Sure. Except the record suggests something else happened. So to make you're argument you're deliberately ignoring the record.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @jaketapper
You haven't shown me what I'm ignoring.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paulsurovell @jaketapper
Here, I'll teach you. Go to the article and find where the NYT describes its sources. I'll wait.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @jaketapper
1of2: Here are the sources that NYT cites when asserting that Papadopoulos, not dossier was trigger of the investigation: Paras 7-8 No sources Para 35 No sources Paras 36-37 "current and former officials" Para 40 "American officials"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2of2: Tell me why it's unreasonable to surmise that these officials might be one and the same as those officials who sought to prevent the House Intel committee from receiving the documents on the Steele dossier.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paulsurovell @jaketapper
Partly bc they ID them as officials, often a description for MoC? Also don't ignore the Australian side of this, the foreign officials.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @jaketapper
Scott Ritter has a piece out where he says 21,800 of 27,500 emails released by Wikileaks were written *after* Papadopoulos-Mifsud conversation on April 26, suggesting that *all* emails obtained by Wikileaks were accessed by leaker or hacker after April 26http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/in-the-russian-collusion-debate-whos-fooling-who/ …
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paulsurovell @jaketapper
Yup. And there's an explanation for that that's not yet public. It will be, eventually.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Incidentally, I've noted that timing on multiple occasions. I may have been the first to link to the underlying analysis. But then I've got a pretty good idea about the non-public explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @jaketapper
Sorry I don't follow your work as much as I should. Will try to keep up better. But honestly "non-public" explanations don't mean anything to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
That's fine--I don't blame you. I'm going to write a response to Scott's piece. It's actually really interesting for the glaring errors it makes. Thanks for alerting me to it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.