DisneyDeniszen could not have read Proof of Conspiracy, as he published his review early on the day it was published, and clearly he says nothing that would have required him to have the book in hand at all. I have read about 100 pages, reading carefully, checking the endnotes, and the other sources I have. I have read his earlier book, Proof of Collusion and all of the serious books on the subject that I could find, including the Mueller report--Isikoff and Corn, Hardy, McCabe,Clapper, and others. I have looked for serious books presenting the case that might present Trump’s action in a more positive light. Facts that might balance the argument are hard to find. I tried to read Jerome Corsi’s book, which announces in its title that it is intended as rhetoric and not research, and it is page after page conspiratorial speculation, in which Bush I and II, Clinton and Obama are presented equally as evil leaders of the deep state. It cannot be balanced because it has no weight. As there is no evidence of the existence of a deep state in Corsi’s book or anywhere else, as far as I know, a careful reader can only think that it is baloney. The evidence is not much stronger than that adduced by WWG1WGA in QAnon: An Invitation to the Great Awakening (which is fiction posing as factual reporting and barely literate).
Abramson’s two volumes are completely responsible and useful research. He gives us the narrative in a straight-forward form. Every questionable claim is footnoted. Abramson’s narrative is consistent with Mueller. One wishes he would have had access to the investigative resources that Mueller did not or was not allowed to use. The writing of Proof of Conspiracy is solid and serviceable. The Disney reviewer might mislead readers to think there is a lot of fancy dancing in the prose. There is none. Abramson’s let’s the story carry the weight, and it does.
I challenge other reviewers to bring forth claims that they find untrue and evidence to support their suspicions. It is highly unlikely that a book of this size and scope does not have some mistaken information. I am sure Abramson himself would be happy to have it pointed out.


