Talking About Politics, Insincere Questions Category:Why should the American public NOT take the Democrats interpretation of the Mueller's report?

-

On Quora, die-hard Trump supporter Eda Acuri asked this question yesterday:

Why should the American public NOT take the Democrats interpretation of the Mueller's report?

 Quora has marked this question as being insincere.

 Here's my reply to Ms. Acuri:
First, my fellow American, it’s not “Mueller’s report,” it’s the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election,” by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. If you’re going to ask loaded, insincere questions in an effort to defend “the greatest President in American history,” as some of you like to call Donald J. Trump, you can at least try for a modicum of accuracy when you write, especially on a public forum like Quora.
Second, it’s not the “Democrats interpretation” of the above-mentioned “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election.” The way you phrased that question is as dishonest as it is grammatically incorrect, my friend. You might want to brush up on your use of apostrophes as well as the occasional fact.
To be honest with you, sweet summer child, I am no longer surprised that you would say that it’s Democrats (or as some of your fellow Republicans like to call us, “Demonrats”) who are “interpreting” the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election” in a way that makes Donald J. Trump and his campaign team look less than saintly. For the past two years, Mr. Trump and his followers have been striving hard to make the investigation into Russia’s extensively documented cyber efforts to influence our elections to look like:
  • A hoax
  • A witch-hunt
  • Mere “opposition research”
  • A Democratic Party-Russian collaboration that backfired (I find that one extremely creative. False, but creative)
  • Unimportant if it did happen
In other words, Republicans, or should I say “Trump Republicans,” want the world to believe two different narratives that protect the current President from being held accountable for anything.
Narrative One goes something like this: Russia did not interfere in our elections and Trump won without help from Putin.
Narrative Two is more bizarre: Russia tried to intervene, but to help Hillary win. In addition, Trump knew absolutely nothing about it until the previous Administration told him about it.
I downloaded the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election,” by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, as released by Mr. Trump’s own Department of Justice. It’s pretty long (448 [pages long) and definitely not light reading, but it does state several things:
  • Russia did interfere in the 2016 election to ensure Trump won
  • The Trump campaign had many important people with Russian connections, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and they were eager to get any information about Mrs. Clinton from any source
  • When Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks hackers broke into American politicians’ servers and computer files, they excluded Republican officials’ files and solely leaked Democratic Party-related materials
Today I ordered a paperback copy of the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election” from Amazon because reading the PDF file on my computer is awfully tiring for my eyes. It will make reading the Report a lot easier (physically), but I assure you, it will be no less damaging and damning to Trump’s cause than the copy I have in my hard drive.
The “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election” is not a “Democratic Party interpretation” of Mueller’s investigation. Mr. Mueller is a registered Republican, and he was assigned to carry out the investigation by a Republican Attorney General appointed by (wait for it) Donald Trump. Zero Democrats were involved in the assignment, although considering that Mr. Mueller today said, on live TV, that he and his staff had not cleared the President at all, lots of GOP politicians are now wishing there had been no investigation whatsoever.
You can try and deflect, deny, and play ostrich, but what is on those 448 pages is not very flattering for the current President or many GOP party leaders.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How many movies have been made based on Stephen King's 'It'?

-
Image
How many movies have been made based on Stephen King's It ? It  has been adapted twice for filmed audio-visual media. The first filmed version of  It was a TV limited series; the second was a duology of theatrically-released movies.  The first adaptation of Stephen King’s 1986 doorstop of a novel was a 1990 adaptation made as a two-part ABC miniseries for television. Among the cast members: Tim Reid, Harry Anderson, Annette O’Toole, John Ritter, and Richard Thomas. The miniseries also featured Tim Curry as the evil Pennywise the Clown. Adapted for television by director Tommy Lee Wallace and Lawrence D. Cohen (who also adapted King’s  Carrie  for director Brian De Palma in 1976),  It  was okay but a watered-down take on the scary novel about a group of friends who must face off against a monstrous entity known as “It” twice. Once as kids in 1960, then again as adults in 1990. (Like  11,22.63,  the TV version of It avoids the year ...
Read more

Talking About 'Band of Brothers' (HBO Miniseries): Why were there no black soldiers in the Band of Brothers TV miniseries?

-
Image
Band of Brothers,  sadly, reflects one of the sad realities of American society in the 1940s - racial segregation in the armed forces. Although there  were  a few all-Negro (as blacks were referred to in those days) units in the U.S. Army and the Army Air Forces that served with distinction in the European Theater of Operations, most black servicemen were assigned to non-combat units in Supply of Services and other support forces. Most of these soldiers were truck drivers, anti-aircraft gunners, barrage balloon handlers, engineers, stevedores, clerks, cooks, corpsmen, and so on. Only late in the war (fall of 1944 and winter/spring 1945) did large numbers of black infantrymen see combat against German forces, and even then they served in all-black units commanded by white officers. © 2001 Home Box Office, Dreamworks SKG, and Play-Tone Pictures The 101st Airborne Division was an all-American unit made up of individuals from many different groups - Easy Company’...
Read more

'The Boy in Striped Pajamas' movie review

-
Image
(C) 2008 Miramax, Heyday Films, BBC Films Writer-director Mark Herman’s 2008 film “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” is a faithful but (necessarily) condensed adaptation of John Boyne’s 2007 novel about a German boy, Bruno (Asa Butterfield), who befriends Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), an eight-year-old inmate in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.  Like Boyne’s novel, the film is not a definitive history of the Holocaust. It’s not as graphic or historically accurate as Steven Spielberg’s 1993 classic “Schindler’s List,” nor was it intended to be. (Indeed, Herman says in the behind-the-scenes featurette “Friendship Beyond the Fence” that he doesn’t consider “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” to be a “Holocaust film.”) Set in the early 1940s at the height of Nazi Germany’s power, the film follows Bruno on a journey that takes him and his family from Berlin to German-occupied Poland. His father Ralf (David Thewlis) is a newly-promoted SS officer with a new posting: commandant...
Read more