2/ He doesn't make stuff up. He avoids making unwarranted conclusions. He admits what he doesn't know: after "as reported by" and "as stated in an article by" the most common phrase is "the implications of [X] is unclear." His books are not conspiracy theory. #ProofOfCorruption
3/ The three PROOF books combined have over 10,000 major media citations. The books are a compilation and celebration of the hard work of dozens if not hundreds of dedicated journalists who deserve credit for their work and a wider audience for that work. #ProofOfCorruption
4/ Journalists: In these times other journalists are not your competition. The confluence of your collective work creates a rising tide that lifts all boats. You might get individual "scoops" but the PROOF books represent the consummation of all the scoops into a grand sundae.
5/ [Now I'm hungry] Be proud of your work, and take the opportunity to show how that work forms an integral part of a greater whole. Each story might be a snowball that hits its mark, but only their convergence can create an avalanche. [go ahead and mock my metaphors]
6/ Why hasn't the PROOF series gotten more traction? Why aren't journalists touting this celebration of their own work? If you're worried that touting his book will hurt the sales of your own, you're wrong. Readers hooked by one will be searching for others on the same topic.
7/ Those of you with platforms, please, use them to boost the signal of #ProofOfCollusion, #ProofOfConspiracy, and #ProofOfCorruption. If nothing else, it will boost the signal of your own good works, and aid our common goal of preserving American democracy.
8/ I believe the goal of journalism is not to break the next big story, but rather to inform the public and hold those in power accountable. Individually I see many of you doing all you can to fulfill that noble goal. What is needed beyond a commonality of purpose is cooperation.
9/ @SethAbramson hasn't held anything back for his "big book release(s)." He's been shouting this stuff from the rooftops from day one. When this is over he'll be able to say "he did everything he could." I don't know if I will be able to say that. Will you? #ProofOfCorruption
/END Sorry to spam all of you, but if you're on this list it's because I respect your work. I know this post will likely vanish unnoticed into Twitter oblivion, but I'm trying to do my small part.
Spread the word about #ProofOfCorruption. The journalism it showcases deserves it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@MollyMcKew is absolutely correct here. I've tried to articulate some similar ideas in threads over the past few days, but she says it far better than I did.
🧵1/ I was in the process of writing something very similar to this thead, but @wellerstein beat me to it, so now I don't have to (he has a much larger platform than I do so his thread will get a lot more reach anyway). I agree with basically everything in his thread,
2/ although there are a few things I want to add to it. I agree with @wellerstein that #Putin won't attack #NATO directly. If he resorts to a nuke at all, it would likely be against #Ukraine.
3/ Originally I thought that Putin would resort to a using a low-yield nuke against Kyiv, in the hopes of inducing mass panic, decapitating the Ukrainian govt, and causing Ukraine to surrender.
🧵1/ There's something weird about #NoFlyZones. Opponents to setting one up over Ukraine say that #NATO would have to implement it, which would mean shooting down Russian planes, which means #WW3.
2/ But here's the thing: In effect #NATO *already has* a #NoFlyZone--over NATO countries. If #Russian military aircraft violate it, we would see it as a hostile act, and shoot the aircraft down. (Or at best, give them a military escort out of NATO airspace--more on that later)
3/ A key to a #NoFlyZoneOverUkraine that people seem to be missing is this: while yes, #NATO would be obliged to shoot down violators, Russian aircraft would have to violate the airspace FIRST. NATO and the international community recognize #Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
🧵1/ Trying to think outside the box here: the #NATO treaty Article 5 states that an armed attack against one member state to be an armed attack against them all. It does not mean that individuals member states may not initiate hostilities unilaterally, or come to the aid of
2/ a non-member ally unilaterally. What this means is if #Poland, for example, were to aid #Ukraine directly, acting not as a member of #NATO but unilaterally, then Article 5 is not invoked should Polish forces in Ukraine come under attack.
3/ Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty defines armed attack to be an attack on NATO territories or NATO forces (including aircraft) in or over those territories. So again, Polish forces, for example, could intervene unilaterally in Ukraine and not trigger Article 5.
@NatashaBertrand First pages are Parnas' to-do list:
*Get Zalensky to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated
*Start communication with Zalensky without (Pinchut or Kolanolski) 1) Put together Package 2) Go to D.C. with package 3) do my "magic" and cut deal
@NatashaBertrand 4) Victoria/Joe [Toensing] Retained
100,000 - month with succession
Begin media campaign
Joe/Victoria
*firtash toxic*
*get deal done 1-3 months
*cut deal or get dismissed*
Lenny Davis
*get rid of Lenny davis (nicely)
*get all info from case
*Rlochefks [?]
*Ukrain ledgers
@NatashaBertrand *Congress/Senate* 4) Hire Robert Stryk
Lobbiest or Brian Ballard 100,000 month 5) P.R. group
$$ ???
* Rudy *