I'm not shy abt offering "informed speculation" ("informed" according to me), but with this I'm not as informed as I'd like to be. IMO the sober people have been saying: As far as we know, Russia hacked/fished independently of stuff Trump said. 1/
-
-
Replying to @KDbyProxy @alvarombedoya and
… though the timing of releases may have been coordinated. Now Mueller tells us there's at least a "post hoc" connection btwn Trump's public statements asking RU for help & RU's acquisition of files from Clinton, et al. But I think better-informed ppl will see more to this. 2/2
2 replies 4 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy @alvarombedoya and
Here are some posts on confirmed and suspected signaling. https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/01/speech-and-email-release-the-three-public-statement-signals-tied-to-russias-dirt-as-emails/ … https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/25/why-did-trump-tweet-an-in-the-ball-park-accurate-number-for-hillarys-total-staffers-on-june-9-2016/ …
1 reply 11 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @alvarombedoya and
1/ Thx. That part I get. Here's what's puzzling me: > Where the indictment specifies "July 27" & "after hours" & "for the first time" – it's labeled "For example..." IOW, seems they have & could have used different examples. So…
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy @emptywheel and
> Why use THAT example – when it's not necessary for the indictment, but when Mueller knows the press knows the significance of those details b/c Trump's 7/27 presser? > I'm looking for good theories for why Mueller did that – beyond, "He's signalling he has more." 2/2
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy @emptywheel and
It is an important phrase -- should be careful about drawing inferences from timings generally, but indictment language is very precise -- but it's also noteworthy that it *doesn't* make the connection explicit, which means they don't want to make that connection publicly (yet?).
1 reply 3 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @pwnallthethings @KDbyProxy and
For example, with the level of detail they have to make this indictment, they probably know whether that connection exists with stronger evidence than timing. So we either wait and they'll eventually publish it, or it doesn't exist. In either case, caution now doesn't hurt.
1 reply 4 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @pwnallthethings @emptywheel and
Yes. They're saying "post hoc", leaving us to wonder if they'll ever say "propter hoc" (w/o the ergo). Still, *why* did Mueller do that? Tbc, there's no way to know, but I have a hankering for theories!
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @KDbyProxy @emptywheel and
My guess is they can connect it, but are leaving it for future indictments because that would implicate Americans and this is a "not-Americans" indictment. But I also tend to think it's a dangerous game to get carried away with over-reading phantoms at the edges, so safer to wait
3 replies 4 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @pwnallthethings @emptywheel and
Do you agree that, for purposes of this indictment, those details were gratuitous? If so (and totally apart from the Q of whether this does/doesn't mean he has proof of cause & effect), do you think it's also bad to speculate on why he included them?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
As the first of those two links noted, between Pap indictment and NYT coverage we already know that a similar example happened w/Trump's first campaign speech.
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.