I'm aware of what you asked. I'm also aware that you mischaracterized my response. My response will remain what it was, and you may misread it however you like.
-
-
Why be glad underlying analysis as done if "They get basic facts so hysterically wrong as to make the value of the analysis moot."
Square THAT for us who speak English as our first language, please. -
Taking a small bit of tech evidence and extrapalating it to conclusove is radically wrong.
-
Right: I'd go further. Most of that analysis mistakes the universe of total servers, for example, or total known hacks, or total known source locations. It also doesn't account for another part of the investigation I've reported on.
-
Holy COW you're not self absorbed are you?
-
Actually no, I do not see us as being self absorbed. Jumping to that conclusion without any actual facts to support it is radically wrong. I would also say that you have contributed an excellent example of what we we have been trying to convey. Thank you.
-
Saying the narrowly constructed VIPS techn report, commenting on July 5th breach is a failure because it doesn't address "another part of the investigation **I've** reported on" is self absorbed. Not you Lisa. And not the fact that conclusions don't derive from the base.
-
It could be construed as quite self absorbed if it were not for the fact it is true. Still, not enough evidence to support your conclusion though. There is ample publicly available evidence to support
@emptywheel though. -
There is no evidence to support EW's claim that Trump "owes a debt" to Russia. She makes no effort to explain HOW said debt could theoretically be leveraged. She claims the entirety of her claims are basically "classified". What conclusions have I made?https://twitter.com/MonsieurAmerica/status/1016787134324199424 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.