2 Pulitzer winners debate russia-gate

That was tough to watch. I struggled mightily to get through the first 35 minutes, and then just had to stop and go to sleep.

GG monopolized the time, and Risen was given very little of it to respond. Greenwald also was far too defensive, and wasted a lot of time on silly side issues like the meaning of “treason,” which, btw, he got wrong. It does not say that we must be at war with the nation in question. He missed the “or” in front of the clause regarding adhering to and aiding and abetting enemies.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Risen, IMO, made good points about the lack of attention paid to the underlying issue, which is Russian meddling and Trump’s connection to this. I’ve noticed that the folks in the “don’t discuss Russia-gate” camp tend to do this. Stephen Cohen, for example, was on CNN recently and pretty much made his entire case on the “ought” rather than the “is” of the subject at hand. As in, we “ought” not to even discuss this because it increases tension with Russia. That should not be the rationale for investigations, public discussions, or investigative reporting. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, etc. etc.

It still puzzles me why this issue, above pretty much any other, is bringing this idea out in certain people. I just don’t remember the same “ought” being pushed for hundreds of different scenarios, involving different nations. I don’t remember GG saying we shouldn’t investigate, discuss, etc. etc. other matters because of the supposed tensions it might create. Only “Russia-gate.”

I find this all too surreal.

And, as mentioned before, I just don’t buy the idea that these discussions of Russian meddling or the Mueller probe have increased tensions, at least not enough to matter. Saying it could lead to WWIII, to me, is the real “hysteria.”

I see zero evidence that it has done the former, and less than zero that it could lead to the latter. In fact, I find the idea absurd. It also strikes me as a bogus “ought” factor when it comes to “focus on or don’t focus on,” etc.

It’s not the most important issue we face, obviously. But I think it’s well worth our time to get to the bottom of it all. And my guess is — though it’s just a guess at this point — that if Mueller were really allowed to go wherever he wanted to go, with zero interference, this would take down folks in both parties, though the GOP would dominate the indictments. It’s long past time for a good house cleaning anyway.

Hey, WV,

Gotta run some errands but will come back to watch Dore. I respect him.

Could you add your own thoughts regarding the first video? And, if you feel like it, thoughts about my response to it?