Thread by @SethAbramson

This NYT article implies, without evidence, that the UAE provided no monies to the Trump campaign directly or indirectly prior to Election Day, a statement that *contradicts* earlier New York Times reporting establishing that the UAE was looking to aid Trump pre-election and did.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1202920089693106177

1/ The Trump campaign's secret adviser on the Middle East? The Emirati ambassador to the US. It's fine for the NYT to say that per the indictment the UAE was hedging its bets by having an agent oversee monies flowing to the Clinton campaign, but *so* much more was happening here.

2/ Nader may have overseen monies headed to the Clinton campaign, but he was AT TRUMP TOWER WITH A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP FAMILY offering money to the Trump campaign in August 2016, and thereafter met FACE-TO-FACE with the campaign's top brass. *Repeatedly*. So don't get it twisted.

3/ @nytimes, this sentence is *unforgivable* given *your own prior coverage* of Nader's attempts to aid the Trump campaign pre-election. This is *terrible* journalism. "Immediately after Election Day...Mr. Nader and Mr. Khawaja pivoted to redirect their illicit support to Trump."

@nytimes 4/ There was no *pivot*. Two years of NYT reporting, and the entirety of the Mueller Report, and my books PROOF OF COLLUSION and PROOF OF CONSPIRACY, and reporting from major media around the world, confirm there was no *pivot*, @nytimes.

The Emiratis aided the Trump *campaign*.