Here's a tweet which @Legatum has now (sensibly) deleted which raises a number of questions. THREAD 
1. The Charity Commission sought and obtained assurances that @LegatumInst and @Legatum would be independent. So why is the latter tweeting in support of the former?
2. If @LegatumInst really is delivering an educational and non-political purpose why does @Legatum think attacks on the former serve a political objective?
3. The motives of those questioning the lawfulness of @LegatumInst's activities are irrelevant. The question is whether they are lawful. I believe, on expert advice, they are not. If they are not why should my motivations give @LegatumInst a free pass to break the law?
4. For the record I can show I wrote about abuses of charity law prior to the referendum. I'd respectfully suggest @LegatumInst focus on acting lawfully rather casting misconceived aspersions. /ENDS
5. I see @Legatum's statement - which can be read here legatum.com/news/legatum-g… - repeats the same basic errors as its deleted tweet.
6. But it adds some further errors. It accuses me of unspecified "dirty tricks". This is a rather cowardly attempt at an unsubstantiated smear: what are those "tricks", @Legatum? And how do you say they are "dirty"? And will you say who wrote your statement?
7. Remarkably, an organisation funded by billionaires complains of "well-funded and outspoken political operatives". For the record I have personally received not one penny for my political activities. Indeed they cost me money both directly and indirectly.
8. I should say, because I believe in transparency, that @GoodLawProject receives in donations about £30,000 per annum. But it does not pay me anything. And the work done on @LegatumInst is in my name. /ENDS (AGAIN).
