Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Mueller's comportment suggests a man who's fallen prey to the same state of mind that warped Ken Starr -- namely disgust over the people you're investigating and a desire to justify the sunk capital. Even if the special counsel presents one hell of a report, Democrats must ask: was it worth it?

For many Robert Mueller watchers, the air these days is electric. People sense the big shoes are about to drop. "This is it," people are saying. "This is the big one!" But, why? We see the familiar cycle of hype, and there's no use fighting it, but, once heart rates have slowed, the same old question remains: so what?

Those who hope that Mueller reveals a shambolic operation with a lot of rascals engaged in sleazy and embarrassing behavior will be happy with the fruits of his labors. But those who hope for an unveiling of indictments linking Putin and Trump in a grand conspiracy have no more reason to celebrate than they did a week or a month ago.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

Certainly, Trump's ethical standards are low, but if sleaziness were a crime then many more people from our ruling class would be in jail. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton. (Just as, it should be mentioned, it is sleazy, but not criminal, to pay a guy to go to Russia to put together a dossier of dirt on Trump. This is one reason why the Clinton campaign lied about its connection to the Steele dossier, albeit without the disadvantage of being under oath.) It is sleazy, but not criminal, to pursue a business deal while you're running for president. But the purpose of the investigation was to address suspicions of underlying conspiracy -- that is, a plan by Trump staffers to get Russian help on a criminal effort. Despite countless man-hours of digging, this conspiracy theory, the one that's been paying the bills at Maddow for a couple of years now, has come no closer to being borne out. (Or, as the true believers would say, at least not yet.)

Partisanship is hostile to introspection, but at some point maybe we'll look back and think again about what was unleashed in the panic over Russian influence. Trump's White House has pursued what is arguably the harshest set of policies toward Russia since the fall of Communism -- hardly something to celebrate -- yet nearly all the pressure, from the center-left as much as the right, is toward making it even tougher. But Trump won't always be in office. The weapons you create for your side today will be used by the other side against you tomorrow. Do we really want the special-counsel investigation to become a staple of presidential life? It's a creation with few boundaries on scope and a setup that encourages the selection of a suspect followed by a search for the crime, rather than the other way around. This caused calamities in the era of Bill Clinton, and it doesn't get any better just because the partisan dynamics are reversed.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 12:39 PM | Reply

... Those who hope that Mueller reveals ...

What about those whose hope is that Mr Mueller finds out and reveals what actually happened?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-05 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2

Read the article, it's all addressed in there.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 12:46 PM | Reply

"Was it worth it?"

Is a question that should be asked after the Report, not in nearly pure speculation by someone who admits that he is merely confirming his own bias.

But hey, rwingers need whatever solace they can find wherever they can find it for foisting such a President on the People.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-05 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the big one, Elizabeth! I'm coming to join you, honey!

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-05 12:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2

Here is a freebie to help answer that question:

If it's any consolation to Trump haters, we can say this much: the special counsel's office is going to put together a hell of a report. It will have less sex than Starr's did, but that's for the best, and the testimony of Michael Cohen will still guarantee a lot of great scenes, many of them certain to become immortal and embarrassing. Trumpworld won't fare well under a bright light. Like Starr, Mueller is also likely to include footnotes and selections that will hint at criminality, the things he suspects but couldn't prove, and the most ardent believers in collusion will claim vindication. But the international conspiracies will be few, and the collateral damage of the Russia scare will be extensive, stretching far beyond Trump or his circle to the country as a whole. It might hurt a president who many Americans hate, but even the president's most ardent foes should reflect on a question that will linger: Was it worth it?

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 12:52 PM | Reply

Is a question that should be asked after the Report, not in nearly pure speculation by someone who admits that he is merely confirming his own bias.

I know reading comprehension has never been your strong point, but that is exactly what TA Frank is saying (and he is definitely biased against Donnie Little Hands.) Try reading the article for once before confirming your own inanity.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 12:55 PM | Reply

Interesting piece. When I read the thread summary I assumed this would be in a RW rag. I was very surprised when I clicked the link to read the article that it was in Vanity Fair

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-05 12:57 PM | Reply

--Is a question that should be asked after the Report, not in nearly pure speculation

lmao. Team Blue has been engaged in mindless speculation for 2 years. lol

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-05 12:57 PM | Reply


@#3 nad #6 ... Read the article, it's all addressed in there. ...

Well, I read the article again (and the paragraph you cite in #6) but saw nothing that addressed my comment.

The article reads like the shallow hype the author is trying to trash.

I came away quite unimpressed.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

#9

Team Troll has been engaged in Trump ------- for over two years, rofl.

And when a Vanity Fair writer muses out loud, as he says, confirming his own biases, about whether the resulting report will show criminality or merely tragically sad and dirty politics; whether that will be worth the cost in time and money, well, as I said, rwingers need whatever solace they can find wherever they can find it for foisting such a President on the People.

Or spending all their time coddling him and his "good people" among the Nazi Marchers.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-05 01:02 PM | Reply

When the Mueller investigation presents a blue dress as evidence then, and only then, will I honor Ken Starr as a comparable human being or investigator as Robert Mueller. Ken Starr should have been laughed out of every job, every place he ever went after that farce of an investigation. To many of us he is a piece of crap and nothing he has done since has change our minds.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 01:08 PM | Reply

#11

Time to go back to the Reading Comprehension Tutor, the only "confirmation bias" that Frank admits to is his satisfaction with his suggestion "that Mueller was going to drag out his investigation until 2019, when Democrats were likely to be back in charge of the House," nothing else.

However, when Dorkus of Naples sees those words, he immediately stampedes to...wait for it...Nazi coddling.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 01:17 PM | Reply

#12

I don't think he is comparing Mueller to Starr, where he is drawing parallels is in what he perceives to be the hangover once the report is released.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 01:18 PM | Reply

- Nazi coddling.

Your pro bozo werk is nothing if not consistent.

But, of course, everyone always admits all of their biases when they write... rofl. As someone once said, rwingers need whatever solace they can find wherever they can find it for foisting such a President on the People.

Although one might suspect that after having foisted other criminals/traitors like Nixon, Reagan, and GW, they are prolly OK with Trump.


#15 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-05 01:20 PM | Reply

Meaningless article.

I think it's great if the only thing Mueller does is out "shambolic sleaze balls". I hate such entities. We don't need to have them anywhere near our government.

So yes, it's worth it. The truth is worth it.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2018-12-05 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

At least you took the time to read it. That kind of diligence is kind of rare in these parts.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-05 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton."

It might be criminal depending on what the Trump campaign promised to do in return for the dirt. What was the quid pro quo, if any, that was offered?

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-05 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

T.A. Frank looks like a ------- for writing this piece. But that's nothing new from somebody who in October was declaring, "As Democrats look set as ever to retake the House, Trump is treating the caravan as a last-minute political gift before the midterms, and he might be right."

Mueller keeps racking up indictments and plea for the most serious crimes committed by a president's people since Watergate.

That's what matters, not thumbsucker pieces by jaded pundits who want to play the expectations game.

#19 | Posted by rcade at 2018-12-05 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Far more serious than Watergate.

One party attacking the other can be seen as in-house fighting.

One party enlisting a foreign rival to attack the other can really only be seen as treason.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-05 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- can really only be seen as treason.

Unless he's a billionaire. In rwingerdom, that's a free pass to be treasonous and or criminal.... or even just being in the GOP is enough.... see: nearly every Republican President in the last 30 something years.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-05 02:49 PM | Reply

"It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton."

Would it be criminal to work with Wikileaks, described as a "non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia" by none other than (at the time) CIA director Pompeo, regarding the content and timing of the leaks and then after the election to contact Ecuadorian officials about making a deal to free Assange from his digs in their London embassy?

www.reuters.com

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-05 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This article came out 2 days ago, and there is no mention of Flynn or his plea deal in it. Strange that the author chose to omit mention of him and of the Russian hacking.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-05 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

only idiots haven't known for years, decades, that the Trump crime syndicate shpuld be crushed and humiliated.
these articles are spectacularly redundant.

#24 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-12-05 04:00 PM | Reply

Yes, it's true.

I am a Sgt in the Muellertary.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-12-06 07:34 PM | Reply

Was it worth it?
Was Benghazi?
Buttery males?
Birtherism?

Expose the sleaze is the first step to draining the swamp.

#26 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-06 07:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort