A charitable reason to consider: he would like to persuade those who cheered his aggression that it was norm breaking.
-
-
-
I'd like to believe that. But then he would have said specifically which things were out of bounds. At least if he wanted to be effective. I think Occam's razor is the better bet here... They aren't sure they have the notes.
-
That was my first assessment: they're feeling wobbly.
-
Perhaps - it's hard enough to figure out what is going on w/r/t the politics of an institution I work in, let alone the Senate!
-
It's not subtweeting if you @ me on the post
-
I just don't think you should've called the question that time about the thing without reading the report I wrote about it first.
-
In fairness no one was going to be very impressed with a memo advocating your hiring written by you.
-
As I recall, I wrote the persuasive bits, and added a snappy title.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Using the Ginsburg standard, all that matters is that he apologize.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because he'd already been on Fox.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He’s speaking only to 3 Republican Senators, two of whom will still need to raise corporate money when they run for re-election.
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.