[kneel]

State propaganda psyops.

Here's Mueller lying to the world to justify a war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ

Dirty tricks and psyops. Fooled entire nations, they just need people to swallow it down and they maintain power.

[triceratops]

"Mueller is untrustworthy therefore his investigation's conclusions are untrustworthy" is what you're saying.

But at the same time you linked me to an NPR article about the initial summary of Mueller report that said "No collusion", which you believed. But then the actual report came out and it said "Quite possibly collusion" and therefore Mueller's a liar? That's some pretty impressive doublethink.

It's clear no amount of evidence matters to you so I won't try any more.

What makes you so sure you aren't the one being psyops-ed by whichever media source you trust?

You hold diametrically opposing opinions simulataneously ("No collusion!" && "Mueller's a liar!") to fit your image of a charismatic leader. You believe in some amorphous "they" who are silently manipulating everyone behind the scenes. These are all classic signs of being psypops-ed.

[kneel]

It takes some serious mental acrobatics to read the Mueller report and then somehow think there was a typo in the summary that led to the wrong conclusions.

Many outside of the US political circus viewed the whole Russiagate affair as a joke, independents who don't have strong adherence to any party can see the farce.

Even some of the most ardent journalists who pushed the collusion narrative admitted that they were not practicing real journalism, they called it 'meta-journalism' I'm not joking. They actually said that they don't have time to check facts and counter narratives need to be spun quickly to combat Trump lies... regardless of facts. (Seth Abramson)

I really don't blame people for being so twisted on this. It was 3 years of nonstop misinformation blaring from every major news outlet. The CIA/FBI officials leaking to the media as anon sources should have been a clue, but not everyone is keen to this.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed." - Twain

[triceratops]

> somehow think there was a typo in the summary that led to the wrong conclusions.

Who said anything about a typo?

> Many outside of the US political circus viewed the whole Russiagate affair as a joke

"Many" is a weasel word. Who? Why does their opinion matter? Do they have subject matter expertise?

> Even some of the most ardent journalists

More weasel words. What's an "ardent" journalist?

> Seth Abramson

I don't know who that is, so I had to look him up. He's not a journalist. Wikipedia describes him as a "political columnist". The Atlantic, that bastion of lefty liberalness, called him a "conspiracy theorist".[1]

You still haven't addressed my central point. Either the Mueller report is false. Which means saying "the Mueller report says 'No collusion'" is incorrect, but AG Barr tried to say that nonetheless. Or it's true. Which means there quite possibly was collusion and the media attention was warranted.

You seem to simultaneously believe that the Mueller report said "No collusion" and that's true (and therefore the media are idiots), but also that Mueller's a liar and can't be trusted. Which is it?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Abramson#Claims_about_Pre...

[kneel]

Mueller report concluded no collusion. If you can't understand that you've been psyoped pretty hard, might want to reassess how you intake your news.

[triceratops]

"Mueller report concluded no collusion". "Mueller can't be trusted."

You said both of these things. Please explain how they can both be true.

[kneel]

>"Mueller can't be trusted."

Why would you use quotes when I never said that?