I. READ. THE. POST. YOU. DIDNT. "...I wasn't going to do this originally, but... I am going to do my own version of the questions..." "...This post lays out the “cultivation” questions Mueller WANTS to pose. She's claiming she can read his mind. She knows what he REALLY WANTS.
-
-
What am I missing? She admits she's REWRITING the questions from NYT to literally "lay out a cultivation, quid pro quo, and cover-up structure ***I’ve been using*** to frame the investigation in ***my own mind***. Then she says they are actually questions MUELLER WANTS to ask!
pic.twitter.com/juIh76FkHp
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MonsieurAmerica @emptywheel
How is ew's "version" unfair to the "...49 questions that Jay Sekulow drew up... ?" Quote first Sekulow question--he was NYT's source--with which you have a problem. Why did Sekulow leak Mueller's questions? Explain why you disagree, then we'll see what you're "missing."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @runtodaylight @emptywheel
Its "unfair" (or objectionable) because EW has re-written Mueller's questions to suppose she KNOWS BETTER what Mueller "wants to pose".
In Law, this garners a routine OBJECTION from counsel as EW has "assumed knowledge" of Mueller's mind. She's claiming she can read minds.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MonsieurAmerica @emptywheel
You don't even understand what you highlighted. NYT's. Published. Sekulow's. "REWRITING." Of. Mueller's. Questions. Before you waste more of ew's time, why did Trump's lawyer leak his version of Mueller's questions? Then, how do ew's questions differ from Sekulow's?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @runtodaylight @emptywheel
Look genius. I'm not the one ASSUMING KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER'S MINDS... so I'm not going to GUESS as to "why did Trump's lawyer do X?" You really don't get it. It's impossible to answer WHY someone did something. That's the ENTIRE THING I'M TAKING ISSUE WITH.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MonsieurAmerica @emptywheel
"Look genius," until I told you, you didn't even know Trump's lawyer leaked. No one is "assuming" folks tried to defraud the US, there's evidence. You won't read the indictments, so you can use your "willful blindness" to claim you won't "assume knowledge of other's minds."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @runtodaylight @emptywheel
Look... I'm sorry for that comment. Esp after your MMT link, I felt bad about it. I'm sorry for the lapse. You're wrong about not knowing about attorney leaks, but its not relevant. I have read indictments; you weren't asking me to read indictments. (cont)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You asked me to read a selected post you sent me, and comment on "first sentence" I took issue with. That's what I did. EW claims to have re-written Q's to illustrate "what Mueller *wants* to ask". That's an absurd statement ON ITS FACE & would be objected to immediately. (cont)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Instead of addressing a basic objection to the assumption (to mindset) she's making... you ... tell me I don't comprehend what I'm reading. I'm reading the plain language as presented, and telling you (from experience) that statement would not fly. That's all. That's all u asked.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Remember when you said you were getting out of my TL? ARe you still planning on that or should I take unilateral action?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @runtodaylight
Run and I are actually making headway on various topics (Russia invest & MMT) and I am quite enjoying HONEST dialog w them, which I intend to continue. But YES we'll take it elsewhere and OUT of this smug twitter fraud you got going on.
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.