About

THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION MYTHOLOGY Believe it or not, there are still people who believe Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. It's astonishing given the growing list of experts and commentators all in agreement that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has both failed to make public any evidence pointing to it, but more importantly, does not seem to be closing in on any kind of a Trump-Russia connection the Democrats and the Left are hoping for. Still, it's not all that surprising when one considers how people get their news and information today. More often than not, people gravitate toward the news outlet that reflects their political sentiments. Conservatives prefer Fox News. Liberals prefer CNN and MSNBC. The programs on these networks is a mix of commentary and straight news, where the line is often blurred between the two. Social media and regular real life day-to-day interactions with people regarding political topics often reveals where they are getting their information. People tend to repeat what they heard if it resonates with them and that's usually the telltale sign of where people are getting their information. That is a fact that can be used as a weapon when media turns from impartiality to partisanship. When news media organizations lose their impartiality, they can weaponize their news coverage toward a specific purpose. Recent media bias studies at Harvard's Shorenstein School of Journalism has shown how organizations like CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post and The New York Times have overwhelmingly negative coverage of President Trump. They can accomplish 90% or more negative coverage several ways: 1. They can ignore positive news altogether. 2. They can cast positive news in a negative light. 3. They can focus on negative news to the exclusion of all other news. Of these three, the most insidius is ignoring positive news. What the news editors decide not to report is bias by omission. News channels are limited to approximately 40 minutes of programming per hour. Controversializing one story could easily take up an entire broadcast hour of news. If the goal is to run negative coverage of President Trump, the task is made easier by stirring controversy. This was made evident very early in President Trump's term in office when he bragged how his inaugural crowd was the "largest ever." It was obvious to everyone that it wasn't true, but the news media fixated on it, controversializing an irrelevancy, ignoring the fact that Trump is a notorious exaggerator. For weeks, left leaning news outlets spent airtime arguing with Administration officials over the President's characterization of the size of his inaugural crowd. An "issue" relevant only to Trump and his detractors. Now, with everyone gathering their news from partisan sources today, it's had a very damaging effect on how well informed the public is. To quote Mark Twain, "If you don't read the news you're uninformed. If you do read the news, you're misinformed." In a previous podcast, I critiqued the case against Trump made by Allen and Vandehae in Politico. Fifteen points made by Allen and Vandehae were refuted point by point. Chief among the flaws in their argument was that none of their 15 "facts" coalesced into a cogent explanation of the supposed collusion. If you're interested in seeing their alleged case of 15 disjointed "facts" check out Volume 58 of the Great Vocal Majority Podcast, "The Case against Donald Trump?" What makes the Russian collusion story so preposterous is how Special Counsel, Robert Mueller has been conducting his investigation for nearly two years and there has never been an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by the President. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any criminality at all relating to the campaign or Trump. In fact, Mueller was never authorized to investigate a crime that had occurred. He was authorized on suspicions alone, assigned with looking for a crime. At this point in the Watergate investigation, Nixon had already resigned and President Ford was in office for three months. But in Watergate, a campaign office was broken in. There was a crime. Investigators unraveled how that crime came about and the investigation led to President Nixon. Mueller's task is to find a crime. After two years, he's pressured and intimidated people by charging them with making false statements. Through it all, it doesn't seem Mueller is getting closer to President Trump. Remember, by this time in the Watergate investigation, Nixon was long gone. Still, once suspicions are aroused and while bitterness lingers from 2016, the American public is being manipulated and encouraged into entertaining these suspicions. Without any evidence for so long, lingering suspicions have no factual basis, but are entirely resulting from suspicions, intuition and guesswork. Those suspicions will rise or fall when Mueller issues his final report. But Mueller has had some pretty dramatic failures. Chief among them, the Anthrax attacks. Is it still possible that Trump colluded with the Russians? Yes, anything is possible, of course, but still, to this day, there is no evidence of anything relating to collusion. All that exists are disjointed exchanges with Russians and their close friends, which doesn't really prove anything. It only arouses more suspicion. All of this makes it extremely unlikely that Robert Mueller will conclude that Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians to overturn the 2016 election.