,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
A thing that will irritate a lot of professional journalists greatly is that when Mueller‘s work is resolved it’s quite doubtful that any of Seth Abramson’s derided threads will be debunked retrospectively. (It was often a critique of style not substance.) washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/…
In other words Abramson readily admits we won’t know if he was recklessly speculating until the SDNY completes its work after Mueller, which could take years, but in the meantime, assuming he was way off base, it’s unlikely that WaPo would be quoting him for its news analysis now
I gave up following Abramson’s threads long ago, but it wasn’t because I thought the substance was off base. Only the style was intolerable. I didn’t need to be convinced that there was a surplus of evidence in the public domain to indicate the general narrative of collusion.
Of course I went down my own rabbit hole in the aftermath of the election. And I’ve never even been to law school. But I practiced a different kind of post-Trump academic civic legal practice. And I used social media to garner support and validations. It’s what people can do now.
