NO COLLUSION!
Russiagate skeptics on the left and the right have spent the last seven days slow walking a victory lap regarding the Mueller Report concluding and stating no crimes of conspiracy were found and no further indictments would be levied.
Yes, the long awaited Mueller Report that Russiagate peddlers thought would be the north star that would rid us of Donald Trump and skeptics thought was a hoax and deep state conspiracy.
Well, both camps were wrong.
Before I go further I should acknowledge while I was never a Russiagate pusher I was not a hardlined skeptic neither. In the infant stages of the Mueller investigation I did lean more toward the idea that some Trump campaign officials (including Usay...errrr....I mean Donald Trump Jr) colluded in some way with Russia. Although, I never really believed Donald Trump aka Mango Unchained did himself.
I submitted several posts on Facebook and Twitter in the early stages of the investigation wondering aloud about many questionable statements and actions Trump and others had toward Russia and more specifically Putin. I still have those questions because they haven't been adequately addressed, if at all.
I say all of this not to distance myself from a side or as a means of revisionist history, but as to provide transparency before I get into the heart of this blog. Look, I didn't believe Trump directly explicitly conspired with Russian government to get elected but I possess an unfettered belief he, his business and his children (sans Tiffany and Baron, of course) have some unsavory and highly likely illegal ties to Russian oligarchs.
Now, let's get to the tea.
The Left has been ablaze with this Russiagate story for the last two years. Some on the Progressive Left such as Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski, The Intercept's Glen Greenwald. The Young Turks' Jimmy Dore and independent journalist Micheal Tracey have said from day one the entire investigation was crap and was nothing more than a modern day "red scare". They have roasted Democrats and mainstream media for what they say is "red baiting" and pushing the Trump/Russia collusion angle as a means of deflecting culpability for the debacle that was the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Also, they targeted ex-intelligence officials, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), The Atlantic's Natasha Bertrand, journalist Marcy Wheeler and MSNBC's Joy Ann Reid and Rachel Maddow as the biggest peddlers of what they feel is an insidious misleading conspiracy.
You know what? They are right! They are also lacking objectivity.
Here is the thing. Wheeler, Maddow and Reid went over the top with Russia coverage.
As Micheal Tracey pointed out on Twitter Marcy Wheeler burned FBI contacts over this story.
Joy Ann Reid's "AM Joy" was dominated by Russiagate coverage. Former military intel officer Malcolm Nance and journalists (the aforementioned) Bertrand and Sarah Kenzidor were guests literally almost every weekend on the show. Sometimes they would be on both the Saturday and Sunday shows.
And, then there is Maddow. Now, look, I love Rachel Maddow and have since her days on Air America. But, Lawd Jesus, girl was consumed with the Mueller investigation like it was Tristan Thompson cheating on Khloe Kardashian with Jordyn Woods! (And, hey! Don't judge me because I even know about Khloe and Tristan...Ok, you can judge me a little.)
Maddow did some helluva good reporting on Trump's seedy financial ties to Russian oligarchs. She highlighted Erik Prince's trifiliness and his attempts to privatize the wars in Syria and Afghanistan.
However, Rachel's entire show or at least the first half of it became engulfed with Russiagate. Maddow, whom was once seen as a leading Progressive voice because she focused on government corruption and illegal wars, basically ignored Yemen, Syria and Trump's other more tangible criminality such as emoluments violations, bank fraud and tax evasion. When she did touch on the latter it was always in reference to Russia.
So, how do the Russiagate leftist skeptics lack objectivity you're probably wondering?
Well, let's begin with the four page summary Attorney General William Barr released March 23rd. We now know the full Mueller Report is almost 400 pages long. So, a four page summary that didn't quote one full sentence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems at the very least odd.
Russiagate skeptics are claiming vindication for their skepticism because "there was zero collusion and Trump was found to not have committed a crime". However, according to Barr's summary that is not exactly true. AG Barr's summary says "evidence could not be established that Trump, his campaign nor anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" and regarding obstruction of justice "no crime was committed but Mueller could not exonerate the President". While criticism is and will be levied over the parsing of words, words and word structure matter. An entire industry of publicists, press secretaries and spinners thrive because they have unique talents in how they structure statements to be beneficial toward their clients.
So, that begs the question why didn't Mueller exonerate Trump on obstruction? Also, what does "evidence could not be established" mean regarding collusion? That is decidedly different from saying there is no evidence.
Of course, the full un-sanitized report being released would answer these questions.
But, the problem is Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is doing everything he can to block the report's release, which is peculiar if Trump is a totally innocent man. AG Barr has said the report will be released but only after the White House reviews it first. Seriously!
I am just going to say it appears perhaps the report contains some facts that place the president in a quite unfavorable light.
And, while all of the detractors are publicly saying the report should be released to the public, they are also saying people are making too much of Barr's summary and McConnell's subsequent actions. However, the questioning of Barr's actions are salient. It was Bill Barr who recommended to Daddy Bush to pardon all of the principal players in the Iran-Contra scandal. Among those pardoned was Elliott Abrams, the current envoy to Venezuela. Yes, the same Elliott Abrams whom the Left has lit up and who is guilty of war crimes and was explicitly involved in the United States sanctioned atrocities in Central America throughout the 1980s. So, yeah, anything this dude does that appears to be covering up should be side-eyed.
Oh, let's not even mention Barr's 19 page memorandum a year ago which decried the Mueller investigation and essentially said a sitting president cannot obstruct justice. By the way Mueller basically punted on making the call whether to bring obstruction charges against Trump and left up to Barr who decided to end all inquiries. Nothing fishy there.
Hey, understand I understand where the Michael Traceys, Kyle Kulinskis and Jimmy Dores are coming from. Their primary contention (or at least one of them) is that Russiagate took away from focus on policies and the more salient corruption in the Trump administration. I agree.
They say people in the media and political class became so consumed with conspiracy and the idea that Trump was a traitor they lost perspective and objectivity. I concur.
Where I veer away is the paranoia that Democrats were trying to initiate war with Russia. I never heard one person advocate for that. Basically, that kind of rhetoric is propagandist except on the other end of the scale. I mean is war with Russia really a legit concern?
Also, I acknowledge there are people (Rachel Maddow) who are hanging onto this story. I fully realize there are disingenuous players here. But, that doesn't mean real legitimate tangible unanswered questions that still exist.
If there was no underlying crime, why did so many people lie about Russian contacts? Micheal Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and George Papadopoulos all provably lied. Why?
Now, before anyone gets all pissy I'm not implying there really is collusion. But, there is certainly something amiss. Surely, we all can concede that.
Another question is what role did Trump attempting to build a Trump Tower Moscow play into all this?
While Trump has certainly did things that are seemingly hostile to Putin's interest, why does he capitulate to him so much? Why all the secret phone calls? In Helsinki why did "Mr. Alpha Male" become such a beta cuck toward Putin?
I believe it's because Putin likely has dirt on him or some financial hold just like Israel and Saudia Arabia does. Follow the money.
Lastly, I do find it interesting that one detail from Barr's summary of the Mueller Report is being overlooked and/or downplayed, which is it was determined Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. I'll concede this to the detractors. We do the same shit. We do!
However, another main contention of Russiagate opponents is that there either was no interference or it didn't matter. Well, again, we now know it happened. Those downplaying it are speaking from hopeful conjecture because until we see the report we don't really know the extent of the interference.
As for it not mattering, I think that is incorrect. Hey, Hillary Clinton's campaign made mistakes a sophmore running for high school class president would not have made. She was an awful candidate with an arrogant dumbass running it. But, several other factors coupled with sheer incompetence played into her losing.
And, allow me to say this to anyone on the left or right talmbout the "deep state". If there was really a "deep state" conspiracy against Trump, Mango Unchained wouldn't be president right now. Can we please use some commonsense?!
President Obama could have given the FBI permission, which they wanted, to announce there was an investigation before the election. He easily could have not given one fuck what Mitch McConnell said. And, before anyone comes at me with "the will of the people overrode the 'deep state' efforts, just stop. Essentially, Trump won the electoral college by 77,000 votes. Do you really believe if the Obama administration had told the public about Russian interference, as the FBI wanted to do, that a narrative of "Trump could be a Russian asset" wouldn't erased that 77,000 vote deficit?
So, again, if they wanted to stop Trump, they would have.
For the Russiagate detractors your entitled to your victory lap I suppose but until the Mueller Report is released I would hold off on that champagne bath.
For the Russiagate peddlers it's time to move on. Let Congress do its job.
Focus on the 2020 election. We have 843 candidates. Let's choose the best one,
congeal around a coherent policy soaked and driven message and do our job at the ballot box.
Russiagate skeptics on the left and the right have spent the last seven days slow walking a victory lap regarding the Mueller Report concluding and stating no crimes of conspiracy were found and no further indictments would be levied.
Yes, the long awaited Mueller Report that Russiagate peddlers thought would be the north star that would rid us of Donald Trump and skeptics thought was a hoax and deep state conspiracy.
Well, both camps were wrong.
Before I go further I should acknowledge while I was never a Russiagate pusher I was not a hardlined skeptic neither. In the infant stages of the Mueller investigation I did lean more toward the idea that some Trump campaign officials (including Usay...errrr....I mean Donald Trump Jr) colluded in some way with Russia. Although, I never really believed Donald Trump aka Mango Unchained did himself.
I submitted several posts on Facebook and Twitter in the early stages of the investigation wondering aloud about many questionable statements and actions Trump and others had toward Russia and more specifically Putin. I still have those questions because they haven't been adequately addressed, if at all.
I say all of this not to distance myself from a side or as a means of revisionist history, but as to provide transparency before I get into the heart of this blog. Look, I didn't believe Trump directly explicitly conspired with Russian government to get elected but I possess an unfettered belief he, his business and his children (sans Tiffany and Baron, of course) have some unsavory and highly likely illegal ties to Russian oligarchs.
Now, let's get to the tea.
The Left has been ablaze with this Russiagate story for the last two years. Some on the Progressive Left such as Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski, The Intercept's Glen Greenwald. The Young Turks' Jimmy Dore and independent journalist Micheal Tracey have said from day one the entire investigation was crap and was nothing more than a modern day "red scare". They have roasted Democrats and mainstream media for what they say is "red baiting" and pushing the Trump/Russia collusion angle as a means of deflecting culpability for the debacle that was the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Also, they targeted ex-intelligence officials, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), The Atlantic's Natasha Bertrand, journalist Marcy Wheeler and MSNBC's Joy Ann Reid and Rachel Maddow as the biggest peddlers of what they feel is an insidious misleading conspiracy.
You know what? They are right! They are also lacking objectivity.
Here is the thing. Wheeler, Maddow and Reid went over the top with Russia coverage.
As Micheal Tracey pointed out on Twitter Marcy Wheeler burned FBI contacts over this story.
Joy Ann Reid's "AM Joy" was dominated by Russiagate coverage. Former military intel officer Malcolm Nance and journalists (the aforementioned) Bertrand and Sarah Kenzidor were guests literally almost every weekend on the show. Sometimes they would be on both the Saturday and Sunday shows.
And, then there is Maddow. Now, look, I love Rachel Maddow and have since her days on Air America. But, Lawd Jesus, girl was consumed with the Mueller investigation like it was Tristan Thompson cheating on Khloe Kardashian with Jordyn Woods! (And, hey! Don't judge me because I even know about Khloe and Tristan...Ok, you can judge me a little.)
Maddow did some helluva good reporting on Trump's seedy financial ties to Russian oligarchs. She highlighted Erik Prince's trifiliness and his attempts to privatize the wars in Syria and Afghanistan.
However, Rachel's entire show or at least the first half of it became engulfed with Russiagate. Maddow, whom was once seen as a leading Progressive voice because she focused on government corruption and illegal wars, basically ignored Yemen, Syria and Trump's other more tangible criminality such as emoluments violations, bank fraud and tax evasion. When she did touch on the latter it was always in reference to Russia.
So, how do the Russiagate leftist skeptics lack objectivity you're probably wondering?
Well, let's begin with the four page summary Attorney General William Barr released March 23rd. We now know the full Mueller Report is almost 400 pages long. So, a four page summary that didn't quote one full sentence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems at the very least odd.
Russiagate skeptics are claiming vindication for their skepticism because "there was zero collusion and Trump was found to not have committed a crime". However, according to Barr's summary that is not exactly true. AG Barr's summary says "evidence could not be established that Trump, his campaign nor anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" and regarding obstruction of justice "no crime was committed but Mueller could not exonerate the President". While criticism is and will be levied over the parsing of words, words and word structure matter. An entire industry of publicists, press secretaries and spinners thrive because they have unique talents in how they structure statements to be beneficial toward their clients.
So, that begs the question why didn't Mueller exonerate Trump on obstruction? Also, what does "evidence could not be established" mean regarding collusion? That is decidedly different from saying there is no evidence.
Of course, the full un-sanitized report being released would answer these questions.
But, the problem is Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is doing everything he can to block the report's release, which is peculiar if Trump is a totally innocent man. AG Barr has said the report will be released but only after the White House reviews it first. Seriously!
I am just going to say it appears perhaps the report contains some facts that place the president in a quite unfavorable light.
And, while all of the detractors are publicly saying the report should be released to the public, they are also saying people are making too much of Barr's summary and McConnell's subsequent actions. However, the questioning of Barr's actions are salient. It was Bill Barr who recommended to Daddy Bush to pardon all of the principal players in the Iran-Contra scandal. Among those pardoned was Elliott Abrams, the current envoy to Venezuela. Yes, the same Elliott Abrams whom the Left has lit up and who is guilty of war crimes and was explicitly involved in the United States sanctioned atrocities in Central America throughout the 1980s. So, yeah, anything this dude does that appears to be covering up should be side-eyed.
Oh, let's not even mention Barr's 19 page memorandum a year ago which decried the Mueller investigation and essentially said a sitting president cannot obstruct justice. By the way Mueller basically punted on making the call whether to bring obstruction charges against Trump and left up to Barr who decided to end all inquiries. Nothing fishy there.
Hey, understand I understand where the Michael Traceys, Kyle Kulinskis and Jimmy Dores are coming from. Their primary contention (or at least one of them) is that Russiagate took away from focus on policies and the more salient corruption in the Trump administration. I agree.
They say people in the media and political class became so consumed with conspiracy and the idea that Trump was a traitor they lost perspective and objectivity. I concur.
Where I veer away is the paranoia that Democrats were trying to initiate war with Russia. I never heard one person advocate for that. Basically, that kind of rhetoric is propagandist except on the other end of the scale. I mean is war with Russia really a legit concern?
Also, I acknowledge there are people (Rachel Maddow) who are hanging onto this story. I fully realize there are disingenuous players here. But, that doesn't mean real legitimate tangible unanswered questions that still exist.
If there was no underlying crime, why did so many people lie about Russian contacts? Micheal Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and George Papadopoulos all provably lied. Why?
Now, before anyone gets all pissy I'm not implying there really is collusion. But, there is certainly something amiss. Surely, we all can concede that.
Another question is what role did Trump attempting to build a Trump Tower Moscow play into all this?
While Trump has certainly did things that are seemingly hostile to Putin's interest, why does he capitulate to him so much? Why all the secret phone calls? In Helsinki why did "Mr. Alpha Male" become such a beta cuck toward Putin?
I believe it's because Putin likely has dirt on him or some financial hold just like Israel and Saudia Arabia does. Follow the money.
Lastly, I do find it interesting that one detail from Barr's summary of the Mueller Report is being overlooked and/or downplayed, which is it was determined Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. I'll concede this to the detractors. We do the same shit. We do!
However, another main contention of Russiagate opponents is that there either was no interference or it didn't matter. Well, again, we now know it happened. Those downplaying it are speaking from hopeful conjecture because until we see the report we don't really know the extent of the interference.
As for it not mattering, I think that is incorrect. Hey, Hillary Clinton's campaign made mistakes a sophmore running for high school class president would not have made. She was an awful candidate with an arrogant dumbass running it. But, several other factors coupled with sheer incompetence played into her losing.
And, allow me to say this to anyone on the left or right talmbout the "deep state". If there was really a "deep state" conspiracy against Trump, Mango Unchained wouldn't be president right now. Can we please use some commonsense?!
President Obama could have given the FBI permission, which they wanted, to announce there was an investigation before the election. He easily could have not given one fuck what Mitch McConnell said. And, before anyone comes at me with "the will of the people overrode the 'deep state' efforts, just stop. Essentially, Trump won the electoral college by 77,000 votes. Do you really believe if the Obama administration had told the public about Russian interference, as the FBI wanted to do, that a narrative of "Trump could be a Russian asset" wouldn't erased that 77,000 vote deficit?
So, again, if they wanted to stop Trump, they would have.
For the Russiagate detractors your entitled to your victory lap I suppose but until the Mueller Report is released I would hold off on that champagne bath.
For the Russiagate peddlers it's time to move on. Let Congress do its job.
Focus on the 2020 election. We have 843 candidates. Let's choose the best one,
congeal around a coherent policy soaked and driven message and do our job at the ballot box.
