Which specific sentence or claim in the article are you saying is inaccurate?
-
-
Replying to @ggreenwald
Wikileaks didn't publish the data. It is attributed to Guccifer 2.0 (though that attribution has always been really curious). Wikileaks only published a link to it.
4 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @ggreenwald
I'll write up why it's important in the larger scheme of things later. But given that you're harping on accuracy, it'd pay to be really rigorous here.
4 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Chuck Ross
Yes, I agree accuracy is important. That's why I'm trying to understand what specific claim or sentence in the story you're referring to that is inaccurate. The article is referring to what everyone referred to: WL's publication on Twitter of the link:https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/939214967210987520 …
Glenn Greenwald added,
Chuck Ross @ChuckRossDCHere's that Sept. 14, 2016 (not Sept 4) email to Donald Trump Jr. from Michael Erickson. Note the Wikileaks tweet from the day before http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-botches-major-bombshell-alleging-contacts-between-don-jr-and-wikileaks/ …@dailycaller pic.twitter.com/fxyyFuyW2D1 reply 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @ggreenwald
The email is inaccurate. Wikileaks didn't, as far as is known, "upload" that information. Guccifer 2.0 is understood to have. It's like the time when Wikileaks got held accountable for doxing a bunch of Turks when
@NatSecGeek had uploaded data instead.3 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @NatSecGeek
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted WikiLeaks
I think the only material fact, which is stressed by the article, is that the email CNN pointed to was sent after - not before - WL publicly promoted those docs with a link. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/775823293781794816 … - I think it was clear but changed "published" to "promoted"
Glenn Greenwald added,
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @ggreenwald @NatSecGeek
"promoted" is accurate. Thanks for making the change.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
And one reason I'm harping on this, btw, is bc I think it is in some ways MORE newsworthy that an email from someone no one can ID promoted 2 RU-linked dumps.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
-
It is. I IDed him yesterday, and the email was published along with his address confirming the ID.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Ah, thanks. Hadn't seen that.
10:09 AM - 9 Dec 2017
0 replies
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.