report — as I think that is disconcerting, on its own.
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.