Isikoff lowers the boom: Today's New York Times features several reports about discouraged liberals who had been led astray.
They'd put their faith in the idea that Robert Mueller was going to frog-march the whole Trump gang away. Many had received this idea while watching their favorite reporters and friends performing on "cable news."
Astead Herndod filed this report about liberals who joined "the cult of Mueller." Amy Chozick, perhaps an occasional hustler herself, summed things up this way:
CHOZICK (3/26/19): Mr. Mueller’s complete report hasn’t yet been released, but on Sunday, Attorney General William P. Barr made public a four-page letter to Congress reporting that the 22-month inquiry did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Trump and his associates “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” ahead of the 2016 election. The news blindsided many liberals—particularly those with an ambient knowledge of Rachel Maddow’s nightly monologues on MSNBC.It was just another cheap shot at Our Own Rhodes Scholar!
At any rate, forget about Donald J. Trump himself. Mueller didn't indict Donald Trump Jr., and he he didn't indict Jared Kushner.
There were no new indictments for perjury of the type we'd been told to expect. There were no indictments for the infamous, and wholly ridiculous, Trump Tower meeting at all.
"The news blindsided many liberals," Chozick wrote. Just this once, we'll assume that Chozick is right.
According to Chozick, Rachel Maddow played a key role in misleading liberals. In her latest ridiculous time-wasting venture, Maddow spent the past 4-6 weeks trying to make the rubble bounce around Paul Manafort's jail cell.
In our view, the overall performance on anti-Trump cable has been a long-running clown show. CNN was bad, MSNBC worse. They even hired an old Bush hack to tell us, day after day, that we were visiting with "some of our favorite reporters and friends" when we turned to the corporate site to get propagandized by experts.
You can't get talked down to more than that. Our tribe seems to like it.
Distinctions are now being hurriedly drawn. Quite correctly, we're being told that corruption isn't always a crime, and that the inability to prove that a crime occurred doesn't necessarily mean that the crime didn't occur.
These hurried distinctions are perfectly valid. They should have been drawn all along, but the people we liberals loved the most decided to gambol and play.
We'd planned to tell you today about a remarkable appearance by Michael isikoff on last night's All In with Chris Hayes. Isikoff and Hayes threw the Steele dossier under the bus in a way every liberal should ponder.
Because MSNBC has always been a fundamentally unprofessional outfit, the transcript from last night's program hasn't been posted yet. Meanwhile, the videotape of Isikoff's instructive segment wasn't posted at the All In site. It may have been thrown in the bay.
We'll plan to show you the transcript of Isikoff's remarks tomorrow. There's a great deal we all can learn from the way that dossier turned out. So too with the latest criminal charges concerning another great liberal hero, the Blustering Barrister himself.
Yesterday, it was Michael Avenatti in chains, as opposed to Donald Trump Jr. He was being led away for allegedly doing exactly what "feminist hero" Stormy Daniels originally did.
We'll get to that by the end of the week. Tomorrow, we'll show you the transcript from All In.
As it turned out, many liberals were badly misled by the ballyhooed Steele dossier. We think there's a great deal to be learned from what Hayes and Isikoff said.