In light of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russia-fbi-liz-spayd-public-editor.html … incredibly difficult to see how NYT can justify its presentation here: https://nyti.ms/2jDhXWO
-
-
It seems clear the story was "there is a serious and ongoing investigation" thrust of article reads "nothing to see here folks."
-
It wasn't wrong, other places were reckless. But strikes me as a very odd editorial call, in context.
-
NYT was reckless abt Hillary (underlying suspicions real too). They'd do better to say, "we shouldn't report BS anymore."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IMO, because it's simply not possible for
@nytimes to be this genuinely obtuse,@emptywheel.@Susan_Hennesseypic.twitter.com/HGQeUTvBOZ
-
Really? What if thte evidence doesn't exist and/or they're looking in the wrong places or
@nytimes@Susan_Hennessey -
they warned
@nytimes for reasons that are still more embarrassing?@Susan_Hennessey -
This part of the argument is about what FBI/Comey released to public *prior* to the election,
@emptywheel.@nytimes@Susan_Hennessey -
The highlighted part? Says no indication Trump target, consistent w/yesterday's story. Also
@nytimes@Susan_Hennessey -
That not clear tied to election. Again, consistent w/yesterday's story.
@Susan_Hennessey -
You'll note that *both* times Comey *announced* investigations related to Hillary, FBI came up goose eggs,
@emptywheel.@Susan_Hennessey -
And? I'm one of the earliest Comey skeptics, trust me I am not defending him.
@Susan_Hennessey - 4 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.