Quote:
|
I had to skip a lot of this bullshit, but I can't let this one go. What the fuck does this mean?
|
It means what it says. The media decided Trump was guilty of collusion before Mueller had the final word.
Quote:
|
First, the media is not a monolithic entity acting in concert. Each newsroom reported tons of evidence of everyone in his sphere meeting with Russia, asking for information (including him), and connecting the dots. But this "the media is guilty of __________" (other than trying to sell ad space) is for weak fucking minds.
|
I noted above, there are exceptions. But the large media outlets (WaPo, the Big three, NYTimes, LA Times... they all ran with the story Trump was almost certainly guilty. And as Taibbi, who'd school an unlearned blowhard like you on the facts, has detailed, these outlets ran with loads of dubious "evidence" of such guilt. And never self-corrected when it was later determined they were full of shit.
Quote:
|
Second, the Mueller report (according to fucking Barr) declined to bring additional indictments for lack of evidence that would reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
Oh, so Barr is the water handler for Trump. Look, I can understand why you'd cling to that. But get a grip. He knows that report is leaking. And he knows that if he's presenting an unduly exculpatory picture now, he's only fucking himself and his boss beyond comprehension in the near future.
Quote:
|
And, as it relates to the President, I think Mueller is deferring to Congress to determine whether there was collusion that amounts to meeting the lower high crime and misdemeanor threshold.
|
I agree. Following Jaworski in Watergate. But that misses the issue, which was the media telling everyone proof of
crimes by Trump which could be prosecuted in court, rather than things for which he could be impeached, was all but definitely coming. We were promised indictable offenses, and more indictments, included Don Jr.'s. They couldn't even find a basis to indict Jr. for
meeting with Russians.
Quote:
|
There is no world in which the evidence we have at this very moment demonstrates that there was collusion. I can list it all, but what's the fucking point?
|
Except the Mueller has been quoted by Barr as saying there's no evidence of collusion -- even by Don Jr., who admitted meeting with Russians!
There was no criminal offense here. Telling the Russians to hack Hillary may offend you. To others, that may just be politics. But here's what the ex-head of the FBI just said: It's not a crime. Nor is meeting with Russians to get dirt on a candidate, apparently.
Quote:
|
Covering ever facet of this case is literally what the media is there for. If you're going to conflate talking heads with all of the media, then you truly do have a weak fucking mind. And whenever there was a talking head that drew this conclusion based on the existing evidence, there was always someone from the other side to draw the exact opposite conclusion.
|
Read Taibbi on this point. There was a waterfall of "opinion reporters" pronouncing Trump guilty on one side, and a bullshit propaganda network (Fox) defending him on the other. WaPo, Times, Buzzfeed, you name it... They were all running the Trump is Going Down story. Trump didn't even have the usual conservatives behind him. Kristol and NRO were in the NeverTrump camp. He had the Washington Times, which no one reads.
Ty loves to accuse me of false equivalence. To see parity between the depth and range of voices convicting Trump before the report was out versus those defending him is comparing a A380 and a private jet.
Quote:
|
The fact that Barr and the entire Republican Party can succeed in pulling you this far in the opposite direction of what your eyes can actually see, while trying to bury the actual fucking report is mesmerizingly amazing. They took the entire report and boiled it down to two conclusions they want cemented before the thing leaks and you are their willing fucking tool, tool.
|
You keep clinging to that vain hope. The report will be leaked at some point, and it may say Trump engaged in shady shit. What it won't say is that Trump engaged in collusion with the Russian Govt which was a crime. And I use that little caveat at the end there because its obvious you and everyone else who did not get what he expected in this report is pivoting to "There's collusion... it's just not technically criminal."
If you're saying that, I've a preferable alternative for you: Say nothing.