Democratic Congressman: Maybe Trump and Putin Colluded on a Kabuki Conflict to Cover Up Their Actual Collusion in the US Election

One thing that the media continues doing is seeking out the allegedly "neutral story line" (don't comment on old posts!), a storyline which is supposedly non-partisan but which is only deployed in a partisan manner.

Suppose you agree that, in general, "Fake News" is bad and people spreading unfounded and often unbelievable conspiracy theories is likewise bad.

You might agree with the media when it makes that basic claim.

You might say that this claim, taken in and of itself, is nonpartisan. Neither party formally stands in favor of conspiracy theories and "fake news." Both are officially against such things.

The media likes deploying such "neutral" criteria as a method of indicting Republicans precisely because, by their own terms, the criteria are not partisan in nature.

But the media employs them in a very, very partisan way by only trotting out these alleged neutral criteria for criticism when the target they seek to undermine is conservative or Republican.

This is why you heard an awful lot about alleged conservative-manufactured "fake news" -- but no one in the media would correct Democrats when they pushed their own "fake news" that the "election was hacked" (suggesting manipulation of vote totals -- something that 50% of Democrats actually believe happened).

Not only did the media not correct or chastise Democrats for constantly claiming "the election was hacked," the media itself deployed that phrase hundreds and hundreds of times.

Fake news is bad -- that's a non-partisan sounding claim.

But when the media can only find fault with Republican-branded fake news, while pushing its own progressive-branded fake news, then obviously the "neutral" storyline isn't so neutral. In law, we'd say it's facially neutral, but discriminatory as applied.

The media has no criticism of Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton's unhinged Syrian Strike Trutherism-- he suggests, in a "just askin' questions" sort of plausible deniability way, that Trump colluded with Putin to pretend a disagreement over the Syria strike in order to distract from their earlier collusion over the election.

As he puts it, the strike "could very well be interpreted as an attempt by the administration to get out from under the claim that they're colluding with Russia."

He nuttered on:

"It seems like there’s a lot of evidence that members of this administration that are more concerned with Russia's goals than our own."

When Tucker Carlson pointed out that attacking a key Russian ally/client state tended to undermine the "Trump's acting as a Moscovian Candidate for Putin," Moultin doubled down:

"Well, first of all, I mean, you know, one exception does not prove the rule. I mean, you know, this could very well be interpreted as an attempt by the administration to get out from under the claim that they're colluding with Russia. But the bottom line is, that you know, we don't really know. There are a lot of things that Trump has that seem like they're to be playing right into the hands of Putin. We ought to just find out, Tucker, and I think you and I ought to be able to agree on that."

AllahPundit has more, noting that this bog-stink from the fever swamps was pushed by a member of the media (I guess), Lawrence O'Donnell, and has now made it to the mouth of an elected official in less than a week. And another "real journalist," David Corn,
listened to this nuttery and seemed fine with it.

So, by the way, did super-conservative The Rick Wilson, leader of the Crying Eagle Brigade, and Malcolm McClarren to Egg McMufin's Sex Pistols.

(Thanks to GregV61 for reminding me to point that out.)

Apart from Tucker Carlson, who obviously is not regular-media media, I don't hear much tut-tutting about the Climate of Hate Moulton is helping create with this Fake News Conspiracy Theories.

Video of Tucker's punch-up on this conspiracy queen below.

posted by Ace at 03:18 PM

| Access Comments