,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
It seems like an awfully narrow denial.
Carr is saying that the "description of specific statements to SC's office" are inaccurate.
Here is what's attributed. We don't know *how much* or *what* is inaccurate here:
Carr is saying that the "description of specific statements to SC's office" are inaccurate.
Here is what's attributed. We don't know *how much* or *what* is inaccurate here:
Second, Carr says that the "characterization of documents/testimony" obtained by SC regarding "Cohen's Congressional testimony" is not accurate. Here's what we're told on that. How much of this, or what in particular, is inaccurate? Unclear.
Plenty of very smart lawyerly types on the Twitters are saying that the mere fact that Carr issued a denial is itself significant. I'm sure they're right about that. But the denial itself seems so carefully parsed that it seems like a mistake to overreact to it.
