316

Here we go again-this is Bush v. Gore and the Comey Letter all over again.

The front page of the NYTimes post the Barr Letter commits all the sins of the Dean Baquet and friends after the Comey letter.

In both cases the misleading headline is the ballgame not the nuance and detail you get if you scroll down the page much less click on an article and read the entire thing.

The MSM-typified by the Times which remains a worst offender-still fail to get that the headline is all that matters-or it’s 85% of it.

Have no doubt that Dean Baquet’s NYTimes is the worst offender now as it was in 2016.

https://twitter.com/betteramerica5/status/1110181260846989313

The headline here is No Collusion. That’s the narrative the SmartSet is telling and whatever nuance and context the MSMers might add if you scroll down far enough doesn’t matter. Just like with Clinton all  that mattered were the words ‘Clinton’ and ’emails.’

The Church of the Savvy had done such a great job there of misinforming the public that all you needed were those two words and the public reacted like Pavlov’s dog.

The idea that the Comey letter was vague and didn’t really prove anything-which is why at a minimum Comey should have waited-was treated by Baquet and friends as just a detail. Similarly with the fact that for all the talk of NO COLLUSION we haven’t seen the report is treated as true but not very important.

Speaking of Comey his tweet yesterday was spot on.

But then again, he’s the reason we’re in this mess in the first place.

https://twitter.com/rmayemsinger/status/1109939259039870976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1109939259039870976&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fevilsax.pressbooks.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D6565%26action%3Dedit

And what makes the Comey Letter and Barr Letter perfect bookends is both are the product of Trump loyalists-‘Comey’s hand was forced by anti Clinton pro Trump agents at the FBI-as we saw in Chapter A, Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi-know a lot about this.

The MSM coverage is as hopeless in response to the Barr Letter as it was to the Comey Letter. Last night KasieDC couldn’t stop gloating. Americans are tired of this she declared without a shred of evidence. What she is convincing me of is that she and her MSM friends are tired of this just as they got tired of Iran-Contra.

On the other hand they never got tired of Whitewater, Lewinsky, or the Damn Emails. Indeed, note the wildly different reaction to when Comey told us at his indefensible presser that she wasn’t going to be indicted but was ‘extremely careless.’ In that case the headline wasn’t ‘not indicted’ but ‘extremely careless.’

But this is what happens when the MSM decides on a narrative-whatever the facts-as Howard Dean well knows.

https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1110128580569300992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1110128580569300992&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fevilsax.pressbooks.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D6565%26action%3Dedit

Dean was another victim of GOP dirty tricks-if you can believe it with the help of Roger Stone and Donald Trump with an assist from Al Sharpton. 

In this case the headline isn’t that Mueller didn’t exonerate him of obstruction.

Note that if this were Hillary the focus would be on ‘she wasn’t exonerated of obstruction’ rather than she didn’t collude and now she’s going to be unbeatable in 2020! 

Liberal media-talk about failing the laugh test

And the Barr Letter-wrongly treated by the MSM as the Mueller Report-was written by the guy who covered up Iran-Contra to protect Bush Sr. during his reelection, claimed the investigation into obstruction was fatally misconceived , refused to promise to release the entire report as Archibald Cox did at his confirmation hearing in 1973, and refused to recuse himself-stating at confirmation that listening to the advice of the ethics office would somehow be an ‘abdication’ on his own part.

Despite all this the Ben Wittes institutionalist types all told us to trust Bill Barr, he ‘has high integrity’ and puts the institution over partisanship. And as by then Barr had already been confirmed what choice did you have but to hope for the best? But that’s the problem-hope is not a strategy.

Let’s be clear I’m not one of those folks who always thinks I’m right or who always wants to be right. I’d much rather Marcy Wheeler were right and I could say ‘Yes, you told us so…’

But:

So EmptyWheel is usually right but not this time. My instinct all along was that there is no such thing as a ‘Republican institutionalist’ they all put party above all else. That’s the theme of this entire book-you can never be too cynical about the GOP.

Later she-tacitly-reversed herself without admitting she was wrong on this one. Again not giving her a hard time wish she were right.

 

In any case it’s not surprising that the GOPer who covered up Iran-Contra and called an investigation into obstruction ‘fatally misconceived’ would now take it upon himself to declare Trump not guilty of obstruction-usurping Congress’s role. Many are rightly critical of that and want answers on the strange claim of Barr’s that Mueller chose to neither charge or absolve Trump of obstruction of justice.

Even those in the MSM agreeing we need to see the report and saying we need answers about obstruction are conceding point on coordination and conspiracy. And that’s a real problem as we haven’t seen what Mueller said about it. We need to see the report. I watched Melber last night but shut him off once he started lecturing Democrats that we have to accept Trump didn’t conspire with Russia. Until we see the report no we don’t.

It’s just not the black and white issue Melber and his MSM friends are trying to make it. I’m particularly disappointed in Ari as he’s a very smart lawyer and should know better-does he know better and is nevertheless pretending to be more simple minded than he is? In other words is he wrong or is he deliberately lying to us?

I mean does a lawyer of his stature really not understand that the fact that there is not a chargeable collusion conspiracy doesn’t mean there wasn’t a collusion conspiracy?

And those who focus only on obstruction and concede collusion are walking into a trap. We’re being pushed to ‘accept the findings of the Mueller report’ without actually seeing the Mueller report.

And almost everyone in the MSM are accepting that there was on conspiracy.

Greg Sargent is usually someone that many of us on Dem Twitter count on as a beacon in the MSM swamp of obtuseness but not this time.

UPDATE: He did respond to me on Twitter:

Ok though that seems backwards to me…

Like almost everyone else in MSMWorld he concedes the point based solely on Bill Barr’s word-not Mueller’s word, in Barr’s four page summary he quoted directly from Mueller very sparingly.

“The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”1

“The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.”

“The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

And this is it-in the entire four page report, he makes short thrift of coordination and conspiracy in three terse paragraphs.

And in these three terse paragraphs, he manages to quote one-half-sentence. That’s it. There was Barr’s summation of the sentence:

The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

And there’s the one half sentence that’s apparently quoted verbatim from Mueller’s report.

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

And based on this alone we’re supposed to consider the matter settled and forgotten? Yes if you believe almost everyone in the (not so)Smart Set.

Exactly and now Ari Melber and friends-including unfortunately Greg Sargent-expect us to just accept a terse NO COLLUSION based on one half sentence from Mueller’s actual report?

As obvious as it is, it’s too subtle for the Savvy.

There’s so much that this half sentence from Mueller doesn’t say. Not surprising. While even the length of his report is being treated as a state secret by Trump’s co-conspirators, clearly this half sentence is just a drop in the bucket.

After all what does ‘did not establish’ mean? It could mean many things.

This is what irks me so much about Melber-he of all people ought to know this. Yet treated this in a stunningly black and white way last night. Democrats have to concede ‘the President’ didn’t conspire with Russia.’

Now even the MSM critics of Barr who agree we need to see the report concede the point on conspiracy without seeing more than the second half of one sentence in the actual Mueller Report-rather than Barr’s cliff notes. But there’s the rub: Barr based his own unilaterally decision that there was no obstruction on the false legal premise that as they underlying charge of conspiracy wasn’t established therefore there couldn’t have been obstruction. In other words-by definition No Collusion means No Obstruction. 

Which is legal quackery of course. Nixon was forced out of office based on obstruction-the GOP itself impeached Clinton over obstruction-back when ‘process crimes’ mattered in 1998. Nixon was never found guilty of the underlying break in to the Watergate Hotel-he probably didn’t know anything about it-though he did give the impetus to put together CREEP. It’s all about plausible deniability, the general who crafts the mission, doesn’t make every little decision on the ground.

What’s notable is that Barr is too queasy to even quote a single half sentence regarding what Mueller actually said about obstruction.

He does refer in a very backhanded way to instances of obstruction we didn’t previously know about. 

The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns

Get it-most of which have been reported, which logically means there are some which haven’t been but, of course, Barr doesn’t want us to worry our pretty heads over that. 

To say there aren’t chargeable crimes of conspiracy doesn’t mean there wasn’t conspiracy. Maybe there were but Mueller is only 89% confident of conviction. It makes a huge difference wether there is 89% of 8.9% confidence. Which is why we need to actually see the report.

Jennifer Rubin:

“Attorney General William P. Barr released his letter setting forth the principal conclusions relating to the Russia probe conducted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.”

“Let’s first be clear about what the letter does not say.”

“It does not say whether Mueller found a preponderance of evidence of crimes. (The criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher.)”

Exactly-it’s possible that  you can establish coordination and conspiracy through a preponderance of the evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond the ambiguity of ‘failed to establish’ there is the clever extrapolation in the words ‘Russian government.’

Exactly-the ‘Russian government’ may be used here as a technicality to avoid the subject of cutouts, etc-Wikileaks isn’t the Russian government but they worked with it. Similarly Guccifer 2,0, etc. It leaves open the possibility that the campaign did coordinate with Russians not directly affiliated with the Russian government.

Again, I’m a fan of Greg Sargent but for me I want to see the report first. I want to see what Mueller in his own words says about Papadopoulos’ conversation with Mifusd and wether he believes he actually did tell the Trump campaign. As noted in (Chapter A) a Chicago sports bar patron-Jason Wilson-claims Papadopoulos contradicted what he’s stated publicly-that he actually did tell Jeff Sessions about the emails

Does Mueller know about that? If so what does he make of it? Don’t all the conversations between Stone and the Trump campaign on one hand and Stone and Jerome Corsi on the other add up to coordination?

We also know that Mueller was investigating Peter Smith’s clearly stated intent  expressed in an email to the highest levels of the Trump campaign-Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon-to pay Russian hackers to hack Clinton’s emails. What did Mueller find and conclude here?

This could implicate the Trump campaign in the worst possible offense-working with the Russian hackers themselves. 

An email after the dump of Podesta’s emails refers to ‘happy students.’ Did these ‘students’ refer to the hackers?

We do know that Smith was seen in a hotel room paying hackers.

What did Mueller find and conclude?

There are many other questions we need answered before blithe talk of ‘no conspiracy.’

Of course, it’s possible that while there is a lot of evidence of coordination and conspiracy it wasn’t enough for reasonable doubt-90%. But if it’s 85% that may not be enough for conviction but that’s more than high enough for impeachment.

 

The question has been parsed in overly legalistic language-as if mere legality is all that matters

But you have to give David Frum credit-he saw this coming a mile away-by focusing narrowly on ‘criminal conspiracy’ rather than simply conspiracy the bar was raised absurdly high.

“It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.”

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that agents purporting to represent Putin’s Russia approached the Trump campaign to ask whether help would be welcome, to which Donald Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Donald Trump publicly welcomed this help: “I love WikiLeaks!”

It’s also not a theory but a matter of historical record that Trump declared ‘Russia, if you’re listening!’

“It’s solid political science that this help from Russia via WikiLeaks was crucial, possibly decisive, toTrump’s success in the Electoral College in November 2016.”

“Mueller was asked to investigate how much the Trump campaign knew in advance about this Russian help. Along the way, the special counsel also apparently became interested in the question of why Putin was so eager for a Trump presidency. Did Putin have some kind of prior hold over Trump, financial or otherwise?”

“For two years, Americans and the world have speculated and argued about the inquiry. But along the way, we have often lost sight of the core truth of the Trump presidency: For all its many dark secrets, there have never been any real mysteries about the Trump-Russia story.”

“Along the way, we have also lost sight of something that I warned about here inThe Atlantic in May 2017: It’s very possible that Trump himself broke no criminal law in accepting campaign help from Putin. This ultra-legalistic nation expects wrongdoing to take the form of prosecutable crimes—and justice to occur in a courtroom.”

“But many wrongs are not crimes. And many things that are crimes are not prosecutable for one reason or another—for instance, when a statute of limitations expires.”

“Mueller served his country by advancing the inquiry into Trump-Russia at a time when Trump’s enablers in Congress sought to cover up for the president. Since the midterm elections, Congress has regained its independence and can recover its integrity. Mueller’s full report will surely inform and enlighten Americans about many details of what exactly happened in 2016. But the lack of further indictments by Mueller underscores that the job of protecting the country against the Russia-compromised Trump presidency belongs to Congress. It always did.”

AMEN-and he finishes on just the right note-it’s up to ‘Congress, it’s their job.

Just remember:

 

UPDATE:

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book