Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

OMgosh: "What merits coverage?" Compare Mueller Special Counsel with Durham re coverage.

2/ LOL: "Old news." Yup, just as I said: Sussmann-friendly folks fed a cleaned up version of the story the same "journalist" who wrote this clean up piece, back in September to get a head of the news. So now it is "old news."

3/ Of course, I only realized that after Durham's filing hit and we doing some research and came across Savage's previous pro bono defense work.

4/ Seriously, Savage's piece is one jaw-dropper after another. I'm not sure which is more damning:
"Our readers are too stupid to understand."
or
"We don't want our readers to spend too much time thinking."

5/ "Links to the Democratic party." I guess that's one way you could put the fact that he represented the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton Campaign.

6/ And there it is "old news."

7/ Well, the NYT's readers may be too lazy to exercise their brain cells or too stupid to understand complex matters, but I know @FDRLST readers are both smart enough and willing enough to put in the effort to get it, so this bait and switch won't fly:

8/ As I explained this a.m. and yesterday on Twitter, this "counter" is illogical: The "intel" was to place blame on Trump for using the Russian cell-phones so that it happened before he was sworn in is irrelevant. (And also it doesn't mean mining didn't happen after--it did.)

9/ And as to Joffe's response mouthed by Savage: That Joffe' had lawful access to data doesn't mean squat. Doesn't mean he could use that access to peddle deceptive scandal to CIA, which is what Durham's filing explained happed. Also, if mining for security breaches was part

10/ job then Joffe's company and not his private lawyer would have been taking it to the CIA OR to the normal chain for reporting those issues.

11/ And as for Joffe being "apolitical?" the Times could have done some real journalism on that front like I did when I filed Right to Know Requests on Georgia State soon after Joffe and others identities were revealed and lookie here what I discovered from apolitical Joffe:

12/ And his apoloticial Georgia Tech contacts:

13/ But I guess to the Times and Savage this was old news too since I reported on it @FDRLST in November. thefederalist.com/2021/11/17/ema…

14/ Even here, the Times contradicts its own protestation that this had nothing to do with Trump.

15/ Savage then moves on to minimize Durham's investigation. It was only because of Trump's protestations he was appointed and not evidence of massive problems like fake FOIA. Oh, and let's move the goalposts to "high-level government officials" for it to matter. Yeah, like

16/ George Papadopoulos.

17/ And further minimizing of the Durham has uncovered. But Savage knows his readers are too stupid or too lazy--per his own pretty prose--to both to dig into the claims.

18/ "suspicions developed by cybersecurity researchers"--seems to, how do I say it COMPLETELY IGNORE REALITY OF CLINTON CAMPAIGN HIRING FUSION GPS TO PUSH THIS NON-SENSE.

19/ Also per the indictment they were not mining this data for DAPRA. GA Tech did not even have a DAPRA contract at the time they mined the data for Joffe--they did so under frame of "proof of concept."

20/ GA Tech did have contract later and possibly did some work under contract that focused on White House & Trump tower in 2017 BUT nonsense to say this was part of DAPRA work b/c in that case, GA TECH goes to DAPRA, not to Joffe, to Sussmann, to Baker & CIA.

21/ Again, why is Sussmann going to FBI with this if researchers were doing it for DAPRA?

22/ Re the Times' saying that was false the researchers believed the analysis, I'll just point to this interesting note obtained in a Right to Know @RyanM58699717 obtained which from one of researchers saying "Researcher 1 never supported the article." sleuthscorner.docdroid.com/nfXCEfp/gt-doc…

23/ Couple things here: "also played a role in the Alfa Bank matter" as if there was actually something accurate about that matter! Re the Yota server, Savage completely ignores the blockbuster revelation from Durham's motion.

24/ First, it reconfirms idiocy that oh, this was during Obama presidency b/c the whole point of the look-ups was to show Trump & affilitates used near the White House. AND ignores only 1,000 lookups by Trump Tower. AND began way back into Obama so how does that implicate Trump

25/ Also, note complete data Joffe had disproved entire theory Sussmann sold but Savage ignored that.

26/ That leaves I believe 2 paragraphs I haven't countered. The second one, is just the Times typical Orange Man Bad framing. But on the first one, it's kinda rich the day the Times' botching of Palin reporting is front and center it takes issue with word "infiltrate." But

27/ if "infiltrate" used for "mining" it's fair and in any event still 1000 times more fair than Savage's piece. And re "spying on Trump's White House office, again appears mining continued after in office, so fair too.

28/ Interesting too that Times didn't see anything of concern from @FDRLST coverage, just like Sussmann's attorneys, impliedly bowing to my expertise.

29/29 In conclusion, Savage's Time's piece is pro-Sussmann poopoganda and I know my readers are smart enough and willing enough to exert their brain cells to get to the truth. END nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/…