I quibble w last line. Opinions/legality/situations change. See Japanese internmet, Cold War nuke buildup,WW2 censorship @benjaminwittes 2/2
-
-
Replying to @mattapuzzo
@mattapuzzo I agree that opinions change--and rightly so sometimes--but they generally should not change because they become public.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes@mattapuzzo It seems to me, Ben, that you do what you accuse others of doing: reach firm conclusions without full facts.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benwizner
@benwizner When I speculate, I label it as such, as I have done clearly here. To the extent my speculation is wrong, my conclusions not firm1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes Are you saying that your claim Congress was "pretending" not to know abt dragnet was speculation?@benwizner2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel anyone in Congress who didn't know about 702 and 215 didn't want to know.3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @benjaminwittes
@benjaminwittes when did (1) all of Congress and (2) Intel Cttees first see targ & minim procedures for 702?@emptywheel3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CasparBowden
@CasparBowden@emptywheel I don't know the answer to that question, but it's clear that DOJ requested that all MOCs see info on 702 mishaps.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@benjaminwittes All? The Joint statements were delivered in TS format to Intel Committees. @CasparBowden
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.