What Nadler and Mueller have said: Yesterday morning, Jerrold Nadler appeared on Meet the Press.
Last evening, Future Anthropologists Huddled in Caves (TM) cited one of Nadler's remarks through the auspices of their official news service, FAHIC NEWS.
Their report was conveyed to us through one of the nocturnal submissions the haters disparage as "dreams." Below, you see the remark these future scholars chose to call into question.
"It's bred in the bone," these scholars have said. They're asking us to consider this comment by Nadler as an anthropological matter:
NADLER (4/21/19): What [Mueller] couldn't prove was that there was, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a criminal conspiracy. Although in the one case, I do not understand why he didn't charge Don Jr. and others in that famous meeting with criminal conspiracy, because they were—Fresh from his shout-out to us last October, Chuck Todd let Nadler's statement go. Almost surely, though, you can see the anthropological significance of what Nadler said.
He said that he didn't charge them because you couldn't prove that they willfully intended to commit a crime. Well, you don't have to prove that. All you have to prove for conspiracy is that they entered into a meeting of the minds to do something wrong and had one overt act.
They entered into a meeting of the minds to attend the meeting to get stolen material on Hillary. They went to the meeting. That's conspiracy right there.
It's as we told you on Saturday! (Scroll down to column by Stephens.) We know of no evidence that Donald Trump Junior was ever told that the Russkie lawyer at the famous Trump Tower meeting would be bearing "stolen" information.
Certainly, the Mueller report makes no such assertion. And the Mueller report is now taken as holy writ on our own pseudo-liberal side in our nation's evolving tribal war.
The Mueller report doesn't claim that Trump Junior was told that he'd be receiving stolen information. In the email exchange which led to this meeting, no such claim was made.
But so what? The claim that Trump Junior was promised "stolen information" is quickly becoming a standard part of the tribal warfare which now passes as American politics and American upper-end "journalism."
Nadler is a major governmental official. As far as we know, he's a thoroughly decent person.
That said, his claim that Trump Junior (and others) attended the now-famous Trump Tower meeting to receive "stolen material" is the sort of statement we liberals routinely denounce as a "lie" when such statements are made by The Others, by those from the rival tribe.
Meanwhile, Nadler didn't simply make this apparent misstatement. He said Mueller should have "locked him up" on the basis of this claim. Our old pal Chuck made no attempt to challenge Nadler's misstatement!
Trump Junior said he'd love to get some "stolen" information! This is becoming part of the propaganda we "liberals" are being sold by our tribal leaders.
Beyond that, have you noted how often we liberals are told that Trump Junior was promised "dirt" on Candidate Clinton in the email exchange which led to this famous meeting?
That's a term of propaganda. No such term appeared in those emails, or in the sections of the Mueller report which deal with this matter. The embellished term is being used, again and again, merely to excite "the base" in this ongoing tribal war.
In their latest press release, Future Anthropologists (TM) present this as an anthropological matter. According to the scholars' release, our species isn't "the rational animal." They're rejecting this claim, which has long been bruited, though only by ourselves.
We are instead "the tribal animal," these future scholars insist. As Professor Harari has suggested, we're the animal which is inclined to engage in tribal "gossip" and compelling group "fictions," with a vast inclination toward "intolerance" thrown in.
The future scholars are warning us that treatment of the Mueller report is breaking down into a standard tribal dispute, with the standard group dissembling being seen on both sides. The Mueller report could even be part of this process itself, these disconsolate scholars have charged!
"Within this species, blatant illogic will tend to appear at such heavily fraught tribal moments," these shivering future savants have said. They call attention to the peculiar highlighted statement in an otherwise sensible op-ed column by Professor McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to the Russkies:
MCFAUL (4/21/19): The actions of social media companies and traditional media organizations require similar scrutiny. How could Russian actors so easily broadcast partisan and false information on social media platforms? Why did the "sweeping and systematic" Russian attacks (to use Mueller's words) get so little attention from the broadcast and print media in 2016? Why did some journalists and commentators wrongly label this attack on our country a "hoax"? Were government officials, including those in charge of the investigation at the time, deliberately misleading the media, or could more have been done to dig deeper into this story before November 2016? What is the proper use of stolen data in future reporting?The bulk of McFaul's column makes perfect sense. But how about this prescription:
We also need a more thorough and precise assessment of the intentions behind contacts between campaigns and foreign governments, companies or individuals to develop policy prescriptions—be they norms or laws—for future elections. (If these assessments are in the classified parts of the Mueller report, they should be published.) Mueller decided that these contacts were not criminal, but they were, in my view, wrong. They should not be repeated.
Candidates should not be in direct contact with foreigners to obtain compromising material on their opponents. They should not encourage foreign governments to steal property from their opponents and then promote the widespread dissemination of that illicit material. And they should not engage in business deals with foreign partners in ways that could be construed as conflicts of interest...
"Candidates should not be in direct contact with foreigners to obtain compromising material on their opponents."
Really? Candidates shouldn't obtain compromising material on their opponents "from foreigners?"
The press release from FAHIC NEWS notes the fact that sponsors of the Steele dossier were doing exactly that! They paid a foreigner, Christopher Steele, to obtain information about Candidate Trump from other foreigners—mainly from Russkies, along with the stray Ukrainian.
Can you think of any reason why they shouldn't have done that? For ourselves, we cannot! But:
"At times like these, puzzling claims will be made by even the brightest parties," the future scholars have said. "It's all part of the genetic inheritance of the war-like tribal species currently under review."
We noodled through two different files over the weekend. On the one hand, we tried to use the accountability records of the Ohio Department of Education to get a fuller picture of the Akron Public Schools.
Good lord! Bureaucratic incompetence runs wild in such indecipherable records as these. We're not sure we've ever seen less useful alleged information.
We plan to discuss the anthropological significance of this depressing matter this week. But it does involve the ridiculous claim that we humans are fundamentally "rational," at least as that self-flattering term is generally understood.
We also read through more of the Mueller report over the weekend. Initially, we'd found the report underwhelming. Before too long, it had us wondering about the basic assumptions we've been sold about Russkiegate by waves of paid propagandists within our own floundering tribe.
We "liberals" have been sold various bills of goods through the two years of this process. (Remember how many times you were assured that Trump Junior telephoned Dear Old Dad as soon at that meeting was over?) Needless to say, "conservatives" have been toyed with too.
This practice stems from our basic genetic inheritance, Future Anthropologists (TM) have now thoughtfully said. More and more, we find their position convincing—perhaps a bit sobering too.
We plan to discuss their assessments all week. In their view, what's happening here just isn't real pretty—and remember, they're huddled in caves!
This just in: Unconfirmed reports about Future Psychologists of the Savanna (TM), a rival academic group