5 ms·

>the media spun a narrative of Russian collusion No, the media spun the narrative of Russian interference, with possible collusion, something that turned out t

>the media spun a narrative of Russian collusion No, the media spun the narrative of Russian interference, with possible collusion, something that turned out to be true (interference) and collusion was left uncertain (Muller stated quite clearly that if he could show Trump didn't collude, then Mueller would have said so, but that he was not going to say so). "'The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,' Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office." [1] Then the Trump DOJ didn't release the summary of the report, but their edited version, leaving plenty out, in order to get people like you to write what you just did. Mueller was so outraged at how the DOJ spun the report, that he immediately did a press conference about it, an unprecedented step. Here is Mueller's letter to Barr on exactly this [2]. Once Trump is out of office, and several years have gone by without charges, then maybe you can claim these concerns were false, but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/ https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-co... [2] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/719004457/read-muellers-letter-expressing-concern-about-barr-s-summary-of-his-report https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/719004457/read-muellers-lette...

the_drunkard 6y ago
> but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies. i'd strongly beg to differ. fake news was at its peak during the first two years of "Russia-gate" with networks reporting on hearsay and drawing wild conclusions irrespective of hard evidence. journalistic integrity was thrown to the wind. it seemed as if every week a "we got him" story broke only to fizzle as it turned out to be false. the linked article below offers some examples of these fake news stories about Trump. and I do recognize that the second quote is written by Barr, not Mueller. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...
- filoeleven 6y ago
  I don’t think parent comment should be downvoted. I pushed back too in another comment above about the validation of evidence. IMO the evidence is mostly untested, and the_drunkard is correct about the media’s premature response. Also, given current events, here’s a fun quote from the linked article: > The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”
  - cafard 6y ago
    Wow. How did the cast of Saturday Night Live make it through Senate confirmation?
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  You present an opinion piece from Matt Taibbi on substack (where anyone can publish anything) as evidence of what mainstream news was writing? You might as well cite any fringe blogger. Your proof is like some idiot writing Trump is an Alien Unicorn on a personal wordpress site then claiming mainstream news was calling Trump an Alien Unicorn. No wonder you're convinced of wild things. I'm done with this level of dishonesty.
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    Taibbi is 'fringe' because Substack? Is that really what you are saying? Rolling Stone is not The Economist but I have a hard time understanding the way you seem to be trying to characterize Taibbi. Can you point to the specific 'wild things' and/or dishonesty in the Taibbi piece?
  - the_drunkard 6y ago
    >You present an opinion piece from Matt Taibbi on substack (where anyone can publish anything) as evidence of what mainstream news was writing? > You might as well cite any fringe blogger. Your proof is like some idiot writing Trump is an Alien Unicorn on a personal wordpress site then claiming mainstream news was calling Trump an Alien Unicorn. > No wonder you're convinced of wild things. > I'm done with this level of dishonesty. woah. setting Taibbi aside, can you not see how news cycles were dominated by a "Russian collusion" narrative the first 3 years of Trump's presidency? a narrative that largely proved to be exaggerated, false, and self-serving (it was great for business). as recent as July of this year, the NYT published a story filled with anonymous sources and accusations of Russian bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan. within days, the media went into their typical "blitz" with this story and Joe Biden even had an ad ready to air in response to it. this story, like many others not only could not be corroborated by any mentioned parties, but proved to be "less than conclusive" and was later significantly walked back. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghan... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-officials-say-intel-russian-bounties-was-less-conclusive-n1233199 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-offic... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504
redis_mlc 6y ago
So nothing substantial was found after a 4-year investigation intended to distract a sitting President.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  Except for the indictments waiting him upon leaving office. Trump is referred to as "Individual #1" in indictments that sent people to prison, and in the Cohen case, this is clearly Trump. That phrase becomes unsealed when prosecutors unseal it, and they're most likely waiting for Trump's term to be over, making it clearer he can be Federally indicted. Otherwise who do you think "Individual #1" is? So when Trump is cleared by these indictments in the future I'll admit there was nothing provable in court. Until then we should wait to see what these existing charges do when they hit Federal court. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/20/937044524/once-out-of-office-trump-faces-significant-legal-peril https://www.npr.org/2020/11/20/937044524/once-out-of-office-...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    You are making an unwarranted assumption here. “Individual #1” follows the norm for unindicted co-conspirators. Now, it's true that an individual subject of sealed indictments related to the crime in question would (because the indictment is nonpublic) be treated the same, but you can't conclude the existence of a sealed indictment from this usage. Further, none of his “Individual #1” references are related to Russia collusion, even though they arose from things that spun out of that investigation.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      >“Individual #1” follows the norm for unindicted co-conspirators Yes, unindicted because it's not clear if you can indict a President. Those are waiting for the day Trump is out of office, when indictments will likely follow. From the sentencing memorandum [1]: Cohen states he "acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1", which is likely a felony - usually crime bosses dictating lower level people to commit crimes get harsher punishments than the underlings - and this will likely be tested once Trump leaves office. So "Individual #1" is not merely a mention of a person. It's the label of a person that directed felony activities. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18130805/michael-cohen-sentencing-memo-mueller https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18130805/michael-cohen-sentenc...

the_drunkard 6y ago

> but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies. i'd strongly beg to differ. fake news was at its peak during the first two years of "Russia-gate" with networks reporting on hearsay and drawing wild conclusions irrespective of hard evidence. journalistic integrity was thrown to the wind. it seemed as if every week a "we got him" story broke only to fizzle as it turned out to be false. the linked article below offers some examples of these fake news stories about Trump. and I do recognize that the second quote is written by Barr, not Mueller. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...

filoeleven 6y ago
I don’t think parent comment should be downvoted. I pushed back too in another comment above about the validation of evidence. IMO the evidence is mostly untested, and the_drunkard is correct about the media’s premature response. Also, given current events, here’s a fun quote from the linked article: > The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”
- cafard 6y ago
  Wow. How did the cast of Saturday Night Live make it through Senate confirmation?
ChrisLomont 6y ago
You present an opinion piece from Matt Taibbi on substack (where anyone can publish anything) as evidence of what mainstream news was writing? You might as well cite any fringe blogger. Your proof is like some idiot writing Trump is an Alien Unicorn on a personal wordpress site then claiming mainstream news was calling Trump an Alien Unicorn. No wonder you're convinced of wild things. I'm done with this level of dishonesty.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  Taibbi is 'fringe' because Substack? Is that really what you are saying? Rolling Stone is not The Economist but I have a hard time understanding the way you seem to be trying to characterize Taibbi. Can you point to the specific 'wild things' and/or dishonesty in the Taibbi piece?
- the_drunkard 6y ago
  >You present an opinion piece from Matt Taibbi on substack (where anyone can publish anything) as evidence of what mainstream news was writing? > You might as well cite any fringe blogger. Your proof is like some idiot writing Trump is an Alien Unicorn on a personal wordpress site then claiming mainstream news was calling Trump an Alien Unicorn. > No wonder you're convinced of wild things. > I'm done with this level of dishonesty. woah. setting Taibbi aside, can you not see how news cycles were dominated by a "Russian collusion" narrative the first 3 years of Trump's presidency? a narrative that largely proved to be exaggerated, false, and self-serving (it was great for business). as recent as July of this year, the NYT published a story filled with anonymous sources and accusations of Russian bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan. within days, the media went into their typical "blitz" with this story and Joe Biden even had an ad ready to air in response to it. this story, like many others not only could not be corroborated by any mentioned parties, but proved to be "less than conclusive" and was later significantly walked back. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghan... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-officials-say-intel-russian-bounties-was-less-conclusive-n1233199 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-offic... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504

redis_mlc 6y ago

So nothing substantial was found after a 4-year investigation intended to distract a sitting President.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
Except for the indictments waiting him upon leaving office. Trump is referred to as "Individual #1" in indictments that sent people to prison, and in the Cohen case, this is clearly Trump. That phrase becomes unsealed when prosecutors unseal it, and they're most likely waiting for Trump's term to be over, making it clearer he can be Federally indicted. Otherwise who do you think "Individual #1" is? So when Trump is cleared by these indictments in the future I'll admit there was nothing provable in court. Until then we should wait to see what these existing charges do when they hit Federal court. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/20/937044524/once-out-of-office-trump-faces-significant-legal-peril https://www.npr.org/2020/11/20/937044524/once-out-of-office-...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  You are making an unwarranted assumption here. “Individual #1” follows the norm for unindicted co-conspirators. Now, it's true that an individual subject of sealed indictments related to the crime in question would (because the indictment is nonpublic) be treated the same, but you can't conclude the existence of a sealed indictment from this usage. Further, none of his “Individual #1” references are related to Russia collusion, even though they arose from things that spun out of that investigation.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >“Individual #1” follows the norm for unindicted co-conspirators Yes, unindicted because it's not clear if you can indict a President. Those are waiting for the day Trump is out of office, when indictments will likely follow. From the sentencing memorandum [1]: Cohen states he "acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1", which is likely a felony - usually crime bosses dictating lower level people to commit crimes get harsher punishments than the underlings - and this will likely be tested once Trump leaves office. So "Individual #1" is not merely a mention of a person. It's the label of a person that directed felony activities. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18130805/michael-cohen-sentencing-memo-mueller https://www.vox.com/2018/12/7/18130805/michael-cohen-sentenc...