| > 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... |