Because you admitted you defended HPSCI w/o reading me or @bartongellman? As "nit-picking"?https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/777698244063326208 …
Then you're saying HPSCI made the wrong emphasis in their report, choosing character assassination over facts? We agree then!
-
-
Again, there's a respectable case to be made. HPSCI instead released 3 pages including some falsifiable facts.
-
like i said, I want to read the whole thing. Or at least more than those 3 pages. I can't speak to "falsifiable."
-
So HPSCI can release 3 pages w/obvious errors for free? That's your idea of oversight? Free 3 pages?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
don't put words in my mouth. My view of Snowden's character is not the same as yours.
-
What you're saying is that a report on actual damage would be useful, w/o obviously false facts? if so we agree.
-
My comment COMPLETELY unrelated to Snowden's character and entirely based on HPSCI releasing report w/obvious misleading claims
End of conversation
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.