john r stanton

@dcbigjohn ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Dec. 31, 2020

Created

Wed Sep 09 18:56:37 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

john r stanton @dcbigjohn

as for what it would change. I personally believe that yes, at least some number of individuals would have acted differently as a result of hearing the president, in his own voice, saying how dangerous it is and that he is hiding that information. HOWEVER — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 9, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

john r stanton @dcbigjohn

On embargoes: there's an obvious ethical brightline here on the common good outweighing some agreement to hold back information. if you tell your priest youre going to murder somebody, the priest has a moral obligation to stop that from happening. And reporters aren't priests — PolitiTweet.org

I get this but a) do we know he wasn’t under embargo of some kind as part of the interview agreement and more impor… https://t.co/za4VDmWJoE

Posted Sept. 9, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

john r stanton @dcbigjohn

that's besides the point. There was clearly a chance it would effect either how Trump handled it, how governors handled it, or how the public handled it. that alone is enough of a moral trigger to publish. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 9, 2020 Hibernated