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.
-
-
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 -
Have you read the heading of the appointment letter by the way? “Appointment of Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters”. How much clearer can that be?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
I'm sorry. Have you not understood when I said 1) this has been litigated 2) publicly reported 3) reinforced in subsequent press releases 4) (and also backed by my personal reporting and experience).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
You say litigated, do you mean in court? Looking at Ellis ruling on Mueller legitimacy, page 10 quotes EXACTLY what I quoted in my tweets. Pg.10 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-3dc7-dbdc-a96d-3dff8c890001 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
You mean those three bullets, which proves my point. You are wrong, and so is Andy, but again, I understand why you badly want not to be wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @dansolomonza
I don’t understand the argument. It was the Russia investigation, the Trump campaign piece was a part of it, and regs say there’s no right to challenge DOJ on it. To say Rosenstein shouldn’t is not to say he couldn’t. What’s done is done.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
That's false Andy. You're simply wrong (I've got firsthand proof, on top of both my own and others reporting, you're wrong), but I understand why you badly need to believe that.
-
-
-
Replying to @AuhsdBond @emptywheel and
Remember when McCarthy wrote a book making the case to impeach Obama.pic.twitter.com/1Asau4STjP
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.