Now read the bullet points.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
I read them and they state that in addition to what Comey testified about, Mueller will investigate links to Trump campaign and any additional crimes which might might be uncovered during investigation. Your tweet claimed Russia was NOT what Mueller picked up.. it was..
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
That's false, but I understand why Andy is desperate to believe that. I base that on a number of different things: >Plain language >Mueller's team >Other reporting >My own reporting >My own interview w/FBI
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
It has nothing to do with what Andy wants to believe, its plain english. “The SC is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director Comey.” I have already tweeted Comey transcript. Are you saying the transcript or the appointment letter is false?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
No. I'm saying you're not reading the bullet points, the public reporting, the Mueller team, or anything else. Andy's wrong. I understand why he needs to believe that. But he is absolutely wrong, and therefore needs to revisit his conclusions.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
Your claim was SC did not pick up CI probe into Russia Interference, my quote shows he did. The bullet points do not remove the previous clause they simply add to it - potential Trump Campaign collusion. Current / further reporting also doesnt change the appointment letter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
No it doesn't. Again, I've pointed to 4 other kinds of evidence. I mean, SC ultimately DID pick up those CI sides. In November 2017. After finding evidence that parts of those CI investigations needed to be protected.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
I’m still confused, maybe we talking past each other. Mueller at time of appointment was tasked with looking into Russian election interference AND any collusion with the Trump campaign. I have not seen anyone question or deny that point, perhaps until now by you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
Sure you have. Reuters in February and WSJ in November both reported differently. The GRU indictment press release backs their reporting. Those bullet points have been litigated extensively. Pretty much all the evidence is against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
Care to provide me a link for Reuters / WSJ article that states Mueller was not appointed to investigate Russian interference in the election?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Writing a post.
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.