These counterfactuals are @mtracey's stock-in-trade. Dossier was always opposition research. That Clinton camp paid for it not a surprise.https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/923376726746501120 …
-
-
Replying to @MattMcBradley
If it's "not a surprise" why did the top Clinton campaign lawyer and others deny their involvement for months?
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
-
Replying to @MattMcBradley
My personal "surprise" is a meaningless gauge for whether the story is noteworthy.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtracey @MattMcBradley
If you're asking whether I had assumed that the highest echelons of the Clinton campaign funded & facilitated the dossier, the answer is no.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @MattMcBradley
Gross incompetence. You didn't have to assume anything, it was in every article published about this dossier when it was published.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jaymast @MattMcBradley
No, it wasn't. You're wrong. It was reported for the first time this week.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
NYT report from January. Not sure how new revelations - campaign rather than supporters - would have made "radically different" narrative.pic.twitter.com/OxBhlCaKOg
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Because a “supporter” could be virtually anyone, whereas we now know it was funded by the highest rungs of the campaign apparatus.
-
-
Again, not seeing a "radically different" narrative here. I mean, unless you're trying to offer us all a lesson in confirmation bias.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 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.