Mueller report cover up

[Hawktawk]

I sure hope so. I think there should be someone with him for the next 48 hours.

I think someone should write an epilogue for the party of Lincoln and Reagan, it does not exist. Its the trump party now with otherwise fine people such as yourself who have taken a swan dive into the slag heap for a semi senile lunatic criminal who is utterly skewered by Mueller's report. Mueller makes clear that the congress can take up the question of obstruction and lays out at least 9 additional instances where obstruction didn't happen only because Trump appointees refused to obey his orders.

As for collusion while he does not make the case for criminality he makes it clear that Russia mounted a massive sophisticated effort to benefit Trump and that he and his associates were well aware of it and welcomed the assistance. He points out that the only reason Don Jr did not commit a criminal act meeting with Russians in Trump tower was that he is too goddamn dumb to know it was wrong.Lastly regarding obstruction its entirely possible that the obstruction prevented further facts supporting criminal collusion from coming to light.

The report says Trumps take home test written answers were "inadequate" and lays out 36 instances where the president who skewered Hillary for saying she couldn't recall wrote that he couldn't recall . The report also lays bare the utter dysfunction of this white house with a crazy impetuous lunatic barking out orders and flying off on tangents as his aides scramble to do his bidding or just disobey his crazier commands. I feel completely vindicated in my assessment of this criminal idiot since about 2 weeks after he began running for president.

I feel great Trumptards!!!!! Excellent!!!!this report is great. The 11 redacted investigations that still continue ought to be fun as the indictments break as well so getcha popcorn.

The president of the united states, were he any other man in any other job would be doing time already....If that cool with the Trumptards of the world whether its ID hawkman, Aseahawk, Burton, or Bob Barr, Lindsay Graham etc well have at it. Its not making america the slightest bit great.

That is all and have a great day shackers

[burrrton]

Hawktawk is just fine smartass.

Fact not in evidence.

Anyone who can read this report and say it exonerates Chump in any way shape or form is delusional

I guess this person doesn't know that the DOJ is not in the business of exonerating people.

[idhawkman]

Hawktawk is just fine smartass.

Fact not in evidence.

Anyone who can read this report and say it exonerates Chump in any way shape or form is delusional

I guess this person doesn't know that the DOJ is not in the business of exonerating people.

TDS is in full display these days. It's over and they don't know it yet. Like a chicken that has just lost its head, doesn't know its dead yet....

As Kelly-Anne Conway said, "apologies are being accepted for those gracious enough to offer it."

[I-5]

The story is over if you already believed in the AG's spin, but not everyone agrees with that

For himself, Mueller said he couldn't exonerate Trump from criminal wrongdoing. So which is it?

In the end, I'd rather have the guy elected out of office...impeachment is lame (just like it was to Clinton)

[Hawktawk]

Yeah TDS is in full display Mr 40% approval and its YOU GUYS WHO HAVE IT. You accept the unacceptable and you're right in bed with the delusional who believe Trumps been exonerated or the Bob Barr's or Lindsay Grahams of the world who damn well know he hasn't but still run interference for him.. And for the smartass burrton its Trump who says hes exonerated along with his info hag Kellyane. I'm just rebutting it.

I like what her husband George Conway has to say a lot more than she and Sarah Huckabee Sanders lies one of which she had to admit to under oath when she said the FBI rank and file had lost faith in Comey.

Get help for that TDS boys. The only worse thing than a mental disorder is not knowing it or admitting it, sort of like the lunatic you idolize.

[Hawktawk]

The story is over if you already believed in the AG's spin, but not everyone agrees with that

For himself, Mueller said he couldn't exonerate Trump from criminal wrongdoing. So which is it?

In the end, I'd rather have the guy elected out of office...impeachment is lame (just like it was to Clinton)

An overwhelming majority of Americans, around 60% did not believe Trump was exonerated after the guy who wrote a 19 page job interview resume saying he couldn't be charged with obstruction wrote a 4 page political whitewash of a 448 page report.

Now that its in public display in large part the polls will be interesting. I don't think polls will turn more to the presidents favor and his ranting and raving about the "crazy" "bullshit" investigation by"19 angry democrats" shows even he isn't so dense he doesn't understand how damning of he and his administration this report really is.

As for Impeachment just not being a viable option I couldn't agree more. It SHOULD happen but this Senate wouldn't do it regardless of what evidence was produced so its pointless and political suicide for house members. Interestingly the report shows Senate intelligence chair Richard Burr shared classified intelligence about targets of their investigation from an FBI briefing with WH counsel before Mueller was ever named. Now he "cant recall the conversation"

[Hawktawk]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-na ... ute-trump/

Wow Fox news legal analyst

Yeah this report was great for Trump you TDS sufferers. Sad......

[c_hawkbob]

“But it did show a venal, amoral, deceptive Donald Trump, instructing his aides to lie and willing to help them do so. That’s not good in the president of the United States.”

None of that matters anymore, it's just pick a side and win at all costs ...

[burrrton]

None of that matters anymore, it's just pick a side and win at all costs ...

It matters, but it's not news to anyone who's followed the dude for the last 30 years, it's not a crime, and it's not *close* to what we've spent the last 2 years being assured was the case by the entirety of the MSM and members of Congress like Adam Schiff.

[I-5]

If there is such a thing as MSM, where do you get news from that you can trust? Serious question.

[idhawkman]

Those that still want to "get Trump" are basically saying that they want to prosecute the guy for vehemently defending himself against a crime that he didn't commit. If you boil it all down, they say, yeah but he should have just rolled over and let us slay him instead of fighting back and for that we don't think he deserves to be in office.

Pretty silly if you look at it. The rest of the country in the meantime want infrastructure, health care, immigration reform, etc ,etc, etc. yeah but, he almost committed a crime.

What I think is even more rich is when they say he doesn't listen to advisors but if that is the case, Mueller would have been fired, Sessions would have been fired, etc. etc.

So either he's the luckiest guy in the world to make billions of dollars in business, win in the highest position in politics and avoid an all out op against him by the best intelligence agencies in the world. Or, they would have to admit he's smart, listens to advisers (even though he may blow steam and huff and puff at times) and executes his agenda even in the face of overwhelming odds. Yep, he's boxed the haters into a corner and they don't know how to spin it now but I'm sure they'll find a way.

More popcorn please!

[idhawkman]

If there is such a thing as MSM, where do you get news from that you can trust? Serious question.

Well you may want to tune into the only news outlet that has gotten it right all along. There's a ton more coming and you'll start to see the rats turn on themselves and start eating their own in the next 4-6 weeks. I bet the MSM will even turn on the dems by the time this is all over. They'll say something like, "we trusted them and their un-named sources and they LIED to us."

[I-5]

Which outlet exactly? I'm not playing dumb, I want to know. And how many sources do you get news from?

[I-5]

Those that still want to "get Trump" are basically saying that they want to prosecute the guy for vehemently defending himself against a crime that he didn't commit. If you boil it all down, they say, yeah but he should have just rolled over and let us slay him instead of fighting back and for that we don't think he deserves to be in office.

Pretty silly if you look at it. The rest of the country in the meantime want infrastructure, health care, immigration reform, etc ,etc, etc. yeah but, he almost committed a crime.

What I think is even more rich is when they say he doesn't listen to advisors but if that is the case, Mueller would have been fired, Sessions would have been fired, etc. etc.

So either he's the luckiest guy in the world to make billions of dollars in business, win in the highest position in politics and avoid an all out op against him by the best intelligence agencies in the world. Or, they would have to admit he's smart, listens to advisers (even though he may blow steam and huff and puff at times) and executes his agenda even in the face of overwhelming odds. Yep, he's boxed the haters into a corner and they don't know how to spin it now but I'm sure they'll find a way.

More popcorn please!

Regarding firing Mueller, according to the part of report I read, he ordered his counsel McGann to fire Mueller, but McGann refused to carry it out, and eventually quit. How do you turn that into Trump is listening to his advisors?

[c_hawkbob]

So tired of the "sure he's a dirtbag, but everybody else is worse" argument, it's just not true. Not even close.

[Hawktawk]

Exactly Bob. There’s never been a more dishonest crooked corrupt president . It’s not a close call Nixon etc notwithstanding . We have become a frog in a pot of boiling water when super duper smarter than anyone guys like Burrton think
It’s just no big deal

[RiverDog]

So tired of the "sure he's a dirtbag, but everybody else is worse" argument, it's just not true. Not even close.

Yep. Even if it were true, it's a two wrongs makes a right logic. I've never accepted the reasoning that since Person A did this or that, it's OK for Person B to do the same so long it's to a lesser degree. Life in the frying pan or life in the fire. It's one of those childhood lessons taught to me that stuck and why despite my dislike of DJT, that I didn't vote for HRC.

[burrrton]

Which outlet exactly? I'm not playing dumb, I want to know. And how many sources do you get news from?

Does anybody get their news from a single outlet in 2019?

I use aggregation sites and social media to hear what's going on, then click every link I can find if it interests me. This means in the last couple months, I've watched or read at least a few things from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FNC, Daily Caller, Huffington Post, The Federalist, New Republic, NYT, WaPo, Wa Examiner, LAT, and probably a dozen more that aren't coming to mind.

[burrrton]

super duper smarter than anyone guys like Burrton

I'm adorable, too.

[RiverDog]

Does anybody get their news from a single outlet in 2019?

I think you'd be surprised. There are people out there, including one in this forum that said he didn't watch CNN due to their liberal slant, that limit the kinds of POV's they'll consider.

I use aggregation sites and social media to hear what's going on, then click every link I can find if it interests me. This means in the last couple months, I've watched or read at least a few things from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FNC, Daily Caller, Huffington Post, The Federalist, New Republic, NYT, WaPo, Wa Examiner, LAT, and probably a dozen more that aren't coming to mind.

Yea, me, too. I spend 60-75 minutes on aerobic machines at my gym, and with a limited channel selection, I'll intentionally listen to MSNBC for a period of time then turn on Fox News. On my news feed, I have selected those you mentioned plus Breitbart, Reuters, AP, MSN, Yahoo, and NPR. There's some I'd like to read, like the Washington Post and WSJ, but they want you to subscribe. I also get national news articles from local newspapers, like the Tri City Herald, Seattle PI, Oregonian, and Spokesman Review. I'm following lots of state and local organizations on my Facebook news feed, including school districts, city/county governments, utility companies, wildlife agencies, and so on.

There really isn't such a thing at the main stream media anymore. Just take a look at the diversity in the White House press corps. There are seats for 49 separate news organizations in the press briefing room at the White House.

[burrrton]

"Mainstream media" is just shorthand for the major news outlets that reach the widest audiences and tend to speak with one voice.

[I-5]

If you believe such a thing as MSM exists, and speaks with one voice (I disagree), why do you think that would be? Is it possible they represent the greater part of the general population, or is the inference that we’re all being manipulated into into supporting “liberal” positions by big money, or the so called deep state? There is no logic to that.

I’m glad to hear you ascribe to multiple news sources. I don’t believe anything I read on neither Fox or CNN unless I also read it on multiple sources. I remember the day of the Finland news conference - I checked Fox News and it didn’t even make it to page one that day. WTF?

[burrrton]

If you believe such a thing as MSM exists, and speaks with one voice (I disagree), why do you think that would be?

People who go into journalism in its various forms tend to hold similar political beliefs (left to far-left) and *overwhelmingly* vote for and donate to Democrats.

This has been studied, and pretty thoroughly, and the examples of left-leaning bias are almost literally endless. I don't know why this fact has to be re-litigated every few years.

[edit]

Take the "Trump Tax Cuts" for an easy, recent example. A poll taken a month or three ago showed a majority (iirc) of the public thought their taxes had gone up and that only "the wealthy" got a cut.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of cutting taxes (especially when not paired with a cut in spending), it's complete and utter nonsense. So where did they get such an idea?

[I-5]

People who go into journalism in its various forms tend to hold similar political beliefs (left to far-left) and *overwhelmingly* vote for and donate to Democrats.

This has been studied, and pretty thoroughly, and the examples of left-leaning bias are almost literally endless. I don't know why this fact has to be re-litigated every few years.

Take the "Trump Tax Cuts" for an easy, recent example. A poll taken a month or three ago showed a majority (iirc) of the public thought their taxes had gone up and that only "the wealthy" got a cut.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of cutting taxes (especially when not paired with a cut in spending), it's complete and utter nonsense. So where did they get such an idea?

OR there are more people in the world with left leaning views therefore there are more journalists representing the population. Why do you think conservatives choose not to go into journalism, except for the Alex Jones and Sean Hannity’s? Not profitable enough?

Re: tax cuts, whatever the disagreement in policy, my takeaway is this:

1) I’ll never take seriously any republican concerns about national debt again (CBO estimates impact will be $2.3T added to national debt over 10 years, or $1.9T even when macroeconomic benefits are factored)

2) Any tax benefits individuals gained through the 2017 legislation will automatically expire in 2027 - corporate benefits are permanent. There is simply no way to spin that as a benefit to individuals, just like you can’t spin that Trump actually listens to his advisors (rather than they ignore him according to the report, which is why Trump is so p$&ed off today)

[burrrton]

OR there are more people in the world with left leaning views therefore there are more journalists representing the population.

LOL. This is just a variation on the stupid "truth has a left-leaning bias" argument when they tried to defend why they were all left-leaning.

1) I’ll never take seriously any republican concerns about national debt again (CBO estimates impact will be $2.3T added to national debt over 10 years, or $1.9T even when macroeconomic benefits are factored)

Neither will I.

2) Any tax benefits individuals gained through the 2017 legislation will automatically expire in 2027 - corporate benefits are permanent.

Who insisted on including the expiration date?

[RiverDog]

People who go into journalism in its various forms tend to hold similar political beliefs (left to far-left) and *overwhelmingly* vote for and donate to Democrats.

This has been studied, and pretty thoroughly, and the examples of left-leaning bias are almost literally endless. I don't know why this fact has to be re-litigated every few years.

[edit]

Take the "Trump Tax Cuts" for an easy, recent example. A poll taken a month or three ago showed a majority (iirc) of the public thought their taxes had gone up and that only "the wealthy" got a cut.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of cutting taxes (especially when not paired with a cut in spending), it's complete and utter nonsense. So where did they get such an idea?

Not all journalists are created equal. Rush Limbaugh claims to have a listening audience that numbers over 25 million. And who's the second most listened to talk radio host? Sean Hannity. As a matter of fact, talk radio is so dominated by conservatives that the top 8 political commentary programs are conservative. And how about television? Fox News is the #1 basic cable network, even topping ESPN. CNN didn't even make the top 10. That's why Democrats were so utterly stupid not to include FNC in their debate schedule. Not everyone that watches Fox is an ultra conservative. They had a chance to reach moderates that are disenchanted with DJT and expose them to their candidates.

So while it may be true that there may be a higher percentage of liberals in the media, conservatives aren't having their voices drowned out by them. IMO it's a pretty level playing field.

[burrrton]

Rush Limbaugh claims to have a listening audience that numbers over 25 million. And who's the second most listened to talk radio host? Sean Hannity. As a matter of fact, talk radio is so dominated by conservatives that the top 8 political commentary programs are conservative.

Yes, talk radio is dominated by conservative personalities, and has a large audience, but it isn't close to what Rush claims.

And how about television? Fox News is the #1 basic cable network, even topping ESPN. CNN didn't even make the top 10.

The bolded word is key. FNC dominates cable, but they get a small fraction of what ABC + NBC + CBS get (they're something like 6-8 million each, while FNC gets, what, a million and a half?).

There are many, many more outlets for all viewpoints now than there used to be, but the alphabet networks and newspapers utterly swamp them in viewership.

[idhawkman]

Regarding firing Mueller, according to the part of report I read, he ordered his counsel McGann to fire Mueller, but McGann refused to carry it out, and eventually quit. How do you turn that into Trump is listening to his advisors?

Did Mueller get fired? Was he ever denied anything he asked for other than a face to face with Trump? He was not denied one resource, not one request or anything else in conducting his investigation.

So if he told McGann to fire Mueller, and McGann refused, why wasn't Mueller fired by anyone else? Are you making a case that ONLY McGann could fire Mueller? That would be as silly as saying that firing Comey obstructed the investigation (e.g. no one else could continue or carry on the investigation with him gone.) You'll see it spun many different ways but the bottom line is that Mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. The FBI wasn't obstructed in any way. So what exactly was obstructed? We don't put people on trial for what they think or say, only what they do.

I say I'm often going Mach 2 with my hair on fire, but I really couldn't tell you the last time I got a speeding ticket (I think it was in the '70s). So saying that Trump obstructed by saying he wanted someone fired but not actually firing them is like saying I'm guilty of going 1200 miles an hour down the freeway. I thought about going that fast, I wanted to go that fast, but I actually didn't go that fast.

So back to Trump and firing Mueller. "IF" Trump flies by the seat of his pants, and he doesn't listen to his advisors, and he acts without thinking and is a loose cannon, then why on earth didn't Mueller get fired? He thought about firing him, he said he wanted him fired, but he never actually fired him. Instead he gave him everything he asked for (except for an entrapment interview that Guilliani kept him out of). Again, what was obstructed? I guess with this new congress "almost doing something" is impeachable though. Should be interesting to watch. POPCORN!!!

[idhawkman]

Which outlet exactly? I'm not playing dumb, I want to know. And how many sources do you get news from?

I get it from a lot of places but the only one that has gotten it right all along is Fox News. You might be surprised about what you learn if you watch Tucker, Hannity and Laura for a week straight. You'll see just what is going to start coming down on Clapper, Brennan, Yates, Comey, Rice, Sztrock, and yes, even Obama. They are all going to jail. What's most amazing is that the MSM is so in bed with the dems that they have ignored the biggest scandal in American history and have carried the water for the dems all this time. When the ship starts sinking and these guys are prosecuted by Barr, the FBI IG, Huber, etc you'll see the media finally jump on board and stab all the dems in the back.

POPCORN!!!!

[idhawkman]

"Mainstream media" is just shorthand for the major news outlets that reach the widest audiences and tend to speak with one voice.

Ever since the Mueller report release CNN is under 1M viewers at prime time now. They NEED a scandal of any kind to keep afloat but now that it has been debunked, they are scrambling to find something else new to get eyeballs and sell clicks.

[idhawkman]

If you believe such a thing as MSM exists, and speaks with one voice (I disagree), why do you think that would be? Is it possible they represent the greater part of the general population, or is the inference that we’re all being manipulated into into supporting “liberal” positions by big money, or the so called deep state? There is no logic to that.

I’m glad to hear you ascribe to multiple news sources. I don’t believe anything I read on neither Fox or CNN unless I also read it on multiple sources. I remember the day of the Finland news conference - I checked Fox News and it didn’t even make it to page one that day. WTF?

Seriously? After you watch this, you'll know the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kip2w-DceV0

[burrrton]

Seriously? After you watch this, you'll know the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kip2w-DceV0

And there are countless other examples of things like that. Go search Twitter for the "collusion" videos people put together after Lefties started claiming, once they knew the report blew the accusation up, Trump was the only one that ever used that term (and similar videos showing how virtually every 'mainstream' news outlet operates from the same script).

[I-5]

I watched the video. Since Fox is on that list, what do you do about that? Do you discount them, too? I find it’s not that different from print media, where one article gets picked up and repeated by various media.

Do you believe Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, and all the other news outlets are getting marching orders from the US too?

If everything is fake news, what do you do, short of buying a plane ticket and seeing for yourself?

Ps: looks like no one in congress has still seen the full inredacted report, and Barr is going to fight like hell to protect his boss. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47991337

[RiverDog]

The bolded word is key. FNC dominates cable, but they get a small fraction of what ABC + NBC + CBS get (they're something like 6-8 million each, while FNC gets, what, a million and a half?)

You're comparing apples with oranges. Network TV's programming, even their news, is quite different than cable. The networks offer a more traditional reporting of the news with a wider variety of topics as opposed to the political commentary and editorial opinions that you get on cable. You don't see political hacks like Chris Mathews and Jesse Waters on 30 minute long programs dedicated almost exclusively to politics on the networks like you do on cable. Even the network's few exceptions, like "The View" with Whoppi Goldberg, aren't nearly as politically orientated as Fox's "Waters World" or MSNBC's "Hardball".

But the point isn't so much as which political POV has more viewers/listeners. The point is that there is a wide variety of politically orientated programming with multiple POV's that have equal access to the same audience. Conservatives are not having their voices drowned out by the three networks that comprise the evil MSN as some would like us to believe. The "MSN" does not exist in that the 5th estate is no longer dominated by the singular, speaks-with-one-voice "MSN" that it once was prior to the advent of cable TV, talk radio, the internet, social media, and so on. You acknowledged this fact yourself when you reiterated the sources where you get your information from then asking a rhetorical question indicating that in your opinion most people do get their information from multiple broad based sources with different angles and POV's.

That's one of the reasons why I stepped back a bit in this forum as I got tired of expressing my viewpoint only to have those that disagreed with it cast me as some brainwashed stooge that's being manipulated by the MSN.

[idhawkman]

I watched the video. Since Fox is on that list, what do you do about that? Do you discount them, too? I find it’s not that different from print media, where one article gets picked up and repeated by various media.

Fox network broadcast is on it but not fox news channel.

Do you believe Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, and all the other news outlets are getting marching orders from the US too?

They will do almost anything to sew discord in the US. BBC is a bit different but they are very decidedly left in their media. Why do you think Teresa May is having such a hard time bringing in Brexit? The people want Brexit but the news and govt of England don't. This is not speculation.

If everything is fake news, what do you do, short of buying a plane ticket and seeing for yourself?

Again, you may consider going and watching the only news outlet that has gotten it right from the beginning. I did see that the NY Times has an article in it today speculating that their reporting has been wrong for over 2 years and that the so called Dossier may be false. This is just the beginning of the news outlets starting to crumble around the staggering realization that the facts have never been on their side and that the house of cards is about to come crumbling down.

Ps: looks like no one in congress has still seen the full inredacted report, and Barr is going to fight like hell to protect his boss. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47991337

That's because no one has asked to go to the scif at the DOJ to read it. Its there for Nadler, Shumer, Pelosi and Schiff to go read but that would be undermining their position on impeachment so they'll keep up this charade. At some point, the American people (even those with TDS) is going to get tired of being lied to by the Dems and the MSM.

POPCORN!!!!

[burrrton]

Network TV's programming, even their news, is quite different than cable.

No it's not. It features fewer fire-branded opinion shows and are much less 'specialized', but they all do include opinion shows, report news, and reach viewers through the TV. Drawing distinctions between them in 2019 is nonsense.

That's one of the reasons why I stepped back a bit in this forum as I got tired of expressing my viewpoint only to have those that disagreed with it cast me as some brainwashed stooge that's being manipulated by the MSN.

I'm not accusing anyone of being "brainwashed", but it's indisputable that large media outlets still influence public opinion.

[burrrton]

Do you believe Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, and all the other news outlets are getting marching orders from the US too?

Huh?

A. I never said everyone got "marching orders" from some grand authority.

B. Yes, the J-school grads at Reuters et al went to the same schools the J-school grads everywhere else did.

[RiverDog]

Network TV's programming, even their news, is quite different than cable.

No it's not. It features fewer fire-branded opinion shows and are much less 'specialized', but they all do include opinion shows, report news, and reach viewers through the TV. Drawing distinctions between them in 2019 is nonsense.

Oh, come on, man! Cable programming like Fox and MSNBC have non stop, 24/7 political commentary interrupted only by the occasional news and weather update. The networks have a huge variety of programming, including sports, game shows, infomercials, talk shows, and so on. The networks don't even come close to the amount of time cable dedicates to political commentary and opinion. Even the networks once a week political shows like "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" are hosted by a more traditional moderator vs. hacks like Hannity and Mathews.

As a result, the audience between network and cable is different as well. My wife's viewing habits and those of my own are a good example. My wife doesn't vote and could care less about things like the Mueller Report and will never watch Fox or CNN, and as a consequence, she watches network programming much more than I do. On the other hand, I'll frequently watch cable news (my often noted afternoon workouts) but hate watching her crapola on network stations like Ellen Degeneres, Hot Bench, Want to be a Millionaire, and The People's Court. If you're into politics, you're much more likely to watch cable, and if you're non political, you're more likely to watch network programming.

That's one of the reasons why I stepped back a bit in this forum as I got tired of expressing my viewpoint only to have those that disagreed with it cast me as some brainwashed stooge that's being manipulated by the MSN.

I'm not accusing anyone of being "brainwashed", but it's indisputable that large media outlets still influence public opinion.

I realize and appreciate that you're not prone to that behavior and I agree that there are a lot of people that are influenced by large media outlets, especially those people that tend to gravitate to one particular type of programming. Heck, DJT is heavily influenced by Fox News. But my point was the accessibility of different opinions and POV's.

[burrrton]

RD, I get what you're saying, but the simple fact remains that ABC News (and the rest) get many, many times the number of viewers FNC gets. That's the *news* shows. The fact that they also broadcast sitcoms (etc) is irrelevant.

Whatever Hannity is ranting about on any given night will be a complete mystery to all but the half million viewers watching him. Whatever is said on ABC News will be known to 10-20x that many, and the same goes for CBS and NBC.

Added together, that's many orders of magnitude more viewers. This isn't a debatable topic.

[I-5]

Be honest...are you not one of the people watching Hannity’s rants, and even if you’re not, you know what he’s saying and agree with him?

A friend posted this comment about how Trunp has changed the game (to his credit but to the nation’s further demise), and I have to say, it’s spot on imo;

“Trump's power lies in tribal divisiveness. The more tribal hatred, the more secure his position. So, if you're the administration, how do you turn the Mueller report to your advantage? This is child's play.

You intentionally, even obviously -- better if it's obvious -- misrepresent its contents. Your own tribe will believe anything at all so there is nothing to worry about there.

More importantly, the obvious lies and misinformation will trigger the other tribe. Once triggered their actions are entirely predictable. They will, as if on strings, direct an enormous amount of effort in a direction that reinforces their position. Tribal hatreds reinforce one another and the cascade just makes the bastard more powerful.

Trump is controlling not only his fringe followers but is just as effectively controlling his fringe detractors.”