It occurred to me that one of the dishonest things about @marcthiessen’s column that I pointed out yesterday was actually even more egregious and is another affirmative factual error (a charitable word choice) that the WP should correct./15
When he backed his criticism of the FBI's decision to open a full investigation by misleadingly citing a passage about warrant renewal applications, Thiessen inserted "[the Trump campaign]” into a quote from the report. In context, "the target" instead meant Carter Page./16
Ironically, this comes in the same graph that falsely says the FBI presented a doctored email to the FISA court as evidence. That's wrong–it was not shown to the court–but Thiessen himself demonstrably presented a falsely doctored Durham report quote to WP readers as evidence./17
Indeed, Thiessen's quotation of the report's words "both then and in hindsight" to characterize the FBI's decision to open a full inquiry in July 2016 is also dishonest because in context, "then" was 2017, when the FBI renewed the Page FISA warrants after talking to Danchenko./18
I have submitted a formal corrections request about all these matters to corrections@washpost.com. Let's see what happens. /19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@marcthiessen wrote a shoddy Washington Post column using as a foil the headline of my piece yesterday assessing how the Durham inquiry fell flat after years of political hype. (He didn’t engage with its substance, of course.) A dissection follows. /1 washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
As an initial matter, Thiessen got his start at a lobbying firm that included two named partners – Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – who were convicted of felonies in the Russia investigation & pardoned by Trump. He does not disclose that conflict to the WP’s readers. /2
Thiessen opens by insinuating that I am downplaying Durham bc I'm implicated in (his tendentious portrayal of) the media’s Trump-Russia coverage. Aside from whether he is accurately describing Mueller's complex findings, I wasn't part of the NYT’s Trump-Russia coverage team./3
In 1999, when I went to work for The Miami Herald as a cub reporter just out of college and he was its publisher, he took a mentor-like interest in me. We got to know each other over occasional dinners/drinks, a Miami Heat game, etc. /2
In late 2001 or early 2002, when I was thinking about applying for a Knight Foundation journalism fellowship at Yale Law School, he encouraged it (he has a law degree from Penn) and wrote a strong letter of recommendation that really helped me stand out from the pack. /3
The Biden administration is formally launching its effort to persuade Congress to reauthorize Section 702, the warrantless surveillance law set to expire 12/31/23, this morning this letter to Congress from Merrick Garland and Avril Haines. (Story to come.) int.nyt.com/data/documentt…
As part of the 702 push Matt Olsen, the head of the DOJ national security division, is giving this speech at the Brookings Institution this morning, streaming now. brookings.edu/events/a-conve…
Here is an explainer breaking down complicated and consequential legal and technical issues raised by Section 702. nytimes.com/article/warran…
The Wall Street Journal opinion section published a meandering column by Holman Jenkins today riffing off last week's article on the Durham investigation that I wrote with @ktbenner and @adamgoldmanNYT. It was weirdly filled with ad hominem attacks on me (just me) by name. /1
Besides the unnecessary personal attacks, Jenkins claimed I had written something last August that I did not remember writing and could not find in the archives. So I wrote to him requesting a correction./2
From time to time, journalists have to re-learn that it is a mistake to engage with, rather than ignore, bad-faith actors; they use it for more fodder. Jenkins says he will write about our exchange. Rather than let him misrepresent things, I’m going to post its entirety here./3
Among the highlights:
1.Durham opened a criminal investigation into possible financial crimes involving Trump, based on a tip from Italian officials. While it had nothing to do w/ the Russia inquiry, Barr decided Durham should keep control of it. He never brought charges.
2. Durham went after the private emails of a George Soros aide based on a claim in a dubious Russian intel memo. A judge twice rejected his request for an order for info about them, so he turned to grand jury powers to get them, leading to internal dissent on his team.