,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
:-) Check this out.
A) When the @WSJ ed board gets frantic, it’s usually a good sign you’re on to something.
wsj.com/articles/senat…
A) When the @WSJ ed board gets frantic, it’s usually a good sign you’re on to something.
wsj.com/articles/senat…
B) See comical editor’s note about virtually identical sentences to @NRO piece - hmmm. 
C) They said they didn’t copy National Review; maybe both copied same talking points? Hmmm, from whom, one wonders?
D) What’s with “We believe this was inadvertent”? Don’t you know? You wrote it! The whole thing is hysterical.
Plus, if our thesis is that big Republican dark-money interests have built an inside track for themselves at the Court, doesn’t this overwrought explosion out of mouthpieces for big Republican dark-money interests tend to prove our point? Again, hysterical.
When we accused climate denial front groups of operating as a coordinated apparatus, they vociferously denied it — on the same letterhead. This feels a little like that.
