Thread by @JohnWHuber

Let’s look at the latest narrative shaping attempt from the @nytimes

THREAD

“Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry”
nyti.ms/30h9Im8

—“A typical investigative step” apparently means using undercover spies on a political campaign during an election year?

—@GeorgePapa19 hadn’t “left the campaign”. Stefan Halper reached out to @carterwpage in May 16 BEFORE he left the campaign & BEFORE Crossfire Hurricane opened

—Apparently the FISA warrant against @carterwpage (and two “hops” from him) was “one small aspect in a sprawling inquiry”

So the narrative today is
a) there was only *one* (1) FISA
b) using the FISC to spy on a political campaign is “small”

Good luck with both of those

—Barr wasn’t only referring to the FISA warrant when he used the term “spying”, and wasn’t only referring to the FBI. It is highly likely NO COURT authorized the use of Halper and other human spies against the Trump campaign

—How does this get past your editors @nytmike and @adamgoldmanNYT?

Both @GeorgePapa19 and @AlexanderDowner have confirmed that Papadopoulos DID NOT SAY “the Russians had stolen Democratic emails”

Downer only claims he said the Russians had “damaging info” on “Hillary Clinton”

And while we’re at it, when are you going to correct with an editors note your previous false narrative that this conversation was a “drunken”, “startling”, revelation” about “dirt”? Even Downer has denied that on the record

Or reconcile that Mueller’s report says this info was given by PapaD to “a representative of a foreign government” on May 6, when official Australian government docs AND @GeorgePapa19 both say the meeting was on May 10? 🤔

/ENDS