3/3 which reminds me that I "made" the New York Times for my coverage, although it appears the Old Grey Lady lost her reading glasses as the second clause is out of left field (and not my coverage).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I've said before, DH is apolitical, conservative by nature, but not knee-jerk, so his takes provide amazing insight into how most Americans see things. Tonight while watching ABC News on Jan 6 & Biden, "Augh. This is so ridiculous!" Me, like I'm hosting a focus group: 1/
2/ Me: "Wait. What's ridiculous?"
Him: "It's been a year. It happened. It's over. There's nothing to debate. It's been a year and he's (Biden) still bringing up the other guy. Nobody cares."
3/ So, while I'm playing focus-group leader, DS is taking notes for his next shtick, which comes about 5 minutes later when he's kissing up to me so I'll let him post the joke tweet beg.
THREADETTE House always said: "Everyone lies." I've always said, "everyone's biased." Now, others on Right may disagree, but I own my bias. That doesn't mean I'm going to lie, misrepresent, or mislead, and this morning, it dawned on me difference in bias from Right & Left. 1/
2/ Right's bias (in general) is limited to what it reports or focuses on and word choice, i.e. "intoned" versus "said," while the bias from the Left? Selection & word choice are there in spades, but so is creating false narratives and outrightly lying.
3/ This article (please do read because it really walks through how the false narratives are created), is a perfect illustration of the creating of a false narrative (which later leads to an outright lie). thefederalist.com/2019/05/31/law…
THREAD: So, I'm still reading the D.C. Circuit's decision in Trump v. Thompson, but think the Court made a mistake....typing as I'm thinking so walk through this with me. At 3-4 of the opinion the Court states: 1/
2/ But here's what H.R. 503 states:
3/ The purpose stated by the Court is not one of the three shown under its purpose; rather, it was the predecessor bill, H.R. 3233 which specificed that purpose.
THREAD with some friendly push back for @HansMahncke Baker is going to make a terrible witness, but for Sussmann. Baker clearly has a friendly relationship with Sussmann and an incentive to "not remember," and the hedging, confusion, etc., is going to hurt Sussmann's argument./1
2/ And I doubt Durham's case relies on Baker's testimony, other than to show Baker is at best forgetful. Rather, Durham's case likely rests on contemporaneous notes taken by someone who spoke w/ Baker RIGHT after--maybe multiple someones, since it appears he passed to Strzok,
3/ and Page. Also, remember, this is Sussmann's attorney's doing PR to promote their client's case: They included only a glimpse of the case that seemingly helps Sussmann. Now, might Durham have brought a week case? Sure, but I doubt it.
With more Americans discovering fraud of corrupt media re Russia collusion hoax, I'm pausing for "victory tour," best encapsulated with this article I wrote for @FDRLSTthefederalist.com/2018/08/02/ins… August 2, 2018. To repeat: 2018. I'm very proud of this piece for 2 reasons. 1/
2/ In this article, by delving into original source documents I revealed one of major omissions in FISA warrant applications for @carterwpage MORE THAN A YEAR before IG confirmed that major omission. I did that even with heavily redacted FISA applications to work from.
3/ But equally important in that article, I discarded one theory re players/plots being used to set up Trump, when on surface it looked like the translator for Trump Tower meeting was part of the hoax. It would have been easy to have succumb to confirmation bias.