I am not sure there is quite as much distance between "tear-gassed protesters for a photo op" and "took advantage of scheduled tear-gassing of protesters for a photo op" as some people seem to claim there is.
Also I am *intensely* curious what this redacted "request" made by what is likely a WH or Secret Service official!

Hm weird
The report amounts to an exoneration of the Park Police for the specific action of "clearing protesters for the president's photo op" and essentially nothing more. Fine, that's in the report's title! Pretty weird to claim it has anything to do with the other actors involved!
There is a plausible timeline where the WH learns protesters would be cleared that afternoon/evening, tries to get the USPP to speed that up (including with an unexplained "early deployment" by the Secret Service), and then Trump jumps across the street when it was cleared.
The alternative, and the full-on "exoneration" and "media failure" version of this, is that it was, what, a complete and utter coincidence?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dave Levitan

Dave Levitan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @davelevitan

10 Jun
It's almost like the IG report was specifically and solely about the actions of the Park Police and there are some questions about other involved parties that still could use some answering. ImageImageImage
Seriously did people read those bits and not think it kinda changes the entire message
"It was planned days in advance, it couldn't possibly involve Trump!" sorta falls apart if the Secret Service jumped the gun on the tear gassing, no?
Read 4 tweets
6 Jun
An interesting exercise is to imagine what exactly, if the existing attempts to limit voting by the GOP are NOT enough, would be enough to convince Manchin otherwise.
One assumes that SOMETHING would do it. Like, say a GOP-led state passed a bill saying only white people can vote. Would "partisan voting legislation" designed to stop that state's law still be off the table?
And if we can assume he WOULD be willing to go to bat for something like that, then it seems like he should have to draw an explicit line. If he feels the need to be able to "go home and explain" his votes, explain this one too.
Read 6 tweets
3 Jun
The supersonic jet company has signed a deal with Prometheus Fuels, which uses a carbon capture tech to make supposedly net-zero jet fuel (and other fuel). Which, okay, but people have been trying to do that at competitive cost for decades now and it hasn't panned out. Yet. So.
I go back and forth on that sort of skepticism so much. EVERY technology didn't exist until it did, so why doubt? But with climate-saving tech, so much has been promised that didn't actually come to fruition, exception being the ever-plunging prices of wind/solar. But... yeah.
Read 4 tweets
27 May
A year ago (+2 days) I wrote for @sciam about whether the planet would "remember" covid, based on drops in emissions and changes in pollution and how that will show up in ice cores, tree rings, and so on. The primary answer was yes, it will. 1/

Some pollutants, like soot and some aerosols from smokestacks and tailpipes, clearly ended up dropping enough as the world locked down to show up in those paleoclimate records. 2/
But the big one, CO2 -- probably not? As it turned out, even though the pandemic did stretch out, CO2 emissions only dropped less than 7%, and bounced back by the end of 2020. 3/
Read 5 tweets
25 Apr
As usual, a fear-mongering tweet devoid of context from the Post. This is almost entirely a result of a dramatic lack of bat coronavirus sequencing effort in most parts of the world. It's not a new virus; we just haven't looked for them much yet.
Not to mention the fact that the virus is likely not any danger to humans.

From the paper, the virus "is unlikely to be zoonotic" -- meaning jump from animals to humans -- "without mutation."

But hey, get them clicks!
What the study really says is that far more resources should probably be designated for better understanding of bat coronaviruses, as well as for bat conservation.
Read 5 tweets
18 Apr
I don't have access so I can't see the paper this story is about to get the details, but couldn't this at least partially be reflecting that the more jargon-heavy papers are simply more niche and less broadly applicable and thus citation-worthy?
Jargon is usually bad, I'm just not entirely sure the work as described justifies the conclusion in full.

Anyway, if someone wants to send me the paper: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Okay I read the paper. And... yeah, I still have the same concern! The authors are more or less ignoring the fact that many, many scientific papers are simply not intended to be widely read outside of extremely specialized fields.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!