You know those threads you read on Twitter and you think to yourself, ‘Self, this can’t be real life. This can’t be our government and our media.’ But then you remember it’s 2019 and it seems like everything is a mess of conspiracy and crazy and you have no choice other than to accept that this IS real life.
This thread from Svetlana Lokhova is one of those threads wherein she takes the Wall Street Journal and ‘dirty-ops guy for the FBI’ Stefan Halper apart.
Known dirty-ops guy for the FBI Stefan Halper told @WSJ in 2017 that I had an affair with @GenFlynn based on Halper's observation about a dinner Flynn and me attended in Cambridge in 2014. Except I've always said Halper was not at that dinner, a new report just confirmed that. /1 pic.twitter.com/7MfSISYW4L
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
Halper wasn’t even at the dinner.
Wow.
Despite this, @WSJ told senior people at my university that I had an affair with Flynn. When they had the audacity to contact me, just after I gave birth to my first child, my partner responded that allegation was baseless, upsetting and hurtful, that their source was malicious/2 pic.twitter.com/i8fNDDWkDb
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
These are some seriously horrible people.
First NBC, now WSJ. What was really going ON here!?
Despite knowing that allegations were false, and the fact that @WSJ were told that 'Ms Lokhova is currently unwell and your enquiries have made that condition worse', they went on to publish a false story based on fake 'intelligence' of Stefan Halper. /3 pic.twitter.com/vok8JYaiJX
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
Seems our friends in the media were publishing a good many ‘false stories’.
We complained straight after publication: "The article contains incorrect information. This is in addition to the malicious and false allegations you have made about [Lokhova]." @WSJ refused to retract or even amend the story /4 pic.twitter.com/uq7hQ51WCV
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
Prof Kent who was also at dinner wrote to @WSJ "The dinner was a formal dinner with assigned seating, so it would have been impossible for Ms Lohkova to have approached [Flynn]…It clearly shows that Peter Martland sat on Mike's right hand and that Chris sat on his left." /5 pic.twitter.com/eariWwrWO4
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
‘Assigned seating, so it would have been impossible for Ms. Lokhova to have approached Flynn.’
Prof Kent also wrote that 'everyone who attended that dinner was clearly acceptable to Sir Richard Dearlove and posed no security risk; otherwise they would not have been allow to attend.' However, none of this was included in the @WSJ hit job on Flynn, they refused to amend. /6 pic.twitter.com/668m4VHYKB
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
None of it was included in the WSJ piece because it didn’t support the narrative they were trying to push.
What followed was over a week of phone calls by my partner trying to unsuccessfully get @WSJ to retract or at least amend their article, with calls taking place in the middle of night (time zone difference with UK) whilst I was trying to calm down a crying newborn. /7
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
When my partner asked why did they need to plaster my name across the headlines, @WSJ said they could not understand why I was so upset. They said they were not trying to get me, they were after Flynn! /8
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
They were after Flynn.
That really says it all, doesn’t it?
After him.
/9 As it became clear that @WSJ were not going to budge, and this was a political hit, we were forced to turn to lawyers. A legal letter was sent to WSJ: https://t.co/HwIPg1rbKD
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
Meep.
The WSJ "have deliberately sought to give the impression that our client had an ulterior motive and that she had initiated contact with a view to initiating some form of subterfuge or espionage on the part of the Russian Government." /10
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
.."to achieve the purpose of your article, which was clearly to impugn Mr Flynn’s character, it was a requirement to portray Ms Lokhova and her behaviour as so suspicious that it left the reader in no doubt that she was an agent of an “adversarial power” /11
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
…"You painted this distorted picture of events by deliberately omitting to inform your readers that this was an anodyne and unremarkable meeting which was not suspicious in any way. "/12
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
..".your article contains a number of fundamental factual inaccuracies which were clearly calculated to mislead readers"../13
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
The monied WSJ responded with a long letter disputing legal technicalities. The highlight was to argue that a report naming Russia as an adversarial nation dated Dec 2014 justified calling Russia an adversarial nation in February 2014. Pointless waste of money to continue. /14
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
The @WSJ fake story was placed deliberately. It was duly picked up and cited by numerous other outlets, most notably Luke Harding, friend of Chris Steele. Halper's sole-sourced disinformation has entered history, unchallenged. /15 pic.twitter.com/6IqE6xNBXC
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) May 19, 2019
Friend of Chris Steele.
Well alrighty then.
Related:
‘And there was MUCH rejoicing’: Both Ed and Brian Krassenstein’s Twitter accounts magically go POOF
Join the conversation as a VIP Member