Lots of new details from @CarolLeonnig, @byaaroncdavis, @PeterHermann, @karoun.
"The D.C. contingent was flabbergasted to hear a top Army official say that he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, approve the request."
washingtonpost.com/politics/sund-…
"The D.C. contingent was flabbergasted to hear a top Army official say that he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, approve the request."
washingtonpost.com/politics/sund-…
The pipe bombs have been massively underemphasized so far, and I hope we get more answers about them soon, because they seem to have played a key role in the early stages of the sacking. 
Apparently Irving and Stenger both declined to participate in this article, but Sund's account raises a lot of questions they both need to answer.
For that matter, Sund needs to answer a lot of questions too, not just in a Post exclusive but on camera in front of a press room.
For that matter, Sund needs to answer a lot of questions too, not just in a Post exclusive but on camera in front of a press room.
I'm sure lawmakers are also eager to get Irving, Stenger, Sund, and probably Army Secretary McCarthy and even Acting Defense Secretary Miller in front of committee and under oath as well. That will make for interesting viewing.
From the NYT earlier today: nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/…
From the NYT earlier today: nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
