1/17
The *dangerous* mistake that mainstream journalists make on the Tyler Robinson case, is the same mistake that Chuck Schumer makes in Congress:
-They assume that the Trump admin is "politics as usual"
But this is not normal.
They lie to us DAILY!
The *dangerous* mistake that mainstream journalists make on the Tyler Robinson case, is the same mistake that Chuck Schumer makes in Congress:
-They assume that the Trump admin is "politics as usual"
But this is not normal.
They lie to us DAILY!
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1969009199049736523
2/17
There is a lot of conspiracy out there, and they are quick to assume any questioning of the administrations actions must be conspiracy lacking nuance - and yet, they refuse to ask nuanced questions themselves.
There is a lot of conspiracy out there, and they are quick to assume any questioning of the administrations actions must be conspiracy lacking nuance - and yet, they refuse to ask nuanced questions themselves.
3/17
Just 4 days ago, Kash Patel was on Fox News noting that they had a note that "was destroyed", that they did not "see" and that they got the contents of from "aggressive interview posture"
Just 4 days ago, Kash Patel was on Fox News noting that they had a note that "was destroyed", that they did not "see" and that they got the contents of from "aggressive interview posture"
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1967636037792149854
4/17
The charging doc however, notes that the contents of the written note came from the fact "Police found a photograph of this note"
So which content came from "aggressive interview posture?"
The charging doc however, notes that the contents of the written note came from the fact "Police found a photograph of this note"
So which content came from "aggressive interview posture?"
5/17
The text in the charging document claims the roommate "told" police he received messages and "provided those messages to the police"
It does not specify if they are physically provided or not.
The statement does not preclude providing under testimony.
The text in the charging document claims the roommate "told" police he received messages and "provided those messages to the police"
It does not specify if they are physically provided or not.
The statement does not preclude providing under testimony.
6/17
If it was a physical hand over of the messages, and the FBI got the content of those from the messages themselves, and the contents of the note from a photograph...
Then what content did Kash mean was derived solely from "aggressive interview posture?"
If it was a physical hand over of the messages, and the FBI got the content of those from the messages themselves, and the contents of the note from a photograph...
Then what content did Kash mean was derived solely from "aggressive interview posture?"
7/17
Prosecutors characterize the text conversation in the document as "reproduced"
Not "replicated", not a "word-for-for reproduction", not "copied from the messages" but "reproduced"
Can that mean reproduced exactly and fully? Sure - but it doesn't preclude other options.
Prosecutors characterize the text conversation in the document as "reproduced"
Not "replicated", not a "word-for-for reproduction", not "copied from the messages" but "reproduced"
Can that mean reproduced exactly and fully? Sure - but it doesn't preclude other options.
8/17
It would not mean that the ellipsis used were literally there, as they could represent cropped out content:
It would not mean that the ellipsis used were literally there, as they could represent cropped out content:
9/17
It could mean that's why this message seems to have a typo using the emoji "uwu" which is (😌 bashful eyes closed) instead of the "OwO" (😲/😳 shocked surprised embarrassed) from the original meme.
Something Tyler would know very well.
It could mean that's why this message seems to have a typo using the emoji "uwu" which is (😌 bashful eyes closed) instead of the "OwO" (😲/😳 shocked surprised embarrassed) from the original meme.
Something Tyler would know very well.
10/17
Those changes make sense if this is written from testimony.
Something that would not be illegal for investigators or prosecutors to do.
It does not mean they are fake - but that during the case they would rely on Lance's testimony to show the spirit of the contents.
Those changes make sense if this is written from testimony.
Something that would not be illegal for investigators or prosecutors to do.
It does not mean they are fake - but that during the case they would rely on Lance's testimony to show the spirit of the contents.
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1969029703789854795
11/17
So the fact that:
-The FBI director said some evidence was "reconstructed" due to "aggressive interview posture."
-The charging doc does not note what it was.
-They note these texts as "reconstructed."
-The text content is suspicious.
That merits questions.
So the fact that:
-The FBI director said some evidence was "reconstructed" due to "aggressive interview posture."
-The charging doc does not note what it was.
-They note these texts as "reconstructed."
-The text content is suspicious.
That merits questions.
12/17
But have these 'journalists' asked:
-Is this a word-for-word reconstruction?
-Has text been omitted?
-Was this text derived from the actual electronic texts, or from testimony?
No - they haven't.
But have these 'journalists' asked:
-Is this a word-for-word reconstruction?
-Has text been omitted?
-Was this text derived from the actual electronic texts, or from testimony?
No - they haven't.
13/17
And if you suggest that the characterization of "reconstructed" in this context is dangerous because it does NOT preclude these things, it is shrugged off as "conspiracy"
It is assumed you think the texts are 'fake'
And if you suggest that the characterization of "reconstructed" in this context is dangerous because it does NOT preclude these things, it is shrugged off as "conspiracy"
It is assumed you think the texts are 'fake'
14/17
But, there is a BIG difference between doing something blatantly illegal in a cover-up that could be contested - versus doing something underhanded.
In a court case, they CAN clarify these are paraphrased reconstructions.
But what of the court of public opinion?
But, there is a BIG difference between doing something blatantly illegal in a cover-up that could be contested - versus doing something underhanded.
In a court case, they CAN clarify these are paraphrased reconstructions.
But what of the court of public opinion?
15/17
Do you think the Trump admin, FBI, or a Trump aligned prosecutor would not do something questionable/underhanded, to:
-Shape the public narrative their way?
or
-Better cover-up Kash Patel's aggressive witch hunt of the left?
Do you think the Trump admin, FBI, or a Trump aligned prosecutor would not do something questionable/underhanded, to:
-Shape the public narrative their way?
or
-Better cover-up Kash Patel's aggressive witch hunt of the left?
16/17
This is the same FBI who just months ago released doctored footage of the Epstein cell, missing multiple timestamps, and having duplicated frames.
Who has run interference for Trump at every level of law enforcement and government, in both cover-up AND for narrative.
This is the same FBI who just months ago released doctored footage of the Epstein cell, missing multiple timestamps, and having duplicated frames.
Who has run interference for Trump at every level of law enforcement and government, in both cover-up AND for narrative.
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1945955187287269585
17/17
So it is irresponsible reporting to assume this is "business as usual"
I've said for days I take the charging doc at face value and do not believe a prosecutor would fully manufacture disprovable texts.
But, do I think the FBI would coerce texts under aggressive interrogation, to create paraphrased recreations of deleted messages, which support their case, and get the person being interrogated to agree to it, and use those in a charging document omitting the questionable provenance so that it both bolsters their case, and aligns with their public political narrative?
Yes - absolutely.
And if you don't think these elements take together suggest that STRONGLY, and aren't asking those questions - than you are blinded by longing for a world that no longer exists.
A world where law enforcement and government are generally honest.
A world where the rule-of-law and regular decorum are respected.
That world has long since set sail.
So if you're a journalist who still assumes that world exists, either start reading the tea leaves and asking hard questions, or step aside for those who will.
Because, we don't need more for-profit news, journalists, and networks cowering to Trump's whims and refusing to ask questions about the authenticity of claims when this administration lies to our face on a DAILY basis.
So it is irresponsible reporting to assume this is "business as usual"
I've said for days I take the charging doc at face value and do not believe a prosecutor would fully manufacture disprovable texts.
But, do I think the FBI would coerce texts under aggressive interrogation, to create paraphrased recreations of deleted messages, which support their case, and get the person being interrogated to agree to it, and use those in a charging document omitting the questionable provenance so that it both bolsters their case, and aligns with their public political narrative?
Yes - absolutely.
And if you don't think these elements take together suggest that STRONGLY, and aren't asking those questions - than you are blinded by longing for a world that no longer exists.
A world where law enforcement and government are generally honest.
A world where the rule-of-law and regular decorum are respected.
That world has long since set sail.
So if you're a journalist who still assumes that world exists, either start reading the tea leaves and asking hard questions, or step aside for those who will.
Because, we don't need more for-profit news, journalists, and networks cowering to Trump's whims and refusing to ask questions about the authenticity of claims when this administration lies to our face on a DAILY basis.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
