Where did I say it was?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel you didn't explicitly say that, no. But that's a clear takeaway one might takeaway from your tweet.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JuggerKnotty
if one was inventing stuff, sure. If one wasn't, then, no, it would not be a clear takeaway. Did you read new EO language?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel from your original tweet, calling what NSA did a hack, seemed to equivocate the two. Not trying to do a “gotcha”1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JuggerKnotty
Was what the NSA did a hack? Of a candidate in a close election?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel key line from E) for me was this: “such activities to undermine democratic processes.”1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JuggerKnotty
A claim I was NOT making in my tweet--one you had to have imposed--was that NSA leaked texts it hacked from EPN.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel which is why i asked for clarification. People can take different meanings via this medium. Appreciate the thoughtful 1/1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JuggerKnotty
As I said, nothing in the tweet said they were the same. I DO think the US has no qualms abt hacking, say, Podesta w/others.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel agree. i think when the info is selectively leaked to influence outcome, it changes things.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
So if it were ever shown that NSA or other US TLA was behind Panama Papers, as Putin claims to believe, does that count?
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.