It is a fact that parts of the investigation NOT pertaining to Trump's people was not brought under Mueller until less than a year ago. That is consistent w/all public comments on the investigation, just not your reading of those public comments.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
Got you, I think … finally :) So Mueller picked up some Russia CI stuff - but not all - and the Trump campaign?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
There is zero evidence that Mueller picked up ANY of the CI investigation that didn't directly pertain to Trump's people, and abundant evidence that he didn't.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Until, perhaps bc DOJ discovered that those non-Trump CI investigations actually implicated Trump people, they got moved.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So, in overly simplified form: May 2017: Mueller starts with just the Trump CI investigation November 2017: All the rest gets moved to Mueller
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
If that is correct, DOJ + Congress + MSM have completely misled the American people on what Mueller was appointed to do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
No. Just you and Andy have totally misunderstood it, and ignored public reporting AND official reports AND litigation AND a bunch else. We can't read for you. You've got to be able to read before you can make accusations like that.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
You have yet to show me a single thing that is inconsistent with my understanding of this, and I've showed you that in fact the press has reported this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @AndrewCMcCarthy
No, now I understand your point I dont have anything to dispute it. I can show you 95% of press reporting which do not show what you have. So i dont agree thats its just Andy and I. My bet would be 90% of public believe Mueller was investigating ALL Russia meddling not just Trump
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dansolomonza @AndrewCMcCarthy
I've not seen anything like that (except the Lawfare thing, which I linked in my post). I have seen the Reuters and WSJ and WaPo reports that I linked that support my point (tho no one has noted some details I have).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I do now understand Andy's point, which has always been erroneous about the CI status of this investigation. From the start there was a criminal nexus. But I only just realized he misunderstood scope.
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.