On the other hand, the Deep State theory is gone now.
Good point!
Good to see a Fox News article that counters the “complete exoneration” narrative.
Except for a single gloating Tweet yesterday, pretty much radio silence all weekend through this morning from Individual-1. How did his aides manage to convince him to shut the fuck up for once?
Misplacing your trust shouldn’t be a cause for losing face, at least not much. Continuing to place that trust in the face of evidence to the contrary should be.
Yes. That’s the problem. As Taibbi recounts, a lot of the “evidence” they were responding to was in fact simply untrue, and either went uncorrected, or was only corrected months later. The result was that three-quarters of Democrats wound up believing Trump had committed a crime, and at one point it wasthe #1 issue for them. That should lead those educated Democrats to demand an explanation of their media and officials like Schiff. I suspect most won’t, any more than most Republicans demanded an accounting of the WMD screwups. But one can hope that some fraction will.
Some of the 2020 candidates are still all-in on collusion. How they, and the voters, respond will be twlling.
Trump is all about appearances. If he’s pretty sure that he’s innocent, then he’ll look like he’s completely unconcerned and go golfing. If he’s pretty sure that he’s guilty, then he’ll suddenly need to go take a tour of Asia and the Middle East.
I’ll comment on the Mueller report when I see the Mueller report. However, I do not think the report is as “exonerating” as Barr is making it out to be.
- Trump just went through a 3-week tweetstorm unlike any in his Presidency. Something set grandpa off.
- If the report is heavily redacted… or not released (and I mean soon), BS on the exoneration.
- Not as much “official” gloating as one might expect. Oh, the Charlie Kirk’s of the world are having a MAGAsm, but the administration is oddly quiet.
- And, as noted, the RW media is pulling back from the “complete exoneration” story which dominated yesterday afternoon.
Again, I’ll reserve judgment on the report when I see the report. But the winds of “complete exoneration” are just about spent, and we will start learning more as additional people see this thing.
Any Trump-supporting political strategist or talking head with more smarts than a peanut will realize that going all out on the “total exoneration” angle could backfire with a vengeance since it would preclude any sort of logical opposition to the release of the full Mueller report.
Trump said that he wants the report released. He also said he’d release his tax info when the made up bullshit audit was over. So I’m torn about taking him at his worthless word.
We haven’t seen the Mueller report, we’ve seen the Barr report. I have to wonder how you can state there wasn’t enough to prove obstruction of justice when we saw proof of that in the infamous Lester Holt interview.
I’m sure the Barr report gave Giuliani his biggest erection since 9/11. I hope he made good use of it.
Was the best 3 minutes of Mrs. Giuliani’s year.
Or the worst.
Pretty much. The case for obstruction of justice is just so so so blatant. Trump literally tweeted out that the DoJ should look into Cohen, which led to Cohen delaying his testimony. He publicly admitted to firing the head of the FBI to stop an investigation into him, then reiterated that privately to Russians. How do you not get from that to obstruction of justice?
Whether or not the unredacted report gets released publicly it will still be seen by both parties in congress. The Democrats have no reason to cover it up.
On a law enforcement page I’m on the question was asked of the federal agents if any were ever involved in a case where there was a prosecution for obstruction when the underlying offense was unfounded. So far everyone has replied no.
Anyone have any idea about how soon it might be before we see Mueller testifying before a House committee? Would Mueller be legally able to reveal in testimony details about Trump and the collusion issue, even though they didn’t reach the level required for a criminal charge against him (i.e. DoJ policy)?
It’s reported that the FBI are preparing to brief the Gang of 8 congressional leaders on the counterintelligence findings of Mueller’s investigation. “One of the officials said it could happen within the next 30 to 60 days.”
The “Gang of Eight” are:
There were some articles - out of thousands - that turned out to be misleading or inaccurate. That’s going to happen when you have the internet and hundreds of thousands of outlets. The fact that a few writers occasionally bungled an article doesn’t discredit the entire press, and to buy into that narrative is lazy thinking.
There are some practices that I think have been overused, though, including reporting front-page articles based mostly on unnamed sources. It’s fine to get background information, but wanting to be the first to break the scoop isn’t justification for relying on unnamed sources, whether we’re talking news or even non-news. I think I was among those who was extremely critical of the infamous anonymous letter to the NY Times Editor.
The potential danger that I see with anonymous insider sources is that the media are setting themselves up to get played. With perhaps a handful of exceptions, and unless someone can make a compelling case to the contrary, if the media can’t get at least one person to put their name to a story, then they probably shouldn’t print it. On that, I have the feeling we’d be in agreement.
But we sure did find out what brand of toilet paper to buy, and which hay fever medicine to ask our doctor if it’s right for us, boy howdy!