,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
What’s odd about this NBC story saying Rs and Ds agree there’s no direct evidence of collusion:
-the word “direct” in the lede is clearly doing a lot of work
- Burr’s comments aren’t limited to direct evidence; he says they haven’t found anything nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
-the word “direct” in the lede is clearly doing a lot of work
- Burr’s comments aren’t limited to direct evidence; he says they haven’t found anything nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
- Dem investigators’ purported confirmation of the story appears based on their “not disput[ing] Burr’s characterizations”
- Dems insist, in the story and as @NatashaBertrand reported, there’s lots of circumstantial evidence of collusion—i.e. they *do* dispute Burr’s take
- Dems insist, in the story and as @NatashaBertrand reported, there’s lots of circumstantial evidence of collusion—i.e. they *do* dispute Burr’s take
The only way “direct” gets into the lede of the NBC story, as far as I can see, is via Dem investigators disputing the breadth of Burr’s remarks. But the whole framing of the piece depends on them not disputing what he said. It’s odd.
Sen. Warner went on CNN to push back on Sen. Burr's comments and the NBC report. cnn.com/2019/02/12/pol… 
spoke to* CNN (my misunderstanding)
