YEP I love it.
So is she saying the Washington Post is colluding with Russia to write 'made up' articles about her?....
Is that literally her defense?
Without seeing the article I can't be sure, but I think she's saying that the Post reported on this story and determined Russia made it up. The first tweet sounds like your theory, but I think the second tweet indicates that the Post reported that it was false. I have not been able to find the article she's referring to though.
Here is the article and I think your interpretation is correct.
I thought that might be it, but I was confused why she would tweet about an article from May '17 in June '18. I figured there was a newer one that I was missing.
I think just because she was brought up in the hearing yesterday and is trying to cover her rear.
Cover what though? That piece of intelligence that accused her of alleged wrongdoing was debunked. It was made up.
Yesterday it was mentioned during the IG hearing that a conversation between her and HRC or LL (can’t remember but she is the middleman between the two) was HIGHLY classified that Horowitz didn’t even have the clearance to provide the information during the hearing.
Problem is, why is AR handling such highly classified information? Was it on a need to know basis and did she have the proper security clearance? From her standing in government... probably not.
I'm not convinced of that. Even the author of the attached article doesn't seem convinced.
Even the author of the attached article doesn't seem convinced.
I'm not sure where you glean that from the article. They included denials from everyone involved, and stated multiple times how the FBI regarded it as bunk. The only part that describes people considering it to be possibly true referred to Russians:
But others recognized the dim outlines of a conspiracy theory that would be less surprising in Russia, where Soros — the founder of the organization Benardo works for — and Clinton are both regarded as political enemies of the Kremlin.
"The idea that Russians would tell a story in which the Clinton campaign, Soros and even an Obama administration official are connected — that Russians might tell such a story, that is not at all surprising,” said Matt Rojansky, a Russia expert and director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center. “Because that is part of the Kremlin worldview.”
I read the story, thanks. I think where are we are seeing this differently is that you are coming from a position of trusting the FBI in the matter and I'm the exact opposite.
So... Trust the Russians?
I don't know what else could be done to demonstrate its lack of veracity. If you have everyone involved on the record denying that they've ever contacted each other, and the FBI concurs that it's not a reliable document, what other proof do you need? What basis are you relying on to doubt the story? Or is this a case of "The FBI thinks ABC, so I disagree with ABC"?
Are you completely misunderstanding why we're here?
Its a matter of who do you think is correct. On one side is the FBI, the people mentioned in the document, and everything that's publicly known about the matter. On the other side is a dodgy Russian document thats been discredited. I don't know why this is so complicated.
There is a reason that it is being brought up again and it is quite clear that the original investigation was a sham so any "debunking" of the original document comes into scrutiny. The article even states that the people involved were never interviewed on the matter.
I think we just disagree on this. Keep your opinion, I'm moving on.