Thread by @SethAbramson

I spoke to The Washington Post about this feed because the evidence compiled here is now more voluminous and probative than any one article—this one included—can capture. We can—and must—trace how it tracks with events and keep doing so.

So far, so good. washingtonpost.com/news/the-inter…

1/ One thing Avi—author of the Post article—said to me is that the Post has to be cautious, conservative and skeptical. To a great extent, I agree with and appreciate that stance. But Trump-Russia is an info-poor environment—and there's much we know for certain that's unreported.

2/ One reason much of what you read here goes unreported is the same reason this article (in a sense) fails—and I don't mean that unkindly to Avi. As I said above, no one article can scrape the surface of the most complex, encompassing federal criminal investigation of our lives.

3/ Those points in The Washington Post article that say, in effect, "Abramson's proof for this is that"—and there are a number of such summaries—invariably fail because, as readers of this feed know, I don't discuss the evidence we have on (say) Trump Tower Moscow in *one* tweet.

4/ The very purpose of this feed is to draw together hundreds of well-researched major-media articles from the past that have suddenly become relevant again but have been forgotten by journalists and now sit unread online. This feed comprises—reflexively—"curatorial journalism."

5/ One thing I *don't* do—which, sadly, Avi implies I do—is give equal weight to every piece of evidence. I wasn't trained to do that as a criminal investigator, and *certainly* didn't do it the many years I was a criminal attorney. A Tom Arnold tweet doesn't equal a BBC article.

6/ Another mistake Avi makes—but then, many do—is I didn't start regularly appearing on CNN, BBC, and other outlets because the feed was popular. Producers have been explicit about my research on the Mayflower (4/27/16), the TIHDC (3/31/16), and other key events being *accurate*.

7/ The other thing I've sought to do, besides curate the large amount of "lost"—but relevant—news the digital age produces, is explain complex events as best I can. As a professor in addition to an attorney, distilling complicated ideas into digestible material is sort of my job.

8/ And for all that certain major-media snobs (not at The Washington Post, but a few other outlets Avi mentions) think they're snarking me when they call me a "writing professor" and "writer"—I've authored a number of books—a feed doesn't become popular unless it's well-written.

9/ That said, one thing that never makes it into these articles is my title and teaching practice: I'm a Communication Arts & Studies professor at University of New Hampshire; my teaching areas include digital journalism, legal advocacy, professional writing, and cultural theory.

10/ Those first two areas intersect with the feed pretty clearly. But the focus of *both* my professional *and* creative writing teaching practice is *digital* writing—specifically, using it to distill complex concepts for a general audience in a way that's honest and compelling.

11/ The focus of my creative writing—as an author—was "process-oriented writing," meaning writing that illustrates techniques for condensing and curating information. So those who think my work as an author wasn't critical to the development of this feed don't know me or my work.

12/ My work in cultural theory is in "post-postmodernism"—and specifically, post-postmodernism in (a) politics, and (b) popular culture. I began writing academic articles about why Trump is popular the day he announced—so I'm not a newcomer to discussion of his political persona.

13/ But most important is my background as an investigator and attorney. I spent—all told, in both roles—*nine years* reading police reports, interviewing witnesses and defendants, and testing the strength of evidence both in strategy sessions, real-time research, and courtrooms.

14/ So the story that's *easy* to write about this feed is that it's popular because it's entertaining or says what people want to hear. The *truth* is far more complex—my credentials, experience, and research are suited to what I'm doing here.

My hope is that readers see that.

15/ So I get upset when The New Republic and The Atlantic get facts wrong about me and the feed—that's bad journalism. But when The Washington Post misses the point of what this feed is, it doesn't bother me—neither this feed nor this author are conducive to a 1,500-word article.

PS/ Those upset about the article—I hear you. But good investigators and attorneys develop and test a "theory of the case"—and that's what this feed is. If the theory is sound, we'll know (we already have many indications). So whatever the Post says, time—not the Post—will judge.