[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?

[triceratops]

This is growing tedious. We're just going around in circles now.

If you didn't imply "Mueller can't be trusted" what did you mean by this comment where you said "Here's Mueller lying to the world": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25381931?

On the other hand, if you agree that Mueller can be trusted please refer to my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25377886 I showed how Mueller disagreed in very strong terms about "no collusion" as a conclusion. And how "no collusion" was the lie (Barr's summary letter) spread widely before the truth (the actual report) could come out.

You're either a troll arguing in bad faith. In which case, I hope you find better things to do with your life. Or you can't see the logical fallacies in your own worldview, which is a sure sign of being brainwashed by your news sources. In that case, I hope you are able to see the truth one day.

[kneel]

You literally made up a quote attributed to me and asked me to defend it, and now have the audacity to accuse me of bad faith trolling? Ok