It's not, actually. What happens it for certain targets, esp Dips, they'll collect and keep everything.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
They'll review metadata, which (as McFaul noted) for candidate people is not considered by itself damning.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
We have no reason to believe election era calls were really damning or we'd be talking WAY more than Logan and not leaking.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
In other words, a bunch of stuff, nothing that gets a second look (like Awlaki talking to Nidal Hassan did not).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
Frankly even for December calls, not clear it'd appear suspicious w/o context of Putin's strange response.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
But THAT made people look closely, and at that point innocuous looked like more than innocuous.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @nycsouthpaw
I loathe Flynn. But wouldn't want what they didn't think they had to become public in Nov. Eg, so would Hillary's convos w/KSA.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
thanks. Great thread-very informative/interesting
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.