So what is the explanation for Trump's bending over for Putin and Kim now?
It made sense if he were somehow beholden to Putin -- but now the only explanation is Trump is just a ing weakling.
So - YOU
have seen the full Mueller report?
Enlighten us.
How can the media be at fault for reporting the obvious - before our eyes - corruption?
Maybe Mueller was directed by Barr to finish early?
Maybe Mueller do ented crimes and Barr mischaracterized Muellers conclusions - or directed Mueller to AVOID drawing conclusions?
Or something else?
Maybe he IS beholden to Putin - but BARR - spun it otherwise?
Why did McConnell block a vote to release the Mueller report?
Finally, why won't Trump call out Russia now since Barr says Mueller confirmed russia's attack?
Who knows?
I'll accept that he's a weakling.
Yes -
the Mueller report will explain more
No, the Media Didn’t Over-Hype ‘Russiagate’
No human being on Earth has done more to keep the Trump-Russia narrative in the news than Donald Trump.
Those who have long contended that “Russiagate” was a story promoted by Clinton supporters eager to absolve her from any responsibility for losing to Donald Trump are hardly in a position to take victory laps over Barr’s letter to Congress.
as of this writing, we have not seen Robert Mueller’s report, nor had an accounting of why he made the prosecutorial decisions that he did.
Barr had to “go through contortions to avoid charging” Trump with the crime. We should not allow the goalposts to be moved in a way that lets the president of the United States off the hook for potential felonies.
the crux of the story was always the possibility that the regime had pushed for sanctions relief as a quid pro quo for Russia’s assistance—a question left unanswered by Barr’s summary.
Barr cleared Trump of criminal wrongdoing,
but didn’t address the counter-espionage questions related to
whether Trump had been compromised somehow as a result of negotiating the Trump Tower Moscow deal deep into the 2016 campaign, or through other business dealings.
But the biggest problem with claims that the media focused too much on the Mueller probe is the premise itself.
real journalists did their jobs covering an objectively huge story.
It is bizarre to suggest that
the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the president of the United States after he fired his FBI director and
privately told two high-level Russian officials that
he had “faced great pressure because of Russia” but
that it had been “taken off” with Comey’s dismissal is not
a legitimately massive story.
The same is true of allegations that Trump obstructed justice (something that
William Barr had categorically ruled out charging him with before becoming AG
and being read in on the investigation).
over the course of the 22 months since Mueller’s appointment,
there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of highly significant developments,
each of which merited a decent amount of coverage.
all been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes, or are currently awaiting trial, and while those cases weren’t related to Russia directly,
they all sprung from Mueller’s probe and all of them kept the Mueller investigation in the headlines.
those close to Trump had over 100 contacts with Russian actors during the campaign, according to The New York Times, many of which they hid from investigators.
Each and every time Trump dangled a pardon or Rudy Giuliani disclosed too much to reporters or Paul Manafort violated the terms of his releasewhile awaiting trial,
it was a significant and legitimate news story.
Those claiming that the media focused too much attention on the Mueller probe should
specify which stories they believe didn’t merit extensive reporting.
a compulsive tendency to randomly blurt out “no collusion, no collusion”–a claim he’s made 231 times since mid-2017,
he’s also kept Russia front and center
by refusing to implement sanctions that Congress passed against Russian actors,
repeatedly meeting with Vladimir Putin with no advisers or note-takers present, and
arguing that Russia was within its rights to annex Crimea.
When the president of the United States tells reporters that the president of Russia has “probably” ordered assassinations and poisonings,
“but I rely on them; it’s not in our country,” that’s objectively newsworthy.
. Trump made the investigation a huge international story,
https://www.thenation.com/article/russia-mueller-investigation-trump/
CNN getting obliterated today
I hate to be "defender" of anyone's posts - and he could give two s if anyone does or doesn't - as it should be - but I digress...
but I don't see how anyone could read the above post and then honestly say that it is not pretty much spot on.
What is puzzling is why an accurate/spot on post like this - has so many posters attacking the poster often?
Hate truth much?
I do believe some of you in here are in need of help. Give them a call I do believe they may be able to help you.
C'mon, brother. Nothing he said was unreasonable.
And the media is a joke, on both sides. Reporters, cable news networks, and websites don't care about the "truth," nor do they care about balanced debate over an issue. They care about ratings and clicks, and what produces ratings and clicks are outrage, scandal, fear, and confrontation. After the Mueller report turned up nothing on Trump, people were "laughing" at the meltdowns Maddow, et al were having. I assure you she doesn't care. She's worth 20 million, and the fallout from the Mueller probe is sure to be good for business. On the flip side, Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson (also worth tens of millions of dollars) wouldn't have cared if Trump were being walked away in handcuffs right now. Any Trump downfall would translate into record ratings for Fox, since you'd get both sides of the political spectrum tuning in en masse to watch the fireworks.
These people are in the entertainment business, not the truth-telling business. The truth is usually more boring than spin and imaginative speculation, meaning there's no money in it.
How irresponsible of people to continue to regurgitate this garbage!
NO ONE has seen the Mueller report.
Only the BARR report.
You are part of the problem you are railing against!
Who really cares anymore? Trump isn't in handcuffs, so whatever su ious minutia we find will be irrelevant. What I mean by "nothing" is nothing will be in that report that will send his ass to jail.
Trash, Barr, McConnell care enough to keep Mueller port secret. Anybody know why?
There was no liberal scam
Trash is blatant Pootin puppet, in PLAIN DAYLIGHT.
I expect Trash, now even more emboldened, to lift all (Obama's) sanctions on Russia, while still failing to impose sanctions on Russia voted by Congress in 2017.
Then he will get his hotel in Moscow, eventually, as payoff.
Scam? Y'all rightwingnutjob assholes been duped, conned, by Trash.
Who cares? What about citizens that want the facts? What about people that know a cover up when they see it happening?
How the do you know the evidence will be irrelevant?
How do you know why Mueller punted?
What if he was pressured into it?
Isn't that obstruction?
What if Mueller found enough evidence - but was forbidden from making a conclusion?
Maybe Trump would be in handcuffs if this cover up is exposed?
Why are you so easily buying this possible criminal cover up from the same people who did nothing but throw out conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory?
Republicans and Trump specifically do nothing but "project" their own criminality onto the other side -
surely trump accused the "deep state" of coming up with a huge coup and witch hunt -
this is the kind of person - that would do exactly what he has accused other of doing -
in this case - cover up a crime.
He's trying to lend credibility to the "investigation" because he's been on the wrong side of the argument for over 2 years. Trying to distance himself from Media ("I don't watch enough to know who has a bias blah blah blah) He's full of . I'm the one who's been telling the forum these people are professional agitators. You don't need to explain how Mockingbird Media operates to me, I've been trying to educate the board for years.
I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU
(said the magpie)
there was an investigation. you dont have to like that there was, but there was one. if news outlets covered the proceedings, then good on them for doing their job. if you read print news from wapo, nyt, politico, usa today, etc (excluding op-eds, of course), you got a pretty clear picture of the investigation. who was questioned. who was indicted. the legal battles during the course of the investigation. that's what i did.
if you watch a lot of cable news or even your TV network news... your msnbc/cnn/fox. your morning joe, anderson cooper, george stephanopoulis, etc, then yeah you probably got a ton of opinion masqueraded as news. and any of those people who pushed that "we know that trump colluded, its a matter of when mueller presses charges" all deserve egg on their face. i never said "i dont know who has a bias." i said i dont know which particular heads made outright claims of "trump colluded" or "the walls are closing in", etc.
the only exposure i have to cable news is what people here post about it. i dont have cable/satellite at home, i just subscribe to netflix/prime and read all my news in print. so i dont get all the sensationalist stuff that you guys like to complain about here.
again, the fact that the investigation ultimately found no wrongdoing by trump with respect to russian interference efforts (based on what we know from barr's summary) is NOT the same as saying the investigation was a fraud/hoax. you seem to be thinking that the latter has been proven. it hasn't.
of course not to mention they punted the obstruction case
This is 100% the truth with the public bearing a lot of the blame but getting so little of it. If thismuh Russia
"Alternative media" is just as shameless in their pursuit of clicks, views, followers, etc. I cut through the bull in trying to find as many unspun facts as I can and see how those facts in question blend with my personal morality. All you can really do. We also need to acknowledge that many of the issues we debate are in fact moral gray areas, where a lone "objectively" correct solution can't exist, logically speaking. Over the past two or so decades, compromise (on both sides) has become more rare in favor of a win-at-all-costs mentality. This perhaps correlates with the rise of 24/7 News networks and the Internet. Compromise doesn't generate confrontation, and politicians and their media endorsers live off confrontation. If there's no "other," you can't create an "enemy" in order to drive people to the polls and to watch your network. No one wants to hear/read about Trump and Dems coming to compromise on border security. No. Trump has to continue his demand for a certain number of billions as the Dems deny him at every turn. Each side is playing to their respective bases, while the media gets more and more fodder for their programs. Maddow will call him a racist, while Hannity will talk about how Dems hate America.
And on and on it goes.
Too many blanket statements here.
Depends on your source. Independent journalists don't get ad revenue (clicks) and rely on sponsors and donations through outlets like Patreon.
Facts are facts to me, and my morality has nothing to do with it.I cut through the bull in trying to find as many unspun facts as I can and see how those facts in question blend with my personal morality.
Give me a few examples. Most debates can be won with fact and logic imo.We also need to acknowledge that many of the issues we debate are in fact moral gray areas, where a lone "objectively" correct solution can't exist, logically speaking.
That's called iden y politics which evolved from mud-slinging. Pandering to their respective bases with a mask of indifference.Over the past two or so decades, compromise (on both sides) has become more rare in favor of a win-at-all-costs mentality.
Mostly propaganda outlets and search engines do their jobs respectively filtering preferred news to the top. Platforms like Twitter and Youtube are complicit with such methods.This perhaps correlates with the rise of 24/7 News networks and the Internet.
Controversy creates cash. Everything is an editorial now, once reserved for a small section at the back of the paper.Compromise doesn't generate confrontation, and politicians and their media endorsers live off confrontation.
Democrats/Leftist create imaginary enemies to justify their wrath. People on the right do this as well, but the Left are Jedi Masters.If there's no "other," you can't create an "enemy" in order to drive people to the polls and to watch your network.
I do. A lot of Americans want compromise and are tired of the wedge that Media/poltics drives between families/friends.No one wants to hear/read about Trump and Dems coming to compromise on border security. No.
This is typical red vs. blue optics at a psychological level. They're been using this dynamic for decades and it doesn't matter whether a Dem or Repug is POTUS. The agenda remains the same.Trump has to continue his demand for a certain number of billions as the Dems deny him at every turn. Each side is playing to their respective bases, while the media gets more and more fodder for their programs. Maddow will call him a racist, while Hannity will talk about how Dems hate America.
Trump isn't part of the big club. That's why they hate him. That's why Americans love him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote