,
15 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Despite this, @WSJ told senior people at my university that I had an affair with Flynn. When they had the audacity to contact me, just after I gave birth to my first child, my partner responded that allegation was baseless, upsetting and hurtful, that their source was malicious/2 
Despite knowing that allegations were false, and the fact that @WSJ were told that 'Ms Lokhova is currently unwell and your enquiries have made that condition worse', they went on to publish a false story based on fake 'intelligence' of Stefan Halper. /3
We complained straight after publication: "The article contains incorrect information. This is in addition to the malicious and false allegations you have made about [Lokhova]." @WSJ refused to retract or even amend the story /4
Prof Kent who was also at dinner wrote to @WSJ "The dinner was a formal dinner with assigned seating, so it would have been impossible for Ms Lohkova to have approached [Flynn]...It clearly shows that Peter Martland sat on Mike's right hand and that Chris sat on his left." /5
Prof Kent also wrote that 'everyone who attended that dinner was clearly acceptable to Sir Richard Dearlove and posed no security risk; otherwise they would not have been allow to attend.' However, none of this was included in the @WSJ hit job on Flynn, they refused to amend. /6
What followed was over a week of phone calls by my partner trying to unsuccessfully get @WSJ to retract or at least amend their article, with calls taking place in the middle of night (time zone difference with UK) whilst I was trying to calm down a crying newborn. /7
When my partner asked why did they need to plaster my name across the headlines, @WSJ said they could not understand why I was so upset. They said they were not trying to get me, they were after Flynn! /8
/9 As it became clear that @WSJ were not going to budge, and this was a political hit, we were forced to turn to lawyers. A legal letter was sent to WSJ: russiagate.co.uk/home/my-legal-…
The WSJ "have deliberately sought to give the impression that our client had an ulterior motive and that she had initiated contact with a view to initiating some form of subterfuge or espionage on the part of the Russian Government." /10
.."to achieve the purpose of your article, which was clearly to impugn Mr Flynn’s character, it was a requirement to portray Ms Lokhova and her behaviour as so suspicious that it left the reader in no doubt that she was an agent of an “adversarial power” /11
..."You painted this distorted picture of events by deliberately omitting to inform your readers that this was an anodyne and unremarkable meeting which was not suspicious in any way. "/12
..".your article contains a number of fundamental factual inaccuracies which were clearly calculated to mislead readers"../13
The monied WSJ responded with a long letter disputing legal technicalities. The highlight was to argue that a report naming Russia as an adversarial nation dated Dec 2014 justified calling Russia an adversarial nation in February 2014. Pointless waste of money to continue. /14
The @WSJ fake story was placed deliberately. It was duly picked up and cited by numerous other outlets, most notably Luke Harding, friend of Chris Steele. Halper's sole-sourced disinformation has entered history, unchallenged. /15
