You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Legal processes, how do they work? Signed, a bunch of lawyers.pic.twitter.com/WR5jzBUXK1
In which Republicans who created a hoax fraud task force condemn those who question democratic processes.pic.twitter.com/MkFfDp0stt
3 of the 4 or 5 people first investigated have been charged but we're going to keep THOSE 3 names redacted bc...pic.twitter.com/HXW5CbfZ7m
Side note: This isn't so much a report as a Borgesian game of hiding the most important footnotes.
It's easier to make a totally unsupportable claim about the June 9 meeting if you don't use any verbs in that sentence.pic.twitter.com/64uoxWZvjo
If the HPSCI report cites the IRA indictment at all, it is redacted.pic.twitter.com/lcQaZrDusS
These low quality images add to the 3rd grade book report aesthetic of the HPSCI report.pic.twitter.com/mZPrSwdTkg
For some reason the RU attack on Merkel has to be redacted but the one on Macron doesn't have to be, perhaps bc of the contractor attribution that France has since refuted.pic.twitter.com/hUPjKhGdzd
These two bullets are probably discoverable. One may be the statement that Wikileaks is a hostile non-state actor.pic.twitter.com/TsaNFgu8Bx
As a redaction aficionado, the treatment of this page intrigues me. Why the two different approaches to these columns? Visuals on the right?pic.twitter.com/k5jwjNGfAF
A report released by Devin Nunes says no credible evidence supports the "alternative actor" theories.pic.twitter.com/j469tpK8pA
Y'all, it's secret that Crowdstrike first attributed the DNC hack.pic.twitter.com/xK8uEJPm1J
The references to these footnotes are redacted. But at least @JasonLeopold will know what to FOIA.pic.twitter.com/cng1vzYmX4
There are a number of places where the treatment of Guccifer 2.0 is insufficiently critical and reliant on dated analysis. But this one is particularly weak, given the analysis of the files in question and the dismissal, elsewhere, of counter explanations.pic.twitter.com/Cm7mcNadnk
HPSCI relies on a problematic NYT article to support claim that Wikileaks benefits RU. The case can be made, but HPSCI should in no way rely on that article.pic.twitter.com/uxFWHoCtPQ
In recent years Wikileaks has also released versions of declassified Kissinger files and FOIAed Hillary emails. Plus, Wikileaks released Syria files the US had a hand in stealing.pic.twitter.com/o7QuiOBR30
Another place where the report doesn't mention the IRA indictment.pic.twitter.com/CDtC2HiBpE
No mention of how Trump's spawn and aides magnified @TEN_GOP.pic.twitter.com/TGvRMWMSks
There are methodological problems w/HPSCI's treatment of RU use of social media that others will cover in more depth. In short, they don't consider the non-paid use of SM (except by RT) at length, especially WRT relative impact.
Note HPSCI doesn't distinguish between hack attempt and hack victim.pic.twitter.com/BIonZ0PndQ
PDF 52/p 42 has a description of what DHS did that is a more detailed a nuanced version of efforts to warn states than has been publicly reported.
This is a Susan Rice quote. "Awaiting 'with urgency'" is a curious construction; I wonder if it was quoted faithfully.pic.twitter.com/PwVS0K7DKq
Gonna break here to head to the airport. Will resume in a new thread once I check in.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
