[fareesh]

It seems to me as an outsider that everyone's standard for honesty has been reduced because it's an acceptable sacrifice if it means sliming the opposing political party. This has undertones of conveying that the President "got away" with this activity, which is the intended takeaway from the article.

The quality of journalism seems to have been hit hardest by this philosophy. For over a year all of us around the world have been hearing about something called a Mueller Investigation from the news media in the USA, and now despite the fact that it has cleared the President and his campaign of the allegations made, not a single media outlet has walked back the insinuations made with this style of reporting which, through lawyerspeak essentially declared him guilty without saying it outright, but close enough for it to convince the general public.

It's really unfortunate because the media has a very important responsibility. Based on the behavior of journalists that I see on social media, it seems like overgrown children are running things. One such example is a lady named Sarah Jeong who has written some really disgusting tweets on social media, and was given a relatively important position at NYT.

[notfromhere]

The report specifically didn't clear the president of anything; it does describe multiple instances of obstruction of justice, lying by Trump campaign associates, and destruction of evidence.

[fareesh]

I remember reading the report on the day of the release and its conclusion was written quite plainly that no American colluded with any foreign government. It was one of the principal conclusions.

As for the obstruction aspect - isn't that now a mere technicality? A man and his team have been falsely accused, he tried to get out of the burden of being politically undermined by the drama of an investigation that would clear him in the end, which it did, but not without massive damage to his political capital, which it did. I am sure other governments were also following this closely, and it most certainly would have had an effect on foreign relations.

That sounds exactly like what any innocent person would do. If the government in my country shows up at my door tomorrow with some incorrect charges, my first reaction is to get rid of the investigation by whatever means necessary because I don't want to go through the nightmarish ordeal.

What's being argued is that he tried to fire the guy who would end up proving he was innocent? Is that the level of partisanship that your country has reached today? It's really not helpful to any society when things get that bad. It's the same "get him by any means necessary" attitude that I referenced in my earlier comment. We couldn't get him on the original accusation so now let's get him on how he reacted when we accused him.

[notfromhere]

The report states multiple instances where he attempted to fire the special counsel or interfered with the investigation. Being upset does not make obstruction any less a crime; the report specifically states that it does not clear the president of obstruction of justice.

You are literally arguing that if you feel you are innocent, you are able to obstruct an investigation because you know you are innocent. That is not how justice works and is circular logic that empowers officials to cover up their own misdeeds. Obstruction is a crime in itself because it prevents an investigation from proceeding and shows a guilty conscience.

[fareesh]

Which is my point - the report's conclusion contradicts a very large number of headlines and stories that the news media spoke of in near-factual terms. We are now in a place where nothing he did impacted the outcome - since the investigation concluded unimpeded, but the fact that he tried is now a new reason to go after him.

This is what I am referring to in my original comment about the quality of journalism and its motivations - it's an endless chase, and to be honest he's right to call it a witch hunt against him specifically.

[notfromhere]

You missed the part where he would have been charged with obstruction of justice were he not the president.

[fareesh]

The investigation was completed though, so nothing was obstructed. The media went from:

he colluded

he didn't collude but he obstructed

he didn't obstruct but he wanted to

That's the point being made here - the media is not doing its due diligence and is generally engaging in predicting the future or misrepresenting facts.

[spikels]

One of the things I kind of knew but has been clearly exposed by the Trump-Russia-Mueller episode is that humans are not nearly as objective or rational as we pretend. Once you start to realize this you begin see it everywhere. It explains a lot, particularly our many failures.

And even worse you start to see people taking advantage of these human weaknesses. Politicians are perhaps the worst offenders but it is also common in advertising, business and even personal relationships. Somewhat depressing.

Trying to make the case for a rational, objective reading of the Mueller Report is futile while the news media, social media and most people you meet are spewing unfounded innuendo (see OP for example) and outright disproven conspiracy theories.

[sjg007]

The Mueller Report that totally exonerates the President and yet the President won't release it in full to Congress. The only one sliming the President is Trump himself.

[fareesh]

Why would that affect the principal conclusions of the report? The conclusion can't change when the redacted portion is unredacted. The person who came to the conclusion did so after writing those redacted sections, right?

[sjg007]

It's called showing your work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/muell...

[fareesh]

Yes but he showed the work and arrived at a conclusion as well. I am not referring to Mr. Barr's letter so the article you linked is not really relevant. The investigation team themselves reviewed all material and came to a conclusion.

The premise is that this investigation team was seen by the entire country as a fair party to conduct an investigation and reach a conclusion. Now that the conclusion is not what the news media was suggesting all this time, there's all kinds of skepticism and wanting to see the work.

This is an echo of 2016 again. The news media alluded to an entirely different election result, the result was the complete opposite, and slowly everyone started to question how the media could be so wrong again.

It seems like everyone's standard for truth is "if reality contradicts the media it means something is being hidden" as opposed to "the media was wrong because they are bad at this"

[sjg007]

From the WSJ article above: “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

[fareesh]

Right, but I'm not referring to the summary at all so I don't know why it's a part of the discussion. The actual report itself has the same conclusions.