Thread by @capitolhunters

All worrying about today's WaPo claim that "prosecutors recommended against charging" Matt Gaetz - it's actually good news; it's by @DevlinBarrett who wrote that FBI found "no grand [Jan 6] conspiracy" the week before the 1st seditious conspiracy charge 1/
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

The WaPo source on Gaetz is an anonymous "people familiar with the matter" - not prosecutors. Not only would it be illegal for DOJ to leak, absolutely no one at DOJ is going to talk to Barrett since his previous story about the Mar-a-Lago docs was used against DOJ in court. 2/

@DevlinBarrett's Mar-a-Lago "leak" was used by both Trump and Judge Cannon to justify shutting down the FBI's investigation of Trump - because there were leaks. Barrett almost derailed the whole DOJ investigation - no one there would talk to him now. 3/

https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1570755147193810946

The two recent WaPo stories use identical language to describe their anonymous sources: "according to people familiar with the matter". Those people are not DOJ. They're on the other side, people who want this story in the press now, for some reason. It's planted propaganda. 4/

What do the familiar anonymous sources like to tell @DevlinBarrett about DOJ prosecutions? They like to tell him what DOJ is unlikely to do. This week that "a conviction [of Gaetz] is unlikely". In January, that "charges for Trump ...seem unlikely". 5/
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

The Jan 5 WaPo story on the Capitol attack claimed FBI found no ' grand conspiracy', and painted attackers as "mostly everyday Americans including community leaders and small-business owners". The source: Jonathan Turley, who testified for Trump during his 1st impeachment. 6/

One week after that Jan 5 WaPo story, the DOJ finally made an announcement - that they'd indicted militia leader Stewart Rhodes and ten of his Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy. The WaPo story seems meant to undercut this news. 7/
justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-…

The WaPo language pooh-poohing a 'grand conspiracy' is oddly similar to that in a Reuters article 6 months prior, that cited anonymous sources saying FBI found no 'grand scheme'. It mentioned Alex Jones by name - and 3 days later FBI arrested Alex Jones' partner Owen Shroyer. 8/

The upshot: many stories seem planted. It feels awful to think that, but the pattern is undeniable. And big arrests are often preceded by planted stories that try to undercut that news. So if Gaetz is nervous enough now to plant one, be joyful- something big is likely coming. 9/

What IS distressing, though, is that blue-checked accounts are amplifying this latest planted story, the same way they amplified others. (Here's the Sep 6 fallout.) Please, do your homework before posting! Don't let yourself be manipulated so easily. 10/

https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1570573159409262592

Good journalists - you've got to police your own, or your reputation gets sullied. Other fields have anonymous peer review, where bs & self-deception & mistakes can be quietly purged. Without that it has to be public, which is awkward & uncomfortable - but has to be done. 11/

Planted stories like the WaPo one are not harmless, even if indictments come, they have a goal: to muddle the public mind, create doubt, & provide ammunition for conspiracy stories. Here's #IamRyanFournier of Students for Trump (at the Capitol Jan 6) playing to his audience. 12/

Also - multiple media folks are making a major reading mistake. @DevlinBarrett NEVER said the sources for his Gaetz story are prosecutors or associated with the DOJ in any way. The sources are just 'people', who told a story about 'prosecutors'. That's all - read it again. 13/

Predictably, Devlin Barrett's back with another deceptively-sourced, election-altering WaPo story. "People" told Barrett in Sep. that DOJ was not prosecuting Matt Gaetz - now that DOJ IS prosecuting Hunter Biden. When all else fails, bring up Hunter. 14/
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

As before, the writing's deceptive enough to fool you. The story starts with a claim about federal agents, and only at the end of the sentence do you learn that the source is just "people". Reminder: so far zero of Barrett's "people say" DOJ predictions have come true. 15/

What's especially awful here is that Barrett seems to have willfully misled Hunter Biden's lawyer, who then gives an angry quote about leaks from federal agents. But sneaky Barrett NEVER claims in writing that agents leaked, just cites "people". How is this tolerated at WaPo? 16/

Media Twitter need to up its reading skills. Last week everyone stoned Maggie Haberman for something she didn't do. (Re-read it!) But it's Barrett who is doing Trump's spadework. When we react emotionally, don't read carefully, we can be misled - that's how disinfo works. 17/

Marcy Wheeler reminds us that Barrett pulled a similar anonymously-sourced, meant-to-affect-the-election surprise in 2016. That story proved to be false. Who wants to take bets on Barrett's 2022 stories? DMs are open. 18/

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1578110545479274496