In other words, a bunch of stuff, nothing that gets a second look (like Awlaki talking to Nidal Hassan did not).
-
-
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
gist of NYT story: FBI looked and found no clear links. A clear link btw a top aide and the Russian amb. explodes the story.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @RobinBrenizer @puppymnkey
Against whom? Many many reasons to believe it wasn't Flynn.
@nycsouthpaw1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
didn't they get 4 in October? No way Flynn isn't among those.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Karna6e
No. One. And four were Manafort, Cohen, Page, and Stone, I think
@puppymnkey@nycsouthpaw3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
The reporting on FISA was completely ignorant abt FISA. Also ignorant abt 12333, esp given recent changes @Karna6e @nycsouthpaw
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.