I am not so certain about the "Rosenstein was being sarcastic" line as others seem to be. May 16, 2017 was a wild time. Days after Trump had given Russians classified intel in the Oval Office, his comments to Lester Holt re: Comey firing.
-
-
Replying to @awprokop
Right! But then why tell the story w/o mentioning either of those details? THAT's one of NYT's biggest failures, IMO. They gave none of the most important context for those convos, and apparently couldn't get the different meetings straight.
3 replies 3 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Yeah, the framing was definitely odd. As if everything else was normal and only Rosenstein was behaving "erratically."
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @awprokop @emptywheel
Also doesn't clearly explain that a major issue at the time was that Trump might pick a corrupt FBI director who made him private promises. The Post gets a bit closer to saying that's what the "recording" idea was about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mccabe-memos-say-rosenstein-considered-secretly-recording-trump/2018/09/21/f4aa9a62-bdca-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e43d7c9e5702 …pic.twitter.com/CZBrsnjaLC
2 replies 4 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @awprokop
Yup. And it would make sense to propose that to McCabe. It IS a story. It's just NYT didn't tell it. At all. And the result is that they badly misunderstood the significance of it all.
2 replies 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @awprokop
Lot of reason to believe Rosenstein appointed Mueller as least intrusive choice, bc you had to do something, but there really wasn't evidence of conspiracy yet. And then when the June 9 meeting came out (from congressional requests, not Mueller ones), things went haywire.
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @awprokop
With the range of purported(?) early-campaign intercepts, the fact that it took a year plus for the June 9th meeting to make its way (indirectly, via docs produced to satisfy congressional requests) to DOJ/FBI, finally triggering a serious CI investigation, is disturbing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The investigation into Manafort (and Page, who was far less central) was very serious at that point. The biggest question is about Flynn up until the time when it became clear he was lying.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @awprokop
Yeah, just seems a disturbingly slow investigative reaction time. Do we have a clear picture yet as to the full scope of the 2016 battle Strzok lost to up the seriousness of the probe?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.