Thread by @SethAbramson

Today, TIME and Kremlin state media (RT) covered my response to the Report.

Both TIME and RT falsely stated Mueller found "no proof" of collusion or conspiracy—meaning, no evidence whatsoever of either.

I'd fire @VeraMBergen for publishing Kremlin propaganda—but that's just me.

1/ People should know I hesitated continuing my interview with @VeraMBergen when it became clear she was searching for post-Report clickbait. I thought I could explain to her what the word "proof" means—because I'm a lawyer, and she's not, so I *thought* she'd listen. She didn't.

2/ I spent years having hitpieces written on me for writing accurate things online. The pieces misstated my qualifications, titles, values; misdefined legal terms; left out information that would've undercut the story they wanted. I'm done coddling such garbage—it's *hurting* us.

3/ *Anyone*—at TIME *or* RT—can look up the definition of "proof." Mueller found proof of conspiracy *and* proof of collusion. He only analyzed the proof of conspiracy, trying to see if it met *the highest evidentiary standard in US law*. It fell short. We don't know by how much.

4/ But a writer for TIME like @VeraMBergen might also have Googled the book of mine—PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—she wanted to say, as a journalist, has no merit. She would've seen that the "conspiracy" discussed in the book *isn't the one Mueller investigated*. She didn't even Google it.

5/ So now I have a book coming out in August about a 2015 conspiracy between... the Saudis, Emiratis, Bahrainis, and Egyptians... that @VeraMBergen of @TIME says is disproven by a report... *not on that subject whatsoever*. Did she ask me what the book was about? Google it? Nope.

6/ I used to let it slide—but how can I do that *just* when my writing on Russian kompromat has been vindicated after two years of character assassination? I *have* to say the truth—that @VeraMBergen needs to be fired if she can't even Google the people or books she's writing on.

7/ Media will *keep doing this*—writing hitpieces on subject-area experts doing accurate research/writing—unless there are consequences. I did an interview with @VeraMBergen on the importance of federal investigations and what came out was inaccurate clickbait on a profit motive.

8/ In what universe do you call a state-/federal-admitted attorney who practiced criminal law for almost a decade—who was trained at two top universities as a criminal investigator, and teaches legal advocacy and journalism at an R2 research university—an "online Russia sleuth"?

9/ Never doubt that "journalists" with no legal credentials—who don't know how to define "proof" or "conspiracy," who do no research whatsoever before writing about the law for major digital media outlets—have spent two years ill preparing America to hear the truth from Mueller.

10/ I'm asking @TIME/@VeraMBergen to edit its piece to state that Mueller *explicitly* said he didn't look at "collusion"—and that on "conspiracy" he simply "did not establish" proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want @TIME to note it heard *nothing* from me re: profit motive.

NOTE TO REPORTERS/ If you don't know the definition of even *basic* legal terms; if you haven't read my bio (readily available online and linked to *in my Twitter bio*); if you haven't even *glanced* at what my books *actually* contain—do *not* contact me. sethabramson.net/bio