In all seriousness, there have been vanishingly few good faith discussions between "Russia collusion skeptics," roughly speaking (like me) and "Russia collusion proponents," roughly speaking (like Wittes). So in that sense, doing this was really healthy and I appreciated it.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I'd also like to point out that despite our sizable differences, Wittes and I both agree that Mueller *did* in fact investigate collusion, which you can apprehend by reading Page 180 in Volume I of the Mueller Report. So, Twitter nitwits can put that in their pipe and smoke it
Show this thread -
Here's the YouTube version. Subscribe, or face the consequenceshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEvfK4ZdQS4 …
Show this thread -
I particularly commend Wittes for self-reflecting on the utility of his well-known Twitter slogan "BOOM," which he used to amplify some stories which proved to be untrue. Nonetheless, as he makes clear, the "baby cannon" lives on
Show this thread -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this might be the first good-faith, extended discussion between "collusion skeptics" (roughly speaking) and "collusion advocates" (roughly speaking) since the Mueller Report
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You're a hero.
End of conversation
-
-
-
All the weaselly explanations, revisionism and justifications made me cringe. But then, truth and honesty are career ending in circles where Mr. Wittes operates.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In terms of a “go hard” meter, would you say you were at a 40% capacity clip? Smarmy legalese is only way to continue arguing TrumpRussia anything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
well that takes all the fun out of it!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This was a good conversation. At some moments, Ben was open to peek into his thought process, but for some reason i think baggage of earlier stances, avoids him to come to conclusion based on findings in the report? Nonetheless good job.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Unfortunately, staggeringly boring (and I'm a fan), picking up on a substantive issue ("collusion") for the first time at about 38:00, with just 25:00 left. Following that, it's not even interesting. Maybe "rancor" is not such a bad thing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What if collusion was the friends we made along the way?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wished you mention that the “Russian lawyer” with “kremlin ties” worked for years with none other then Fusion GPS. Who also meet with Gleen Simpson before the Trump Tower meeting to see his take on that?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wittes used the entire conversation to deflect. His underlying political philosophy is dangerous. All in support of the security apparatus.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
6. If somebody looked at the content and the content of the 30,000 in fact had work related / classified info (not 30,000 emails about wedding planning and yoga sessions), that would have proved that Hillary obstructed justice by destroying pertinent evidence that was subpoenaed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why hasn’t
@benjaminwittes tweeted this out?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wittes’ childishly boorish assertion/attempts at collusion whataboutism was amusing. But his “call me in 5 minutes” get out of the conversation card was pretty entertaining. All in all served to confirm that he’s a lightweight firebomber where this whole contretemps is concerned.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It should always be clarified that Hillary's emails 1. were subpoenaed by Congress 2. Hillary had the emails deleted, and server destroyed after the subpoena 3. server was susceptible to hacking because of Hillary's negligence, was hacked (we don't know if successfully)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.