The New Trump Russia Narrative Falls Apart... AGAIN?!
Trump was investigated by the FBI for firing James Comey because they thought firing him meant Trump could be directly working for Russia and Putin or at the very least a threat to national security. but once again this narrative turns out to be nothing and once again there is zero evidence of collusion.Now we hear form ABC that Robert Mueller's report will be "anti climactic" which is what we keep hearing.Democrats and the left push this narrative but it just seems to be without merit for the most part.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A few days ago, we learned that Donald Trump was under investigation by the FBI because they were concerned he may be acting as an agent of Russia.
However, they launched this investigation after Trump had fired James Comey, so you have one side saying that Trump is working with the Russians, of which we have no evidence, and the other side is saying that they're simply retaliating against Trump because he fired their boss.
Obviously, Trump has responded saying it's complete utter nonsense, but Glenn Greenwald has a pretty interesting take on all this.
Part of the reason we keep hearing about the Russian narrative is because the media is chasing after it for ratings.
They call it the Trump bump, and I've talked about it many times.
But a former journalist mentions that many of these mainstream news outlets employ former government actors, that maybe they're a little biased, or maybe it actually goes a bit deeper, maybe even conspiratorial.
So today, Let's take a look at exactly what happened with Donald Trump and this Russia investigation and how Glenn Greenwald is framing it in terms of journalists pushing a narrative, maybe for money or for political reasons.
But before we get started, let me give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, VirtualShield.
VirtualShield is a virtual private network service.
This provides you a simple layer of security while you're browsing the web.
It helps keep your data safe.
Just go to hidewithtim.com and you can get a 30% off deal, just $3.49 per month for a VPN.
Click Get This Exclusive Deal and you can get started with a free 30-day trial to help keep yourself safe while you browse the internet.
The first story from the New York Times, the FBI opened inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications.
Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security.
Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow influence.
The investigation the FBI opened into Mr. Trump also had criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known, whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.
Not only would it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done, and that is what would be the threat to national security.
Mr. Baker said in his testimony, portions of which were read to the New York Times, Mr. Baker did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of an investigation of Mr. Trump to congressional investigators.
Now, here's the important part.
No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials, and FBI spokeswoman and spokesman for the special counsel's office both declined to comment.
The story The story ends by saying FBI officials viewed their decision to move quickly as validated when a comment the president made to visiting Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly after he fired Mr. Comey was revealed days later.
I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nutjob, Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the
meeting.
I faced great pressure because of Russia that's taken off.
It's important to point out the inherent conflict of interest.
Sure, the FBI investigated Trump because they were concerned about a national security threat,
but you could also see that maybe they're just mad at Trump for firing their boss.
Thus, it's not an impartial investigation.
But I also want to give an honorable mention to Obama, who made some off-the-record statements to Russia that's been verified by Snopes.
The story Snopes runs, did Obama pledge more flexibility toward Russia after the 2012 election?
True!
A hot microphone picked up President Obama telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election.
The reason I bring that up is not to say that Obama did anything wrong.
Of course Obama should be negotiating with the Russians.
So should Trump.
But this whole Russia narrative seems to be, I'll say it, without merit.
Yes, there have been many indictments.
There are several people who are facing charges, but mostly unrelated to Russia, like money laundering.
The other day I was watching CNN, and they ran this story that apparently Paul Manafort was sharing polling data with a Russian associate.
This was run far and wide, reported by the New York Times, but as it turns out, they issued a correction.
A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data.
Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin.
Like clockwork, a story comes out claiming Trump did something with Russians, and then poof.
A few minutes later, there's a correction, and no one sees the correction.
Even after this article was corrected, CNN was still saying Russian oligarchs for at least a few hours, probably because it takes a while for the correction to get out there.
Someone sees the story, they keep the story up, they don't refresh the page, and the correction just doesn't go out.
And I've got to give another quick honorable mention to this story.
ABC parts ways with investigative reporter Brian Ross.
Brian Ross, the chief investigative correspondent for ABC News, is leaving the network seven months after he botched a report involving President Trump and the Russia investigation.
A mistake that led to a rebuke from the White House and concern about self-inflicted damage by news organizations already facing scrutiny.
Basically, they made claims about Trump directing his staff to contact Russia when, in fact, it actually happened after he was elected, not before, and the story was basically fake.
But what happens?
The Russia insanity, Russian derangement syndrome runs wild, and people start pushing this narrative.
Once again, we have another conflict of interest story that, to me, just seems really odd.
The main reason I think it's happening The Trump bump.
Hot, juicy stories about Russian collusion.
They're good for ratings.
They're gonna make you some money.
But the other reason, at least according to Glenn Greenwald, might be because former government agents are working for many news outlets.
Now, if we want to avoid conspiracy theories, we could just say they're biased.
They like the agencies they work for, they like people like James Comey, and they don't like Trump disparaging them.
But if you want to get conspiratorial, some people believe they actually still work for or are supporting the deep state.
I don't think we need to go down any conspiratorial paths.
If there's no evidence, I'm not going to make that claim.
But I will say, there's going to be a clear bias if someone moves from working for the state to then becoming an analyst or a commentator on a news network.
They're going to be very biased against Trump.
Glenn Greenwald posted a series of tweets on the 7th.
In the first, he says, Here's another CIA operative who, needless to say, is a resistance favorite.
Who has anointed himself Arbiter of Journalism in response to a different CIA operative who did the same thing, all to defend MSNBC.
CIA agents used to pretend not to be involved in journalism.
It's stunning how U.S.
news outlets are so dominated by ex-CIA agents and other military and intel operatives, and how they often declare what is and isn't real journalism.
If you work at a network drowning in security state agents, maybe refrain from accusing others of being state TV.
A longtime national security reporter just quit NBC and MSNBC complaining, in part, at how many CIA, FBI, and Pentagon officials they employ as analysts.
And how that has converted them into propaganda outlets for these agencies.
Imagine if this happened in one of the bad countries.
The Intercept also posted this story from Glenn Greenwald on the 3rd, referencing this very narrative.
Veteran NBC, MSNBC journalist blasts the network.
A veteran national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the war machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism.
As a result of NBC-MSNBC's all-consuming militarism, he said,
the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat,
but indeed has gained dangerous strength, and is ever more autonomous and practically
impervious to criticism. I have to say, The Intercept is a rather interesting outlet.
They ran one story a couple months ago about how Trump is simultaneously the most deceptive but most honest president we've ever had.
And they were talking about how Trump said he wanted to do an arms deal with Saudi Arabia because it's going to make the military-industrial complex a ton of money, it'll be great for our economy.
And they commented how no president has ever just come out and said, this is our intent.
While also saying that when it comes to cultural issues, Trump seems to lie rather frequently, But when it comes to important political issues, Trump doesn't seem to care that he's being completely honest.
And the latest story from Glenn Greenwald following the FBI investigation is that he actually feels it's a threat within itself.
His story.
The FBI's investigation of Trump as a national security threat is itself a serious danger.
But J. Edgar Hoover pioneered the tactic.
The story's rather long, but it makes reference to those who wanted peace with Russia during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure.
We're somehow seen as acting against the interests of the U.S.
He ends his story by saying, It was a dangerous and shameful moment when J. Edgar Hoover
investigated U.S. politicians as potential traitors and stooges because he believed they
were too deferential and subservient to Russia, or because their advocated plans for
peace with Moscow were contrary to American interests. It's no better when the agency housed
in the headquarters that, revealingly, still bears Hoover's name, does the same today.
It seems like it never ends.
There's always some ridiculous Russia story that gets walked back or a correction.
And nothing is happening.
Nothing has happened.
We are going to be entering 2020.
The Democrats are already picking those who may run in the primaries.
They're already preparing for who their favorite's going to be.
Democrats are lining up for this huge field We're going into re-election for Donald Trump, and there's no evidence.
Nothing happened with Russia.
We just don't have the proof.
Yeah, as I mentioned, some people have been indicted, but for things like money laundering.
And now we have this story from just this morning from The Hill.
ABC's Carl.
Sources say Mueller report is almost certain to be anticlimactic.
There have been expectations that have been building, of course, for over a year, Carl told This Week host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
But people who are closest to what Mueller has been doing, interacting with the special counsel, caution me that this report is almost certain to be anticlimactic.
If you look at what the FBI was investigating in that New York Times report, you look at what they were investigating, Mueller did not go anywhere with that investigation, Carl continued.
He has been writing his report in real time through these indictments, and we have seen nothing from Mueller on the central question of, was there any coordination collusion with the Russians in an effort to meddle in the elections?
Or was there even any knowledge on the part of the president or anybody in his campaign with what the Russians were doing?
There's been no indication of that.
So here we are, after several years, once again hearing there's probably not going to be anything substantive, or at least the report is going to be anticlimactic.
And I think most people probably recognize that.
If the media wasn't so obsessed with chasing the Trump bump, we probably wouldn't hear or care about Russian collusion.
But because it generates ratings, because people gain followers from it, they're gonna keep publishing it, and they're gonna push fake news, or at least Stretch news as far as they can and make claims that are probably nonsensical because they want the ratings.
I think back to the 9-11 truthers who believe that George W. Bush colluded with some governments to, you know, attack our own country.
And you realize...
How insane everyone presumed those theories to be, we now have something similar that Trump is acting at the behest of a foreign government to collude against his own country.
I'm sorry.
It's on par with that conspiracy.
If we don't have any evidence, after years, at what point do you say, this is just a wild conspiracy theory?
Plain and simple.
But look, I could be wrong.
Maybe Trump really did this, who knows?
We'll have to wait and see what the report says, but I'm gonna go ahead and conflate the accusations against Trump with any other fringe conspiracy theory, because I just don't see any evidence.
I think it's people who are just angry, we've got some Trump derangement syndrome, and even though I'm not favorable towards any of these presidents, I don't support any of them, I just think it's insane how much the media chases this narrative, and then nothing happens.
But again, I don't know what's going to happen.
I can't predict the future.
So comment below.
Let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
And I'll have more videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
