Again, there's a respectable anti-pardon case to be made. But then Fred Fleitz is on their side, which discredits it all.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
I don't find agreement with
@FredFleitz an indicator someone is automatically wrong. HPSCI report voted unanimously.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
Again, THAT's damning. There are a bunch of obviously disingenuous, if not false, points in report. It's absolutely propaganda.
1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I think you're in a feisty mood this evening and picking fights. I disagree w/
@FredFleitz a lot but he's not always wrong.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
I mean, if HPSCI report conflicts w/officially released NSA documents on one available point, what should we conclude?
1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
That he "failed 702 training." per SV head he passed it.
5 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @MiekeEoyang
Moreover, as of 2014, claim he failed was based off post hoc explanation from SV training involved in 2 Snowden contacts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @MiekeEoyang
And there are a whole slew of other problems with that claim that an oversight committee worth its salt would investigate.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
also, in trying to talk between classified and unclassified people may not be talking about the same things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No. This has been declassified. That's why it is so clearly damning to HPSCI. BC they took an obviously problematic story w/o Q
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.