A Vox reporter interviews a Rolling Stones reporter who basically admits the media had Trump Derangement Syndrome so bad that they were willing to believe and push any narrative to get him out of office.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/18286902/trump-mueller-report-russia-matt-taibbi
Too little, too late for the media. Although hearing a few voices out there calling fouls on themselves is at least something.
You can definitely file this question under "uhhhhhh, ya think?"
posted by like_thatYou can definitely file this question under "uhhhhhh, ya think?"
Or under "more honesty than the reporters had in mind".
I would lean yes, but with the caveat to say we still not know exactly what is in the report.
Also, I split the media into sections: Cable: Yes, botched it. Social: Yes, the libs on twitter failed so far. Print: Yes and no. NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.
posted by ptown_trojans_1NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.
LOL....Sean Hannity gets it right once in a while, too.
I think Zucker said it best, which was "we reported the news as we knew it". Which is an end around on the facts, that it was ok to source a story or have someone push a deliberately false narrative as long as you, personally, weren't the one saying/writing it.
Trump wasn't going to serve probably even 2 years. Collusion was reported as fact, daily. There is very little of the volumes said and written over the past 2 years that actually holds up to scrutiny. To claim anyone, WaPo included, was mostly good is a gross exagerattion.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I would lean yes, but with the caveat to say we still not know exactly what is in the report.
Also, I split the media into sections: Cable: Yes, botched it. Social: Yes, the libs on twitter failed so far. Print: Yes and no. NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.
You know this sounds just like the birthers that said “well, we still haven’t seen the LONG FORM of his birth certificate”.
posted by jmogYou know this sounds just like the birthers that said “well, we still haven’t seen the LONG FORM of his birth certificate”.
They are lining up to question Mueller's conclusion of no collusion. Even that is being mischaracterized - some are claiming "there wasn't enough evidence for BEYOND a reasonable doubt". When, in actuality, the Barr summary specifically says they did not conspire or coordinate despite "multiple offers". It reads like there's little to no evidence of collusion and not simply falling short of some legal hurdle. Some of the chuckle heads are prepared to die on the hill of "Don Jr.'s Trump tower meeting and Trump's campaign joke - that's proof enough for me".
Especially in contrast with the comments on obstruction, for and against, and specifically saying it does not exonerate him on obstruction. It all adds up to collusion being a big nothingburger.
Ptown,
If there is little to no evidence of collusion, then how do you feel about former Obama staffers making the rounds to spread deliberate lies undermining the legitimacy and competency of a sitting President? And consider they may have put this all in motion before leaving office.....which, maybe there's your conspiracy and treason.
posted by gutThey are lining up to question Mueller's conclusion of no collusion. Even that is being mischaracterized - some are claiming "there wasn't enough evidence for BEYOND a reasonable doubt". When, in actuality, the Barr summary specifically says they did not conspire or coordinate despite "multiple offers". It reads like there's little to no evidence of collusion and not simply falling short of some legal hurdle. Some of the chuckle heads are prepared to die on the hill of "Don Jr.'s Trump tower meeting and Trump's campaign joke - that's proof enough for me".
Especially in contrast with the comments on obstruction, for and against, and specifically saying it does not exonerate him on obstruction. It all adds up to collusion being a big nothingburger.
posted by gutPtown,
If there is little to no evidence of collusion, then how do you feel about former Obama staffers making the rounds to spread deliberate lies undermining the legitimacy and competency of a sitting President? And consider they may have put this all in motion before leaving office.....which, maybe there's your conspiracy and treason.
On collusion, or did the campaign coordinate with the Russians, I agree, it seems from the letter that the evidence is simply not there. On obstruction, I will wait to see the report before giving the media a full grade. I'll also say it depends on what you mean lies? If you mean someone like John Brennan going around suggesting he knows there is evidence, and there turns out to be none, yeah that is bad.
But, your last point I'm not sold on and makes a leap. Just because there could not be specific evidence of collusion does mean automatically mean the Obama administration just made stuff up or conspired/ committed acts of treason. I would have to see the report for that to see if there was any case to say that. Those are serious charges that I'm not sure the country wants to go down that road.
posted by ptown_trojans_1
Those are serious charges that I'm not sure the country wants to go down that road.
The country wasn't really ready for accusations of collusion with Russia on a sitting President but guess what? It happened. Serious charges are serious regardless of who throws them out there.
I fully understand not liking Trump, so I get it. But even for people like me (don't like him but not filling my pants and slobbering), there seems to be a glaring double standard going on here.
posted by CenterBHSFanThe country wasn't really ready for accusations of collusion with Russia on a sitting President but guess what? It happened. Serious charges are serious regardless of who throws them out there.
I fully understand not liking Trump, so I get it. But even for people like me (don't like him but not filling my pants and slobbering), there seems to be a glaring double standard going on here.
Sure, I get that. But, we were doing the same dance at the end of the Bush administration about Iraq, the CIA torture debates , etc. and it was determined to not go back and drudge up those details and debate treason or lies.
I'll consider Mueller report pretty much the end of it. It's time to move on to 2020. It also seems like, looking at polls, most of the country agrees and would rather focus on more important issues.
posted by ptown_trojans_1
I'll consider Mueller report pretty much the end of it. It's time to move on to 2020. It also seems like, looking at polls, most of the country agrees and would rather focus on more important issues.
Now there’s the easy way out. It is hardly time to move on. It is time to go back and investigate how this REALLY got started, who started it and why, and fully detail the illicit spying, false warrants, corruption and collusion at the FBI and DoJ, abuse of power, and now CYA. The People of the nation deserve nothing less.
We are just getting started.
No idea who this person is, but this video she shared brings the lulz. https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1110029494599995392?s=20
posted by ptown_trojans_1On obstruction, I will wait to see the report before giving the media a full grade.
But how do you obstruct a sham investigation? This was a DELIBERATE effort to obstruct and undermine a sitting POTUS, by previous administration officials and their media sycophants. That is true whether the investigation itself had merit and justification, because these people were pushing deliberate lies about evidence and guilt.
And that is notably different from Iraq, Iran/Contra, etc because those scandals had to do with how an Adminstration conducted affairs, but in this case you have one political party weaponizing the DOJ and media to go after the other party.
I'd add that I think the Dossier was critical in making the case for an investigation, it's what connected the dots and suggested there was a lot more smoke than was there. Comey (or McCabe? Rosenstein?) testified without the dossier there's no FISA warrant....and it's reasonably clear that without the FISA warrants, there's not much of an investigation. A Dossier, by the way, funded by Clinton and the DNC and basically manufactured by Russian operatives. Right there staring you in the face is evidence of collusion, perhaps unwitting, that you wanted to accused Trump of.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis, but the political realities just make that impossible to follow through. Who knows without the context of the full report. Also, I think it is a leap to assume that one political party weaponized the DOJ and media without reading the full report.
On your last point, I've read differently. Maybe it was one data point, that offered clues, but it did not start or lead to the investigation/ special council. I even think Chris Wallace at Fox made this point last weekend.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis, but the political realities just make that impossible to follow through. Who knows without the context of the full report. Also, I think it is a leap to assume that one political party weaponized the DOJ and media without reading the full report.
On your last point, I've read differently. Maybe it was one data point, that offered clues, but it did not start or lead to the investigation/ special council. I even think Chris Wallace at Fox made this point last weekend.
Bottom line, I think you are assuming too much without the full context of the report.
Like I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public.
posted by jmogLike I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public.
Seriously? It is not at all the case. Instead of the full report, we have a 4 page summary from a political appointee, where that AG made the recommendation to not move forward on the issue of obstruction.
posted by jmogLike I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public.
Lol. IDGAF if they release the report or what is in it, but if you really think these are at all comparable you are off your rocker.
The obstruction stuff in absence of any other crimes is amazingly lame. The left is so desperate that they want to charge the POTUS with covering up something that definitively did not happen. Better use of their time than coming up with a 2020 candidate that isn't a total piece of shit, I suppose.
Ptown and Goon are working on full tard. Unreal how you think that this whole thing isnt a sham.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis, but the political realities just make that impossible to follow through. Who knows without the context of the full report. Also, I think it is a leap to assume that one political party weaponized the DOJ and media without reading the full report.
On your last point, I've read differently. Maybe it was one data point, that offered clues, but it did not start or lead to the investigation/ special council. I even think Chris Wallace at Fox made this point last weekend.
I dont agree with all of them, but you bring up some valid points. One thing I can't get behind is your take on invesitgating the previous admin by saying the country doesn't want to go down that road. Two points:
1. You don't think it's important to keep our government in check, especially when it comes to the executive branch abusing its powers? I don't care if it is a republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian etc in office. Executive powers being abused is extremely concerned for our nation. It's the foundation to why our founding fathers created the constitution. I get that some investigations are just a sham to make people look bad, but keeping the executive branch in check is extremely important. In a perfect world though, wouldn't it just be nice for everyone to quite blindly allowing the government to chip away at their rights, so the Government wouldn't be big enough to have this type of power to abuse?
2. You say you don't think the country should/want to go down this road yet we just went thru a 2 year investigation. The media and democrats used these as a crutch to take unverified shots and work people up into a frenzy. Just look at the video I posted above. Hell, you don't even need the video. How many times did we see a "BOMBSHELL, this time trump is finished" story the past 2 years? People are still in a frenzy. I just road my bike near the whtie house yesterday and there was a rally for the Mueller report to be released (somebody should tell them the news that Barr already is 100% committed to releasing the report and testifying). I just don't see how you believe the country shouldn't go down this path, but you were perfectly ok with this investigation that has pretty much turned into a nothing burger. Overall I think your views are left moderate and you're pretty fair, but when it comes to Obama you seem to immediately put on your partisan hat and become his protector/apologist. You did this after Trump was inaugurated. After the Obama admin and his supporters for a good 6-7 years blamed bush, you proclaimed nobody was allowed to bring up Obama now that he was out of the office. I can't get behind that logic.
posted by GOONx19Lol. IDGAF if they release the report or what is in it, but if you really think these are at all comparable you are off your rocker.
Maybe I am misinrepreting, but intrepret his analogy as this is more the left moving goal posts, just like the idiot birther people kept moving the goal posts. One accusation was obviously a lot more tin hat foilish than the other.
A good argument can be made that the goalposts continue to be moved.
posted by queencitybuckeyeThe obstruction stuff in absence of any other crimes is amazingly lame. The left is so desperate that they want to charge the POTUS with covering up something that definitively did not happen. Better use of their time than coming up with a 2020 candidate that isn't a total piece of shit, I suppose.
I said this back in 2016. The dems would be better off focusing on policy. The kitchen sink was already thrown at Trump. I can't imagine anything coming out worse than what we already know. Throwing out a shitty candidate (i.e. Bernie) and trying to paint Trump as a facist/racist/sexist/etc villain most likely is not going to get the job dont for 2020.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Seriously? It is not at all the case. Instead of the full report, we have a 4 page summary from a political appointee, where that AG made the recommendation to not move forward on the issue of obstruction.
Birther: We didn't get the full birth certificate, we have a short form "summary" directly from Obama himself (biased).
Replace the phrase Mueller Report with Birth Certificate and you have the exact same argument.
posted by GOONx19Lol. IDGAF if they release the report or what is in it, but if you really think these are at all comparable you are off your rocker.
I said those that think the full report will still prove collusion or something to impeach Trump with, are as funny/delusional as those birthers that thought the long form would show he was not born in Hawaii.
That's what I said/meant.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis..
If it's a sham investigation designed to obstruct and undermind a duly elected POTUS, then how can you have obstruction? Forget the "letter of the law", practically speaking. You can't obstruct a fake investigation, and that's essentially what Barr concluded in his summary.
Again, McCabe or Rosenstein testified they would not have gotten a FISA warrant without the dossier. Not that it was the sole basis for obtaining the warrant, but it was the pivotal piece for PURSUING the warrant. Without those FISA warrants, your investigation into collusion falls apart.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/30/fec-fines-clinton-campaign-dnc-spending-steele-dos/
Slap on the wrist for misreporting, but then again how do you report that you are attempting to steal an election, or perhaps attempt a soft coup if that doesn't work. LOL