,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I’m glad NYT took up the implications of the transcript of Manafort’s closed hearing, which clearly shows the SCO is still focused on Manafort and Kilimnik as a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean. nytimes.com/2019/02/10/us/…
At the same time I’m confused that the discussion of the private polling shared with Kilimnik is so brief and garbled, relative to the details in the transcript, and why they don’t deal with the apparent contradiction between the transcript and their source from a few weeks ago.
In an earlier story, a NYT source said the polling data was shared in *spring* 2016 and directed to two Ukrainian oligarchs w quite long surnames. The transcript says it was shared on August 2 2016 and directed to someone with a 9 character surname. See: emptywheel.net/2019/02/09/pau…
If you’re using an anon source and that person is (seemingly) contradicted by an official record, I think you have an obligation to go back and try to sort that out because no one else can do it.
