The Leftmedia's (Non)Evolving Russia Narrative
The Mueller report notwithstanding, the Leftmedia won't concede that Trump isn't a criminal.
Wondering just how obsessed the Leftmedia was (and still is) with Robert Mueller’s just-concluded investigation into Donald Trump? Well, here’s your answer.
According to Rich Noyes of NewsBusters: “From January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day) through March 21, 2019 (the last night before special counsel Robert Mueller sent his report to the Attorney General), the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts produced a combined 2,284 minutes of ‘collusion’ coverage, most of it (1,909 minutes) following Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017. That’s an average of roughly three minutes a night, every night, for an astonishing 791 days — a level of coverage normally associated only with a major war or a presidential election.”
Two prominent newspapers even won Pulitzers for peddling Russian-collusion drivel.
Some of the words, phrases, and predictions Leftmedia pontificators have fallaciously used over the last two years either to describe Mueller’s investigation or to interpret Trump’s behavior and/or plight include:
Indictments for Trump and Co.
High crimes and misdemeanors
The noose is tightening
Now let’s fast-forward. On Friday, Robert Mueller finally submitted his report. According to Attorney General William Barr, “The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.” All that notwithstanding, Barr says Mueller “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.”
Nevertheless, Leftmedia pontificators are responding to the Mueller news with the same presumptuous scorn:
“All these dots we are now to believe don’t connect. … How can they let Trump off the hook? So far … we have no reason to believe Trump is going to be charged… He will not be charged with obstruction or collusion, without ever having to sit down with the special counsel Mueller and answer his d—n questions. How can that happen?” —MNSBC’s Chris Matthews
“[Richard Nixon] got caught, and he knew it, and he cried, and he left. Trump doesn’t have that faculty.” —Chris Matthews
“It feels like the seeds of a cover-up are here.” —MSNBC’s Joy Reid
“I’ve covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light.” —Dan Rather
“You have a special counsel because the person is supposed to be independent and supposed to make this legal judgment. In this case, for whatever reason, Mueller didn’t. Attorney General Barr took it upon himself to issue a legal conclusion, and some critics are saying, ‘Wait a minute. Is this on the level?’ … On one he issues a prosecutorial judgement — he comes to a legal conclusion — and on the other one, he sidesteps. Why? Is that a cop out? Isn’t this his job?” —“Today” show co-host Savannah Guthrie
“It’s not good enough to say, ‘Well, you decide whether or not he’s actually committed a crime.’ That’s one of the things you were tasked with. Which is why … there must be something more behind the scenes. … I’m completely unsatisfied.” —CNN legal analyst Laura Coates
“I think the most important thing that we’re going to look for next is what Jerry Nadler just said, which is he’s going to have Barr come up, [and] they’re going to grill him on this. Maybe even Mueller. And then they’re going to take the next step.” —CNN’s Dana Bash, who added, “[Democrats] don’t need it to be beyond a reasonable doubt to start impeachment proceedings against the President for obstruction of justice.”
“Why didn’t [Mueller] make an opinion about [obstruction]? He’s an experienced prosecutor. … [William Barr] has always had a kooky interpretation of obstruction. That’s why it’s really important to have a traditional prosecutor’s answer about if there’s obstruction.” —MSNBC legal analyst Cynthia Alksne
“Will this be the final word on ‘collusion’? Unlikely. First, collusion has no legal definition, though it has become a term of art as a shorthand reference to the Russia investigation.” —The New York Times’s Eileen Sullivan
“It’s unlikely there’s going to be anything in that Mueller report that’s going to satisfy me in terms of why these people weren’t even brought in under oath for questioning.” —AboveTheLaw.com editor Elie Mystal
“I don’t need the Mueller report to know he’s a traitor. I have a TV.” —“Real Time” host Bill Maher
“This report was concluded without interviewing the president of the United States in front of a grand jury. Now … there was plenty of legal reasons perhaps that Bob Mueller decided not to go through with that. Will that be known as a mistake or not?” —MSNBC’s Chuck Todd
An emotional Rachel Maddow (MSNBC):
And finally, Curtis Houck of NewsBusters reports, “On Friday, ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News made sure to include amidst their extensive coverage on the completion of the Mueller Report that, despite the lack of any future indictments from the Special Counsel, House Democrats still have an increasing number of ongoing investigations into every aspect of President Trump’s life that could prove perilous for the White House.”
Of course they do. The thing about witch hunts is that they never end.