NPR goes out of its way to stress that there's no evidence of collusion

[Orrex]

Strictly speaking they're correct in that we haven't yet seen hard evidence that the Trump administration (rotting head et al) actively worked with Russia to tamper with the election. NPR declines to offer any conclusions until all the facts are known.

This stands in stark contrast to their handling of Benghazi and Clinton's dreaded email server. In that case, they were more than happy to discuss the "optics" of the scandal whether or not Clinton did anything wrong. Of course we now know that she didn't, but NPR made sure to give Republicans lots of airtime to make their case against her.

[Trust Buster]

1. Evidence of collusion is no longer necessary. Chump and his people reiterated yesterday that

there was NO CONTACT between his campaign and the Russians. They just foolishly lowered their own threshold. If that proves to be a lie, a Constitutional crisis has been born. A denial of any contact during a campaign that Russia was trying to fix will create a unrecoverable breach of trust.

[Orrex]

4. The GOP is already scrambling to avoid having to investigate it (with an edit)

Some asshole from California asserted that he's more concerned about the leaks that revealed Flynn's shady contact with Russia than about Flynn himself.


on edit: Immediately after I posted my reply, I saw THIS HELPFUL POST by TomCADem showing us where the Repubs are getting their marching orders.

[Dallasdem1988]

2. The article I keep seeing linked

Said the same. I have this horrible fear we are jumping the gun. We need proof and to sink these ****ers once and for all!! We can't give this psycho any wiggle room. We need to pile all the evidence and be rid of this plague!

[Orrex]

3. "President Plague" is a fitting term, in fact

I've been going with "Resident Chump," but it's nice to have options.


Welcome to DU!

[wishstar]

5. NY Times' sources misled us before election with false report that there were "no links"

In light of Flynn revelations, the NY Times' sources can no longer deny the contacts as they did before election, but are now saying no evidence found yet of collusion. Sounds to me like those leakers are doing damage control again to use NY Times article to quiet the media and hoodwink the public again by downplaying the contacts.


NY Times story killed the momentum and impact of the Trump/Russia revelations before election with article about sources saying "no links" so I have to wonder if those same sources are once again trying to contain the current media firestorm by saying there were contacts but "no collusion". It worked back in October/November to take wind out of sails of the other media reports.


NY Times has previously admitted they were duped to downplay the Trump/Russia connections