I'm just now discovering that last summer #mattydickpics called for Hillary to be banned from Twitter because he misrepresented the Sussmann trial and misrepresented the entirety of the Russian investigation.
Just last summer, #mattydickpics was so stupid that he didn't understand that when people steal files via cloud computing, it leaves traces in many different servers. (He has changed that view now that he's Elmo's chief pet, but is too stupid to realize he has.)
This is classic "Russiagate" propaganda, making the provably false claim that the claims of Trump ties to RU all came from the dossier and Alfa Bank.
As all "Russiagate" propagandists do, #mattydickpics left out details about contacts with Russians that Trump and others were lying about, starting with Mike Flynn.
Remember #mattydickpics is writing about the Sussmann trial, which proved that FBI fucked up the investigation into the anomalous communications. And yet he takes DOJ IG's conclusion, not the one shown at Sussmann's trial.
This is also makebelieve from "Russiagate" propagandist #mattydickpics. Papadopoulos pled guilty to hiding when he got advance notice of the hack and leak AND refused to explain his notes about a back channel meeting w/Russia he was planning for September 2016.
Here, #mattydickpics argues that bc the disinfo in the dossier distracted from Konstantin Kilimnik's role in the 2016 election until an investigation disclosed it is proof that there's no there there.
"Russiagate" logic for you.
Anyway, I hope #mattydickpics is asked to testify again, because this little Substack -- in which he called for Twitter censorship bc he's so stupid he spread stupid RU propaganda that undermines his current claims -- should have been entire focus of Dem questioning last week.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The same article quotes Tim Parlatore complaining about DOJ going after lawyers, yet retroactively calling advice legal advice probably doesn't make you a lawyer.
"Absent any solid indication that Boris is a target here."
Like, maybe that they seized his phone?
Meanwhile, at least 17 of the 83 words in this one paragraph are pained euphemisms to hedge what Trump clearly did.
DOJ had already challenged witness' testimony, U Alabama's George Hawley, bc he doesn't know much abt Mackey (tho they said if he wants to distinguish that Mackey is alt-Right, not just conservative, then they will ask about the racism inherent to that). storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Mackey suggests that @lukeobrien (whom he calls an SPLC researcher and not the journalist who first IDed Mackey) might commit "actionable wrongdoing" for writing a story.
Before she raises the possibility that maybe Jordan's committee is having such shitty results bc he made weaponization up, Alemany lets Elise Stefanik, Mike Davis, Jordan, Russ Vought, and Mark Paoletta express their opinions about something that maybe is simply made up.
She repeats Democratic claims that Jordan's three so-called whistleblowers had no evidence of wrong-doing and notes that Friend is getting $$ (but doesn't mention that O'Boyle is too, and makes readers draw the tie between Vought and Friend, who got hired to work at his NGO)...
Now Jimmy J is complaining that 1) FBI used a special app for stuff that's not at issue here and 2) that Twitter is paid for complying with legal process, as required by law.
BREAKING: Jimmy J finds it amazing Aspen Institute focused on Hunter Biden after 1) known Russian spies tried to deal Hunter Biden dirt to Rudy Giuliani and 2) GRU hacked Burisma.
Jimmy J is now accusing former spooks of making "false" claims, when they expressed an opinion
4 questions from Wyden:
To Burns, has CIA implemented tool to audit searches on USPs?
Burns: Ahead of schedule.
To Wray: Is FBI buying location data via adtech?
Wray: We used to, no longer to.
To Haines: Can we have report on that?
Haines: Yes.
1/2
To Haines: Can you push NSC on classification task force?
Haines: Yes.
To Haines: Can you say past pot smokers can get clearance?
Haines: Whole of person perspective.
I don't remember a single Global Threats hearing where Wyden got all the answers he wanted.