Skip to main content

Worst Article of the Year: "Mueller's findings don't matter" by Sharyl Attkisson

On December 10th, 2018 at 9 am EST, we were presented with the worst article of the year. Via The Hill, right-wing shill Sharyl Attkisson released an op-ed entitled, "Mueller's findings don't matter." It only got worse from there. Let's dissect it now, shall we?

Attkisson started her piece (of garbage) with this:

"In part, it's the length of time that it's taken that has rendered special counsel Robert Mueller's probe functionally irrelevant."

Tell that to the 33 individuals who have been charged thus far...

"I submit that the die was largely cast prior to Mueller's appointment on May 17, 2017. Perhaps if there had been a quick investigation with prompt findings inside of a couple of months, things might be different. But nearly 19 months of speculation, breathless leaks and innuendo - true and false - have taken on lives of their own, providing time for each side to dig in."

Apparently Ms. Attkisson believes federal investigations should follow Columbo's lead and wrap up within 60 minutes. Mueller's probe has lasted approximately a year and a half. Compare that to Iran-Contra (almost 7 years), Whitewater (near 8 years), or even the Valerie Plame leaks (over 3 years) and the Mueller investigation runs like Hollywood film.

"From what I can tell, most people have come down somewhere in one of two general camps:

Camp One

President Donald Trump is best friends with Russian President Vladimir Putin. See, Trump and Putin are so cleverly diabolical that, long ago, they foresaw what nobody else did: Trump was going to get elected president in 2016. In fact, it may even have been Putin's idea for him to run, one that was whispered into Trump's ear on a business trip to Moscow where Trump was recorded entertaining hookers. What better way for Trump to become president? Sure, it seems like a contorted way for a U.S. business tycoon to curry favor in a country where bribes usually do just fine, but there's just no accounting for some people's methodology."

This is essentially what the right has resorted to in order to defend their president - intentionally or unintentionally utilize fallacies to paint the truth as an oversimplified mess worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit.

"In any event, we all know Putin broke into the Democratic National Committee's computers and provided embarrassing emails to WikiLeaks showing the true nature of Hillary Clinton's campaign, so that Trump would be elected president.

After the computer break-in, Trump publicly joked that he hoped Russia could find Clinton's missing emails (the ones her associates destroyed after the emails had been subpoenaed by Congress). But Trump wasn't actually joking; he was totally serious. Therefore, he's responsible for Russia's computer break-ins. For some reason, the Democrats wouldn't let the FBI examine the computers to confirm who did it. And even though our intel agencies at the time deemed it a national security risk of the highest order, the FBI didn't seize the Democrats' computers to examine. But we can safely assume Putin and Trump were responsible. 

Further, the whole campaign to portray Trump as an unserious candidate with zero chance of winning was actually a disinformation campaign conceived by the Trump-Putin conspiracy team, which includes retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos and many others."

What Ms. Attkisson and her ilk seem to not realize is there's a stark difference between debunked conspiracy theories and real-life investigations. There's a reason why Robert Mueller wasn't called upon to investigate Barack Obama's place of birth - it was an easily debunked conspiracy unworthy of a federal investigation. That's not the case with regard to the Russia probe. Robert Mueller isn't investigating an outlandish claim made by a far-left wing loon. He isn't looking into a conspiracy theory shared by your crazy uncle, John, via email. This investigation is legit and isn't to be taken lightly.

"We also know in Camp One, that Putin and Trump conspired in an unlawful, treasonous way to tamper with votes.

Okay, maybe there was no actual vote-tampering, but Putin did use Facebook ads, memes and robot accounts on Twitter to hypnotize and brainwash unsuspecting voters so they would vote for Trump.

Well, maybe Putin himself didn't do any of that, but our intel officials are pretty darn sure that people in Russia who knew Putin, or  might have met Putin once, or should have known Putin, did so. Facebook and Twitter must be punished and, prior to 2020, convinced to censor material that could be beneficial to Trump or his supporters. Trump must be impeached and driven from office. He and his team of conspirators must be put in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Melania, Don Junior, Ivanka and Jared, too.

Maybe even Baron..."

Ms. Attkisson is giving us her best Oprah impression here: "You get a fallacy; you get a fallacy; everyone gets a fallacy!" Don Jr., Ivanka, and Jared have all been involved in their father's campaign and decision-making/policy decisions in the Oval Office, so they're fair game. Melania and especially Baron? Not so much... Also, the author seems to sell Americans short on their stupidity. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, Politifact, Trump lies approximately 70% of the time, yet was able to convince the public he was telling the truth and should be our next president. So sadly, yes, it's quite possible Facebook ads, memes, and robot accounts on Twitter did have a substantial impact on voters' decisions. What's so different about them from mailers and television/radio ads? Ms. Attkisson needs to get with the times...

"Camp Two

Bad actors in our intel community and other parts of the Deep State conspired to develop 'insurance policies' against Trump. They schemed to prevent him and his non-establishment team from poking into longstanding surveillance abuses and other potential crimes and constitutional violations against U.S. citizens, journalists and politicians.

They are, at once, the incompetent gang-that-can't-shoot-straight as well as the most secretive, highly-organized Deep State operatives who ever existed.

They successfully neutralized their biggest immediate threats: Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They opened investigations as a premise to keep Trump's nose out of his own Department of Justice. Any actions President Trump took that veered anywhere close to his own Justice Department would then be portrayed as 'obstruction.'

These bad guys also worked to cover up their cover-up of the many crimes committed by the Clinton cabal - from the Clinton Foundation to Uranium One. There were payoffs to or deals with the Clintons, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

Involved in the anti-Trump conspiracies are: John Brennan, James Clapper, foreign intelligence, Ukraine (Russia's arch-enemy), and various domestic political opponents. They secretly surveilled numerous Trump associates, looking for political intel and blackmail material. They assigned intel operatives to commit sting operations, and sent them to infiltrate the Trump campaign and transition team to lure them into compromising positions. They used political opposition research and 'unmaskings.' They violated the FBI's strict 'Woods Procedures' by presenting unverified material to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants to wiretap Trump associates.

Part of the conspiracy includes targeting Trump's political allies for investigation and criminal prosecution for the things they did prior to their association with Trump. Or they were prosecuted for lying about crimes that didn't occur. It's all to send a message. If you have the audacity to support Trump, the Deep State will comb through your life and your past and destroy you, put you in prison, or at least ruin your reputation. You'll go broke trying to defend yourself.

For all of this, the above-named conspirators belong in prison.

Maybe even Chelsea, too..."

Notice how Ms. Attkisson didn't add any snarky bits in this portion of the article? Even when she tries to come across as nonpartisan, she can't help but come across as partisan.

"The fact is, whatever Mueller announces isn't likely to change many minds at this point. Instead, it will support what people already believe.

Mueller exonerates Trump of colluding with Russia? Well, we all know Mueller is a Republican. Besides, look at all the shady characters who surrounded Trump and got in trouble. That proves he's guilty of something!

Mueller implicates Trump in Russia collusion? Well, we all know the fix was in from the start - and collusion isn't even a crime, anyhow.

How Muller's (sic) conclusions are received will depend upon where we already stand. 

So I say, let's get on with it. No need to wait. We've each already written our own version of Chapter Two.

Let the games begin."

No, let the criticism begin. Sharyl Attkisson makes it appear as though public opinion is the only thing of import in the Mueller probe. So in a murder trial, if the public views the defendant as innocent yet he's convicted and sent to death row, the verdict is thereby moot? Ms. Attkisson appears to know the law about as well as Santa Claus knows veganism. The law doesn't give one sh*t what Sharyl Attkisson thinks of it, let alone two. There have been 33 individuals indicted to this point in the Mueller probe and there are sure to be several more. Public opinion polls aren't going to matter if any of these individuals are found guilty and sent to prison. When behind bars, it's not like one of them will think, "Well, at least 51% of the public think I got a raw deal. That's what really matters." Whether or not die-hard Trump supporters like Sharyl Attkisson want to believe facts that stare them in the face doesn't diminish the reality of them.

Sharyl Attkisson's article is a disgrace to this country and The Hill should be ashamed of publishing it. What the author is essentially saying is that voters don't matter, that integrity doesn't matter, that the law doesn't matter, that democracy doesn't matter. "Mueller's findings don't matter"? Bullsh*t. More like Sharyl Attkisson's witless meanderings don't matter when it comes to Mueller's findings.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/420433-muellers-findings-dont-matter

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"