>>183348, >>183349, >>183350, >>183351, >>183352, >>183353, >>183354, >>183355, >>183356, >>183357
DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican - I owe @LauraLoomer a partial retraction. The Fox story appears to have been planted specifically to cause this fight, and I walked right into it. My broader point about OSINT vs. insider-scoop models stand, but I shouldn't have made it on a story that turned out to be bait.
I have no loyalty to Tulsi's office or Francescon, and I stand by that denial completely. But I also recognize that tonight wasn't the night to re-litigate the epistemology of political intelligence. Someone is trying to fracture the right over the taking of those documents. Giving them this fight is not useful.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2054780467111665930

DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican - This was reported through Fox News. I know for a fact that they have very, very rigorous rules for reporting.
Conversation
Mark Coester For U.S. House @CMarkCoester
When you fall for click bait, it lowers credibility.
One fake Whistle blower who had already given that same COVID testimony previously. Gets called in and drops a crumb. America explodes with everyone fussing.
The game is to discredit Gabbard and Radcliffe. 48 hour rule.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2054773685874249888

DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican - Dark thought.
Conversation
General Mike Flynn @GenFlynn
This agency “response” indicates that Ratcliffe is not in control.