The horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad news cycle for our friends in the media just keeps on truckin’. We suppose if we had spent years pushing a certain narrative and it got completely obliterated in a matter of 48 hours we might be a tad desperate to somehow spin things in our favor as well but c’mon, this is just getting pathetic. From journos pretending they were just observers (nice try, CNN) to pundits now claiming they DIDN’T expect Mueller to really find anything anyway, this has been the schadenfreude to end all schadenfreude.
Take for example, this sad podcast from The New York Times featuring Maggie Haberman and some other people you never heard of.
The Mueller report states that "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" on the issue of obstruction of justice. Listen to today's episode of "The Daily." https://t.co/69Ol593TpD
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 25, 2019
We’ll save you a listen and just tell you they are very focused on the ‘exonerating’ part of the report. Sure, Trump may not have done THIS but you KNOW he probably did THAT … it’s exhausting and such a waste of time.
“It does not conclude he committed a crime” is the only part of that sentence that matters. The prosecutor could not meet the burden of proof in a system that considers you innocent until proven guilty. https://t.co/7El1utlQWr
— Stacey (@ScotsFyre) March 25, 2019
Bingo.
Repeat after us. Trump didn’t collude.
aka INNOCENT until proven guilty. as any other US citizen
— MANNEP (@MANNEP5) March 25, 2019
— Patrick Fiorito (@FioritoPatrick) March 25, 2019
Seriously.
Correct. They have conveniently left a bright orange tennis ball in the driveway for the Democrats to chase into traffic. Obstructing justice during the investigation of crime that didn't happen. By all means, make this the platform on which you nationalize house elections.
— MBC (@TOtter777) March 25, 2019
This editor clearly isn’t a lawyer (and probably doesn’t know much about how these things work) but IF there was no crime Trump was trying to stop them from investigating in the first place there can’t really be obstruction of justice, right?
Just thinking out loud.
Anyway … *popcorn*
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member