Thread by @aaronjmate

Congrats to @michaeldweiss & @JettGoldsmith, the new repositories for propaganda whitewashing OPCW's Syria cover-up.

After @Bellingcat got Bellingcaught, @newlinesmag (SpookLies) & @thedailybeast (The Daily CIA Brief) are understandable sloppy-seconds.

Alas, you're too sloppy.

Your "deep-dive" has deep lies.

You claim that Berlin Group 21 (BG21) -- eminent voices behind the Statement of Concern (SoC) on OPCW cover-up -- are a "front" for the Working Group (WG), a UK academic collective. You also claim WG "released" SoC in BG21's name.

Both lies.

Berlin Group 21 has just corrected you: berlingroup21.org/statement

Why isn't this in your article? Because *you didn't contact them for comment* before publishing your lie that they are a "front organization."

And that's because you propagandists are a front for a whitewash.

You accused Berlin Group 21 & their Statement of Concern of being a "front" *without contacting them.*

Their email and contact form is on their website.

Don't pretend that you tried. Your article says you contacted others -- everyone but the people you slandered as a "front."

Let's look at who Berlin Group 21 really is, to fully grasp what moronic propagandists @michaeldweiss & @JettGoldsmith are.

These two hacks want us to believe that this eminent group -- including FIVE ex-OPCW officials -- are really just a "front" for a few UK academics.😂

All they have for their conspiracy theory that these eminent voices are a "front" is a fragment of an email by WG member Paul McGeigue.

No evidence here of a "front." And Paul was either embellishing or misinformed: Piers was (somewhat) involved, but didn't "coordinate."

This is again why @JettGoldsmith & @michaeldweiss did not contact any of the people they're accusing of being involved in a "front."

Instead of contacting the actual people they're targeting -- aka, doing basic journalism -- they ran their conspiracy theory.

Which makes them:

Now let's turn to their targeting of the OPCW whistleblowers.

Here are some of the most important errors.

@JettGoldsmith & @michaeldweiss are clueless about Douma probe, starting w/ its timeline.

They claim that after Wikileaks released Douma docs in Oct.-Nov. 2019, "OPCW later released its final report."

In reality, that report came out in March 2019 -- months before Wikileaks.

As for their claim that OPCW whistleblower Brendan Whelan "coordinated with WikiLeaks to leak a set of internal OPCW documents," they're entitled to believe that, but they have no idea if that's true.

What is hilarious is their attempt to minimize Whelan's role in the Douma probe. They describe him as a mere "former staff member of the OPCW"; "OPCW employee"; "internal critic."

Whelan was in fact the Douma mission's scientific coordinator and author of its original report.

OPCW exec wrote that Whelan "has contributed the most to the knowledge & understanding of [Chemical Weapons] chemistry applied to inspections" & praised his "character & strong values."

@michaeldweiss & @JettGoldsmith, lacking the latter, missed this. (thegrayzone.com/2020/12/07/opc…)

In their attempts to attack Whelan, @michaeldweiss & @JettGoldsmith parrot OPCW's claim that "the bulk of its analytical work" on Douma came after Whelan left.

Funny you should mention it. I just did a presentation at the UN exposing that claim as a lie: thegrayzone.com/2021/04/18/at-…

Now let me to express my disappointment in @JettGoldsmith. This twerp told me that his "next drop" would have "some very compromising info about you and your activities." He also vowed that I'd be "receiving a formal request for comment."

Didn't happen. I guess he dropped it.

BTW, why did @MichaelDWeiss @JettGoldsmith publish two parts of their "investigation" in two outlets -- @newlinesmag & @thedailybeast -- on one day?

@thedailybeast got the palatable smears.

@newlinesmag, run by a shady org, got the "detailed analysis" -- i.e. malicious lies.