ABSOLUETLY WRONG:  [AA recommends that one is enough] 

You're the one that doesn't know how to read.

Check what I've posted on the news thread for examples. On any one topic, you start with someone you trust and then you bounce around from there to find new people all the time. Constanty. And eventually weed  out people that mislead, unless you want to keep up with what misleaders are up to. Or are a cherry picker for only wanting to read those who stick to a certain ideological basis, like you for example.

Jesus, you do realize that shitty little parade of Russiagate gloaters was 2 months ago when Barr was still successfully covering up what the Mueller Report actually said, and Manafort wasn't in Rikers awaiting state charges yet, and Stone didn't have Miller testifying against him yet, and on and on...? #1, Aaaron Maté - how many times on Twitter has Marcy blasted him for getting facts totally wrong, and there he is full smirk with a sad-on that Glenn "me heart Putin" Greenwald no longer gets love from MSNBC?

Here's part of Mueller's public statement that you seem to be running away from preferring to parade in failed punditry & obfuscation from 2 months ago - Mueller explicitly says Russia interfered in the election, and notes that while per the Constitution he cannot charge Trump, if he felt he could have exonerated Trump of wrongdoing, he would have. He did not. Note that there is also an intelligence part that Mueller dealt with that has been farmed off to other jurisdictions, and no doubt we will see some of the results of that in due time, but it is much less public for obvious reasons.

...Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference with the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization Wikileaks. The releases were designed and times to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understand. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance and it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in a second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. And we conducted that investigation and we kept the Office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
...

Re: Abramson & Marcy Wheeler, no, you misinterpret me - many people hate Louie Mensch, and while I think she did *some* good in late 2016/early 2017, I think she's mostly whacko & discredited - thus mixing her with a credible news source would just create a mess. Similarly say Rachel & Sean Hannity - they dislike each other, him I consider a lying joke, her she's more accurate (but not completely) and a bit too cute & smug for my tastes - so again, sources that despise each other don't autmatically make for good neighbors.

From what I can tell, much of what Abramson says seems to be valid, but Marcy & Bmaz think he's a crackpot, while the little he seems to have talked about her, he feels the same or just that she has little to offer. I have a feeling it's more about lawyer methods than about content, but maybe not (e.g. some disagreement whether the Steele Report is valid - Seth - or largely Russian disinfo - Marcy). That Cohen appears to have for sure not gone to Prague when Steele kind of suggested points to a possible failing or simply an unimportant misidentification - it seems likely *someone* from the Trump team was in Prague during that time, as many of Trump's team made funny trips to Italy, Greece, Budapest & London during the same period - not typically part of a US campaign tour.

So what I actually said or meant - and I've been reading Emptywheel for a decade, and didn't know their opinion of each other until perhaps 6 months ago - was that I think they both provide useful information, and because they're not parroting the same views nor the same sources it seems, I can use them a bit to calibrate my own thoughts & conclusions by trying to figure out why the divergence and which info might be wrong - whether completely or in some shade of meaning. But Marcy doesn't address Trump's meeting with Russians et al at the Mayflower Hotel as Seth has, and Seth has talked much more about the UAE/Nadler/Erik Prince vector, while Marcy has given a much better analysis of Mueller's team and what types of investigations & cases each has been working on, as an example of how their non-overlap creates a fuller picture. But nice try, I know it pains you to not catch me in an easy brainfart to scoff at.

Please do read that excerpt from Mueller's speech, and if time, the whole published (but redacted) Mueller Report - I know it'll take you away from valuable time reading Consortium and panting over Greenwald & other voices/blows against the Empire, but maybe if you read the report you'll find even MORE BETTER ways to Rage Against The Machine - think of it as finishing school - after all this years of partisan hate & selective parsing, this will show that indeed you *can* handle the truth and *still* be able to root for the Greenwalds of the world - I'm sure that would lower the level of worry that you must carry that something might penetrate the veil.

PS - the one person who didn't belong in the FAIR compilation of Russiagate jokesters was Esha Krishnaswamy whose only real complaint was that "collusion" isn't a legal term, so media should focus (as Mueller did to the limits of his mandate) on Trump's many actual defined acts of illegal behavior (something Marcy has noted over and over as well), though Esha - an actual lawyer - could have included "conspiracy" as a close but legally significant synonym for "collusion", along with the one she notes that Mueller did use, attempt to defraud the United States.

Will, Brooks, etc. have always been considered respectable conservative journalists.

Webster Dictionary

1. Respectable(adj)

   worthy of respect; fitted to awaken esteem; deserving regard;

2. esteemed

(adjective)

You use esteemed to describe someone who you greatly admire and respect.

 Again this is just a diversion from your comment about the steamed George Will

 before anti-Trump, Will was just another wingnut

When I post about Will, it is to criticize him. That reflects my POV. You find positive articles post about Will.

I pick stories that reflect my POV. The stories criticize Will. I link to a story pointing out his climate science denial. I point to another story about his role in creating the current GOP.