He knows his shit but for a gay journalist to suck up to Putin so much seems weird. Same with Assange and Snowden. They consider themselves the bastions of truth yet seem cool and cozy with a Putin regime who likes to kill his opponents in plain view. At this point they seem to be settling scores more then anything.
The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
He doesnt "suck up to Putin" and what does him being gay have to do with anything?
He’s a contrarian opportunist who makes his living off drawing attention to himself, which is why he has little trouble yucking it up in places like Fox (a mouthpiece for the Trump administration) and RT (a mouthpiece for an authoritarian dictatorship). Glenn is quite happy as long as he can do a bit of gleeful point scoring against the evil MSM.
Trumpty’s off to California on Friday. Maybe Nadler is holding off for something interesting happening.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Putin being a homophobe who outlawed homosexuality in Russia may have something to do with it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bernie's gonna be doing a bit of gleeful point scoring against the MSM. either that or he is taking an opportunity to expand his message to people who wouldn't otherwise hear it. One of the two
To do with the Mueller report?
Its right there in the tweet. Its posted in this thread in response to raouls point that glenn was going on fox news to point score gleefully, when actually greenwald has explained many times that his reason is to spread his message to a greater audience, exactly like bernie. Thanks for making me explain something so obvious though.
I’m sure lots of people go on Fox News to spread their message to a wider audience. Makes sense. Just couldn’t see a connection with the Mueller report.
Just curious, I've seen plenty from Greenwald on the "mainstream" media on their coverage of Trump but what are his thoughts on FNC's coverage of the administration?
He’s first and foremost a self-promoter so he is quite happy to be agreeable with the likes of Tucker Carlson in order to get on national TV. I believe CNN and MSNBC banned him for a while which is likely why he feigns grievance against the MSM but is quite happy to swallow whatever Fox and RT have to say.
Sure but I'm just wondering what, if anything, he's said on the record as far as critiquing FNC's political coverage goes. I would think he'd have equally strong opinions as he does about CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo etc. But I haven't seen it.
Reason I ask is that one common thread among the Great Skeptics and Contrarians of the Internet is that they all seem to focus on coverage by those entities and ignore the blatantly right-wing outlets like FNC/Murdoch newspapers/Breitbart, which I find strange given the readership and viewers those media outlets have. Seems like they either dismiss those as non-influential entities or simply accept the biased coverage as matter-of-fact.
People who read Greenwald or Adam Johnson who is usually spot on when it comes to media critique are not interested in low hanging fruit like Breitbart.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm shocked the investigators findings are more troubling for Trump.
err. not really.
Inevitable that the times would get comment from some of Mueller’s prosecutors.I'm shocked the investigators findings are more troubling for Trump.
err. not really.
Makes you wonder why Barr exaggerated in the first place (if he indeed did). There was always going to be some kind of leak if Mueller's team didn't feel that their findings were being fairly represented. And it's not like it moved the needle very much in the first place, so there's no "short-term gain" theory to lean on either. Trump's approval rating is essentially unchanged since the Barr report.
His base won't shift regardless. He said it himself that he could shoot someone in times square and they'd still vote for him.
Because they set the narrative.
We’ve now had a few weeks of not only right wing media but all mainstream media continuing the narrative that “Trump has been vindicated and the whole Russia thing has just been a massive red herring”.
You only need to look at a lot of the posters in here who have cemented that view point already.
If the full report gets released to congress and the full extent of Trumps criminal/unethical behaviour comes to light, it won’t be nearly as damaging as it would have been had Mueller been the one to drop the hammer.
It’s become a partisan issue now. Congress voted along party lines to subpoena the full report. It will be the Democrats giving their summary of the report to the public now rather than Mueller and that will carry half the weight.
The best play for the Democrats in the house now is for them to assign Mueller the task of providing an extensive summary that can be released to the public so it’s coming from him rather than they or Barr.
Well colour me shocked
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So they had stuff for immediate release and nearly two weeks later it hasn't been given out
And we were to trust the bill memo that says nothing to see here.
Sham.
Looking forward to hearing from the gloaters in this thread.
I’m sure it will be perfectly objective and full of critical analysis and they won’t just be looking for excuses and technicalities.
I’m sure it will be perfectly objective and full of critical analysis and they won’t just be looking for excuses and technicalities.
You won't see them...
What's the reason for your respective gloating ? Did the house open impeachment proceedings already ? Did anyone new get indicted? If the full release of the report leads to any meaningful action I"d be the first one to tell you that you were right all along.
About what, exactly? That there's more damaging information in the report that hasn't yet come out?
The idea that this is being presented as a new twist makes very little sense, from my perspective. Who in here didn't think there would be damaging information in the report that was excluded? We can point to lots of people who did. Here's a few snippets from me. There's more if you want to look.
It doesn't seem that complicated at this point.
- Muller didn't charge him or anyone close to him on either crime. That's obviously critical information.
- Even Barr, Trump's man, says there was an argument for obstruction of justice. That's huge. The fact that he decided against prosecuting still leaves the possibility that congress will impeach him, given the patterns previously established into special prosecutors' investigations into obstruction of justice in the past.
- We have every reason to expect the evidence collected that didn't meet the threshold of criminal prosecution on the Russian "collusion" case will be politically damaging to Trump, albeit given Muller's decision was much firmer on that one, it seems likely it won't be an impeachable issue either. But we already know that the way Trump deals with national security issues is inept and dangerous, that attitude has a ripple effect on his core team, and so it would be very surprising that after an investigation this deep, they didn't find a lot more "questionable" relationships, meetings and more. We've already heard about some of them.
Reading on Twittsville that large protests have been organised for tonight outside the WH, Times Square and 300 other venues throughout the country asking for release of the Mueller report.
Reason being it’s been fecking obvious since about an hour or so after Barr released his summary that Barr has whitewashed the whole thing and covered for Trump’s Illegal/Unethical behaviour.
A number of people have confidently declared the whole “Russia thing was clearly a hoax all along” despite all the evidence (actual indictments and court documents) suggesting the opposite.
I don’t remember saying you were one of the people gloating.
Gloating is the wrong word anyway. Personally, my main point of contention was people jumping on a given narrative when there are so many unknowns (and also the I told you so shite). It made no sense then and still makes no sense.... How anyone can be sure of anything right now I do not know.
You're the only person to say hoax in this thread.
It would be "white washing" if he stated that the report exonerates the president. Which he did not. Moreover, he did not say it was a summary.
We can be sure that if Barr’s letter contained the most positive thing that he could salvage from the 300+ page report then what he chose not to mention is possibly very damaging indeed.
Last edited:
I can be sure Trump is a cnut. A very corrupt one at that.
Absolutely, but his base isn't 42.1% big. It might be 30%. He needs a lot more than just the base to win in 2020.
Point being, the report was supposed to bring out damning evidence...which it did not. At least not until now. And the preliminary reports leans towards no damning evidence that'll lead to impeachment. Do we really hope anything significant would show up on the 'unknown' parts of the report? Perhaps it'll be revealed in due time, but then I don't have any hopes that report will do anything to damage his presidency.
From my perspective the biggest problem has been the establishment Dems and msnbc/cnn media jumping all over the "Trump colluded to steal the election" narrative while there were still so many unknowns to the detriment of actually moving the party forward (like that chump that is DNC chair).
I think his base is bigger than we think.
That's not what Stormy Daniels said!