For all the reporting on the status of Trump's declassification demand I've seen no reporting on how DOJ is treating scope of "Russia investigation." Particularly for McCabe that matters a lot.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
Relevant in a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" kind of way. https://www.justsecurity.org/60751/trump-claiming-executive-privilege-hide-mueller-report-real-threat-classification-is/ …pic.twitter.com/tHp4ZGmej1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NatlSecCnslrs @emptywheel
If "related to" MUST be interpreted by an agency to be SUPER BROAD in a FOIA context, then it obviously must be interpreted broadly in the Russia investigation context, right? I mean, you wouldn't want DOJ to be hypocrites about their inability to decide what "related to" mean.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NatlSecCnslrs
FWIW, in this instance I've got mixed feelings about broad or narrow, as the broader the scope the more likely my stuff will be included.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
I didn't know your involvement included exchanging text messages with one of those four. Did you say that before and I missed it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It did not involve me exchanging text messages. But given that some things involving me would have needed approvals (DOJ, I think, not FBI, but who knows), it's possible I was texted ABOUT.
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.