The phrase "possible ties" is from the New York Times' own Twitter feed, and it's an example of circumspection and caution. Even at the one moment where they could easily boast and gush. It's a journalistic quality Sean Hannity is probably wishing he possessed more of.
But the Pulitzer committee didn't use the phrase "possible ties."
The Pulitzer committee said the award was "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
...that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election...
I'm pretty sure 'interference' is different from the vastly overused 'collusion' narrative. Long past time they backed off from that nonsense - they have Republicans to destroy in the upcoming midterms!
The Pulitzer Prizes at long last "backed off" from what, now?
The Pulitzer Prizes now have Republicans to destroy?
The collusion narrative has been vastly overused by Trumpkins shouting "collusion is not a crime!" (as if collusion wouldn't be made up of component crimes), while simultaneously insisting that "Mueller was only empowered to investigate collusion!" (which I hear is not a crime).
I'm merely pointing out how 'The Pulitzer Prizes' conveniently moved the goalposts from 'Russian collusion' to 'Russian interference'. That's your problem, not mine.
I'd rather argue with a brick wall than some anonymous internet commenter who ignores his own written phrases (you used 'The Pulitzer Prizes' twice before I sarcastically aped it) and pretends that someone found something damaging on 'Russian colluuuuuuuuuusion'!
Roger seems to think that 'The Pulitzer Prizes' is a phrase I came up with, and not an actual entity. He thinks repeating it is 'sarcasm.' The actual 'Pulitzer Prizes' gave out the awards not for reporting on 'colluuuuuuuuuusion,' but on 'interfeeeeeeeeerence.'
Better stay away from brick walls, Rog, they'll outwit you every time.
Whenever there's bad news on collusion: "COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME!" When there's bad news on anything else: "MUELLER'S ONLY SUPPOSED TO INVESTIGATE COLLUSION!"
Sulzberger apparently can't figure out the last two 'quotes' of his aren't mutually exclusive, which may also be why he can't differentiate between a shift from 'collusion' to 'interference'. Quit while you're behind, son!
Bournival apparently has trouble with the fact that while collusion is not itself classified as a federal crime, it is routinely the product of any number of federal crimes (such as conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and fraud, among others). And that's even before getting to the crimes that are frequently committed by those covering up collusive crimes. Which is why he thinks making fun of the word itself -- "colluuuuuuuuuusion" -- is an epic mic drop.
Rog also continues to be stuck on the "convenient" "goalpost" "shift" from what the Pulitzer Prizes said to what the New York Times said. Presumably because he knows what he knows that he knows he wants to know: that all media is one liberal mindhive monolith.
It's a legal and cultural analysis as complex and acute as that of his beloved president: "Bad!"
The characterization: Roger B. "knows what he knows that he knows he wants to know."
Roger's retort: "Mueller's not going to lay any charges on Trump." Classic.
So, collusion's not a crime unless it's 'the product of any number of federal crimes'? Makes perfect sense to me!
No, collusion is a crime. But when it comes to the Trump/Russia investigation, the term is commonly being used (inaccurately) as a lazy shorthand descriptor, and also as a cheap rhetorical Twitter alibi. Apparently this is too complex for you to wrap your head around.
There've been more than a hundred criminal counts against nearly 20 people in this go-nowhere investigation thus far, including Flynn and Manafort and Gates and Papaoctopus. But none of them need to worry, not even the ones who've already pled guilty, because nobody's been charged with colluuuuusion.
13 comments:
The phrase "possible ties" is from the New York Times' own Twitter feed, and it's an example of circumspection and caution. Even at the one moment where they could easily boast and gush. It's a journalistic quality Sean Hannity is probably wishing he possessed more of.
But the Pulitzer committee didn't use the phrase "possible ties."
The Pulitzer committee said the award was "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
...that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election...
I'm pretty sure 'interference' is different from the vastly overused 'collusion' narrative. Long past time they backed off from that nonsense - they have Republicans to destroy in the upcoming midterms!
The Pulitzer Prizes at long last "backed off" from what, now?
The Pulitzer Prizes now have Republicans to destroy?
The collusion narrative has been vastly overused by Trumpkins shouting "collusion is not a crime!" (as if collusion wouldn't be made up of component crimes), while simultaneously insisting that "Mueller was only empowered to investigate collusion!" (which I hear is not a crime).
I'm merely pointing out how 'The Pulitzer Prizes' conveniently moved the goalposts from 'Russian collusion' to 'Russian interference'. That's your problem, not mine.
What were the Pulitzer Prizes' (or in your weirdly incoherent sarcasm, 'The Pulitzer Prizes')' original goalpost?
How would moving it make things convenient for 'The Pulitzer Prizes'?
I'd rather argue with a brick wall than some anonymous internet commenter who ignores his own written phrases (you used 'The Pulitzer Prizes' twice before I sarcastically aped it) and pretends that someone found something damaging on 'Russian colluuuuuuuuuusion'!
Roger seems to think that 'The Pulitzer Prizes' is a phrase I came up with, and not an actual entity. He thinks repeating it is 'sarcasm.' The actual 'Pulitzer Prizes' gave out the awards not for reporting on 'colluuuuuuuuuusion,' but on 'interfeeeeeeeeerence.'
Better stay away from brick walls, Rog, they'll outwit you every time.
Whenever there's bad news on collusion: "COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME!"
When there's bad news on anything else: "MUELLER'S ONLY SUPPOSED TO INVESTIGATE COLLUSION!"
Sulzberger apparently can't figure out the last two 'quotes' of his aren't mutually exclusive, which may also be why he can't differentiate between a shift from 'collusion' to 'interference'. Quit while you're behind, son!
Bournival apparently has trouble with the fact that while collusion is not itself classified as a federal crime, it is routinely the product of any number of federal crimes (such as conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and fraud, among others). And that's even before getting to the crimes that are frequently committed by those covering up collusive crimes. Which is why he thinks making fun of the word itself -- "colluuuuuuuuuusion" -- is an epic mic drop.
Rog also continues to be stuck on the "convenient" "goalpost" "shift" from what the Pulitzer Prizes said to what the New York Times said. Presumably because he knows what he knows that he knows he wants to know: that all media is one liberal mindhive monolith.
It's a legal and cultural analysis as complex and acute as that of his beloved president: "Bad!"
while collusion is not itself classified as a federal crime, it is routinely the product of any number of federal crimes
So, collusion's not a crime unless it's 'the product of any number of federal crimes'? Makes perfect sense to me!
Face it, pal - Mueller's not going to lay any charges on Trump.
The characterization: Roger B. "knows what he knows that he knows he wants to know."
Roger's retort: "Mueller's not going to lay any charges on Trump." Classic.
So, collusion's not a crime unless it's 'the product of any number of federal crimes'? Makes perfect sense to me!
No, collusion is a crime. But when it comes to the Trump/Russia investigation, the term is commonly being used (inaccurately) as a lazy shorthand descriptor, and also as a cheap rhetorical Twitter alibi. Apparently this is too complex for you to wrap your head around.
There've been more than a hundred criminal counts against nearly 20 people in this go-nowhere investigation thus far, including Flynn and Manafort and Gates and Papaoctopus. But none of them need to worry, not even the ones who've already pled guilty, because nobody's been charged with colluuuuusion.
Post a Comment