Thread by @SethAbramson

(1 of 5) As usual Glenn misses the point completely—and deliberately. From 2018 to 2020, there was coordinated Trump-Ukraine collusion—I wrote a 600-page bestseller on this, so I'm not spitballing—specifically designed to spread misinformation about the Bidens, Ukraine and China.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1397169859168018456

(2 of 5) Trump and his team knew they were working with Kremlin agents, knew they were spreading misinformation, and knew they were engaged in an effort to undermine U.S. elections. But they persisted because nothing mattered but Trump's ambitions. This posed a problem for media.

(3 of 5) *Trump's actions* created a situation in which coverage of what sliver of the Biden story had merit would *necessarily* feed a far larger—and wholly false—narrative Trump, his agents/allies/attorneys/associates/aides, *and the Kremlin* were trying to inject into America.

(4 of 5) There's universal agreement that foreign "boards" are corrupt attempts to influence—there's no news there, and Trump/journalists knew it. That Hunter acted in an ethically dubious way common in business/politics was clear. That Joe Biden was involved? A different story.

(5 of 5) *No one* in media *or* on Team Trump cared about Hunter. The *only* purpose of the story was to sling sh*t at Joe Biden—without evidence—by association. An association Biden couldn't avoid, as Hunter's his son. Media opted not to be used by Trump/the Kremlin in that way.

(PS) In case it's not clear, the evidence *Joe* Biden did anything wrong—when *even Giuliani's pro-Kremlin Ukrainian stooge, Yuri Lutsenko, issued a statement to media in mid-2020 saying he did nothing wrong*—was pathetic. The evidence on Trump, Ukraine, and Russia? Overwhelming.

(PS2) In that context, as @GGreenwald knows—and I think @RustyRockets would see outside an interview with an agenda-driven (yet self-proclaimed agendaless) revenue hound like Glenn—media focusing on Biden would be not just bothsidesism but putting a finger on the election scales.

(PS3) I'll add, as I neglected to focus on China here, that Trump and the FSB's bid to goad U.S. media into focusing on Joe Biden, Ukraine, and China came in the context of significant public *and* private intel (cf. Bolton, Pillsbury, &c) that Trump tried to collude with China.

(PS4) Like Glenn I spent my career—in my case as a public defender—opposing the government and defending individual rights. But it wasn't the CIA alone saying this was disinformation. Giuliani's own sources admitted they were playing politics and had nothing on Biden *or* Hunter.

(PS5) Otherwise, I agree with 85% of what Brand (@rustyrockets) says. I don't trust pols. Don't think intel agents are forthcoming. Don't like Big Tech algos. Don't like biased media. And I think government *really should* reflect our values. Glenn doesn't stand for these things.

(PS6) I appreciate the shout-out from Brand in the video Glenn linked to, and do believe (as he noted) that ethical curation of the data archive is key. I see Glenn as standing for a decontextualized ethical absolutism *only when it serves his agenda*—meaning it's not absolutism.

(PS7) Had someone said to me in mid-2019, "I'm writing a book of curatorial journalism on Joe/Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine and China," I'd have said "go for it—but you won't have enough material, as Ukraine says they did nothing wrong and the China evidence is even weaker."

(PS8) In Proof of Corruption (Macmillan, 2020), I ethically *run through* the claims on the Bidens. I bet Glenn doesn't know that—that my book *doesn't* ignore the allegations. But I couldn't find any substantiation for them, especially as all the accusers had by then *recanted*.

(PS9) Glenn's game is that on some level—in a decontextualized, vacuum-sealed way—what he's saying is right and fair and no one could disagree with it. The problem is that when you're an expert in the area he's talking about, you *instantly* see all the key info he's leaving out.