Greyparrot

On Friday, the special counsel Robert Mueller filed an indictment of thirteen Russians, for meddling with the 2016 election. Over the long weekend, four ways of interpreting the document solidified. The White House focussed on a statement by the deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who said the indictment contains no allegation that any American knowingly colluded with the Russian effort. President Trump tweeted, “They are laughing their asses off in Moscow.” Rob Goldman, Facebook’s vice-president for ads, took to Twitter to assert that the primary purpose of Russian meddling was to “divide America,” not to influence the election. Meanwhile, most of the legacy media interpreted the indictment as a major blow to Trump, who, they write, can no longer dismiss the allegations of Russian meddling as a hoax. Here is the bad news: all of this is true at the same time.

It is true that the indictment tells us nothing about connections between the Russian efforts and the Trump campaign, and the Trump victory. It is also true that Moscow is laughing, at least in part because the Kremlin had no grand plan to elect Trump. To understand what happened in 2016, we have to understand, among other things, how Russians perceived their own efforts. Perhaps the hardest thing for humans to do is to imagine the world as it is imagined by others. We tend to confuse acting in accordance with the goals and values of the society in which we live with rationality; we tend to confuse intelligence with thinking in accordance with those goals and values. And, of course, we are always inclined to see events as predetermined—and we are almost always wrong. An event as shocking as Trump’s election demands that the forces that may (or may not) have contributed to his victory be rendered suitably monstrous in retrospect.

Trump’s tweet about Moscow laughing its ass off was unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate. Loyal Putinites and dissident intellectuals alike are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous. The intellectuals are amused to see Americans so struck by an indictment that adds virtually nothing to a piece published in the Russian media outlet RBC, back in October; I wrote at the time that the article showed the Russian effort to be more of a cacophony than a conspiracy. The Kremlin and its media are, as Joshua Yaffa writes, tickled to be taken so seriously. Their sub-grammatical imitations of American political rhetoric, their overtures to the most marginal of political players, are suddenly at the very heart of American political life. This is the sort of thing Russians have done for decades, dating back at least to the early days of the Cold War, but those efforts were always relegated to the dustbin of history before they even began.

The lack of concrete evidence raises questions about the extent of Russian involvement in the DNC hack, and suggests that the conclusion that Russian hackers were responsible may have been based on assumptions and circumstantial evidence and political biases rather than hard proof.

The bullshit were the stories claiming Russia conclusively did it.

Here are ten examples of fake media coverage related to the Trump-Russia story that were proven as bullshit.

Here's an updated list of CNN journalists who have been fired or had their shows canceled in recent years:

It's worth noting that this is not an exhaustive list, and there may be other cases of CNN journalists who have been fired or had their shows canceled that are not widely known or reported.

Milton Friedman, an American economist and Nobel laureate, was a vocal critic of the War on Drugs. He argued that the government's efforts to combat drug use were ineffective, expensive, and often counterproductive.

Friedman believed that drug addiction should be treated as a medical problem rather than a criminal one, and he advocated for the decriminalization of drug use. He argued that by criminalizing drug use, the government was creating a black market that led to increased violence, corruption, and the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.

Friedman also criticized the high cost of the War on Drugs, which he believed was a waste of taxpayer money. He argued that the government could achieve better results by investing in drug treatment programs and education campaigns.

Overall, Friedman believed that the government's focus on criminalizing drug use was not only ineffective but also a violation of individual freedom. He argued that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions about drug use, as long as they did not harm others in the process.

And they can't understand why people call them fake news. Because when you interview one side of the baddies you fluff it with soft comforting music and talk about how stylish they are and when you talk to the other side you try everything to discredit them and be condescending. It is plain as day, and once you see it, you can't unsee it.