10/ And what is most striking to me is how the "guardians of the internet" wanted to sell their story when they owned it in Slate & The New Yorker. WHY was that so different than how Durham put it in indictment?
11/11 I emailed one of big-wigs at Ops-Trust and got no response. And lawyers for Joffe, Tea Leaves, & Georgia Tech researchers ignored my requests for comment. So I guess we will have to wait to parse @charlie_savage spin & clean-up.
PT3/ Now this is interesting. I hadn't seen The New Yorker's clean up. So read that too and then read Durham's indictment of Sussmann and compare. Difference b/w version 2016/2018 & indictment are striking. newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Interesting (and potentially huge) discovery from Durham filings. Today's piece provides the details. Here are highlights. 1/ @FDRLSTthefederalist.com/2022/02/23/let…
2/ Durham's discussion of origins of Alfa Bank hoax and data mining differ significant from Slate's original discussion of how the tech folks discovered Trump's supposed secret communication network with the Russian bank. AND differs significantly from how The New Yorker told it
3/ The New Yorker's story was in 2018 and "Max" i.e. Joffe was the source. If you re-read Slate & The New Yorker & compare to what Durham said, the versions differ greatly.
2/ ICYMI I addressed the request to strike @FDRLSTthefederalist.com/2022/02/17/spe… today and note that the standard doesn't seem met b/c no prejudice--voir dire can take care of that.
3/ Durham's team makes that point here while also noting that it didn't file in bad faith etc.
BREAKING: Michael Sussmann's attorneys file Motion to Dismiss.
2/ This was to be expected. More later as about to do a hit on election integrity.
3/ Just finished quick read, lawsplainer will be forthcoming but in short: This motion seeks dismissal by arguing the facts alleged in the indictment EVEN IF TRUE do not state a crime. In other words, Sussmann did not commit a crime by lying to FBI 's Baker.
OMgosh: "What merits coverage?" Compare Mueller Special Counsel with Durham re coverage.
2/ LOL: "Old news." Yup, just as I said: Sussmann-friendly folks fed a cleaned up version of the story the same "journalist" who wrote this clean up piece, back in September to get a head of the news. So now it is "old news."
3/ Of course, I only realized that after Durham's filing hit and we doing some research and came across Savage's previous pro bono defense work.
THREADETEE: PSA As Sussmann-friendly media tries to tell you that Durham's Friday motion was a nothingburger, you need only read @FDRLST detailed analysis of the filing, which Sussmann's legal team impliedly acquiesed in its correctness. 1/