On Monday, senior writer Stephen Hayes replied to partisan criticisms of his recent reporting on failed efforts by a State Department official to convince the FBI to reclassify an email on Hillary Clinton's server.
Earlier today, this HRC defender tried to debunk TWS reporting on the FBI/HRC files. He seems to do this as a hobby. https://t.co/NUZKF3LVyj
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 2016Thanks to a retweet from former Obama speechwriter @jonfavs and @daveweigel, it’s gotten a lot of attention. So I thought it worth engaging.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 2016In fact, it’s not a debunking at all. He didn’t identify a single error in TWS story. Can you?https://t.co/36c3QmGaTU
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 2016Actually, it’s a great example of why numbering tweets in a seemingly authoritative way doesn’t make them accurate.https://t.co/36c3QmGaTU
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20161) Sure, let’s address it.https://t.co/RTkyhNsqKu
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20162) The “claim” you object to is nowhere in the paragraph you clipped or in the article. https://t.co/kBx3jEDewN
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20163) There are many unanswered questions about why Kennedy did what he did. I hope reporters will ask them.https://t.co/oUj5BXqUSL
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20164) Please read them again so you don’t further mischaracterize TWS reporting.https://t.co/ecxN9VtqAP
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20165) Not misleading, fact. Kennedy pressured – 1) FBI intl ops official 2) FBI records chief 3) FBI CT division head. https://t.co/p38Hv2w8z9
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20166) TWS article never said otherwise.https://t.co/K7D2izZTWa
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20167) Not entirely. Also about Kennedy seeking to use the B9 FOIA exemption to bury an email “never to be seen again.”https://t.co/loPNvVZBbt
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20168) Three separate times TWS piece notes the FBI declined to make the changes.https://t.co/9PeiF9bKm6
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 20169) That’s not relevant to what FBI told State. The tweet is accurate.https://t.co/leFBTIFcWa
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201610) Who said otherwise? TWS piece notes FBI intl ops official was open to the “quid pro quo.”https://t.co/UYbdqfWyev
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201611) That’s not clear but possible. https://t.co/VZORfAVbaI
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201612) They can be routine. They aren’t always routine. https://t.co/i1OIjpETeq
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201613) Relevance?https://t.co/HlAfUs6YG0
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201614) Of course it is, given context and repeated pressure. https://t.co/ONlgOe8y1z
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201615) Because part of a story had been reported before does not diminish newsworthiness of new information. https://t.co/eLLkLUUH3H
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 201616) FBI official said State Dept pressured FBI to change classification to protect HRC. https://t.co/s04UiSBjl9https://t.co/PvMyHhqa7r
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 2016Fin: Appreciate the opportunity to clear up your mischaracterization of TWS reporting. @yottapoint @jonfavs
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes)
October 17, 2016