Read on Twitter
(THREAD) Wow, @CJR and @LyzL. Why didn't you just ask me for proof of everything I told you? You thought I'd say things I didn't have proof of? What type of operation plans to question if someone is telling the truth, then doesn't ask them to provide the proof? Well, here we go:
(PS) I have maybe 50 2017 emails from Josh Meyer, Senior Investigative Reporter from POLITICO. Shall I post all of them? The details of our phone calls, in which he called me "one hell of an investigative reporter" and asked me to exclusively to provide my research to POLITICO?
(PS2) I declined, when Josh Meyer—Senior Investigative Reporter from POLITICO—told me his bosses wanted my research secretly, without my name on the articles even as a researcher. He told me POLITICO takes things from the internet all the time without credit, why not my work too?
I told Lyz Lenz if she contacted Luke Turner, he'd lie about his scores of contacts with me. She called him, he said he'd never had any contact with me. So why didn't she ask me to produce the emails I have from him? Here's one of the scores (just the start—his emails were long):
Everyone Lyz spoke to for her article said "he's an honest and conscientious person." So when POLITICO and Luke Turner said I'd given her inaccurate info, why didn't she follow up with me as she said she would? She didn't—and now @CJR has to run corrections. Such a waste of time!
Wait, what's this? Luke Turner admitting I brought Shia LaBeouf to the attention of Luke Turner—just as I told @CJR? Why not ask for proof? I always have it. My Substack is *called* Proof. I marshaled 12,000 sources for my books. They thought I don't keep records of *everything*?
This is oddest of all, @CJR/ @LyzL. I told you all 3 Proof books were bestsellers—that's publicly confirmable. You had a fact-checker contact me—and the issue never came up. Then you wrote that Proof of Corruption wasn't a bestseller. Do you see why folks are doubting major media?
For some reason @CJR claims I called the P&W rankings "scientific." The opposite is true: across six years of doing them—and 75 pages of methodology articles—the rankings were consistently called "probative but non-scientific." Why lie about *that*? Link: https://www.pw.org/content/the_2012_rankings_of_graduate_programs_in_creative_writing_frequently_asked_questions
