Including in the Washington Post It’s obvious that right wingers did not read the report. They have been relying on each other’s interpretations and it’s all wrong. Here’s the very trustworthy NY Times’ Charlie Savage: Marc Thiessen 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. 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. 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. He links a screenshot, not the piece nyti.ms/3pSTil6, then moves goalposts. The hype was that Durham would deliver proof of a deep state conspiracy & prosecute people like Comey, Brennan & Clinton-not just find flaws/abuses like an inspector general already did. Kudos for not pretending the FBI opened the inquiry based on the Steele dossier. Still, in cherrypicking some agents portraying the info as thin, he omits Durham’s concession that “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” it. 2x bait & switch.…