I guess for starters I’d object to the idea that the NYT is “protecting” sources who refuse to speak on the record.
I do think there's vast difference bt using intel "high degree of confidence" & "assume." The former is not speculation, NYT standard
-
-
-
Fair! That shouldn't be in there anyway. (But then, NYT proves it shouldn't be in that they disprove it ¶s later)
-
I feel like maybe you’re holding them to a higher standard than you’d usually expect, because you oppose TPP.
-
But my larger oppo to the piece is it tries way too hard to prove a case for which there is a lot of counterevidence.
-
I’m not seeing that. But I have a bias too: as you are to TPP, I am to “it’s false that Assange has personal vendetta vs HRC”
-
What?!?!?!? I have said explicitly Assange has a personal vendetta. I do in that piece. My complaint is NYT ignores how big it is
-
I know you said that. I’m saying, long prior to your piece, I’ve been challenging the “vendetta” narrative. Makes no sense.
-
Oh. Do you know what DOJ did to WL in 2010? Did you read my larger piece?
- 14 more replies
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.