Dear Mr Buskirk,
Sorry to have to be among the [thankfully] many rational Americans to clear things up for you:
One of the most telling things about the Mueller Report is how clearly it vindicates the media against Trump's endlessly false charges that America's journalists are purveyors of "fakes news" (that is, except for hacks like you and those
at Fox News).
What the Mueller Report starkly reveals is that it is Trump, himself (and his lying allies), who disseminates fake news. In their reporting, journalists of The New York Times and other eminently responsible, eminently professional news sources have succeeded brilliantly and honorably in navigating Trump's corrupt playground -- often having to correct Trump's lies in second- and third-day leads (as well as in opinion pieces that dissect Trump's nature as a Pathological liar).
Kudus, then, for The New York Times and other honorable media.
Curses for the dishonorable president.
And our deepest pity for you.
Of course, it would be wonderful if you and Trump's base would make note of the truths presented herein. But alas, Blind Followers never do.
Like your corrupt, paranoid leader, you die-hard Trump followers are wholly invested in make-believe and conspiracy theories.
In conclusion, Mr. Buskirk, please know that the truth is a wonderful thing. One of these days it would benefit you to look for it.
721
In today's New York Times Christopher Buskirk asserts black is white and white is black. Words fail me. Sadly, they seem not to have failed Mr. Buskirk. Well, he certainly has an opinion.
279
I'll apologize when Sarah Sanders apologizes for her lies about the FBI hating Comey, when Donald apologizes for asking his lawyer Don McGhan to lie for him and Sessions to lie and on and on. Donald lies 5 of 6 times a day officially. His brain is like a a self erasing tape recorder, so as soon as he says one thing, he can turn around and say the opposite and not consider it a lie (I love Wikileaks; I know nothing about Wikileaks--Donald Trump). If you are fine with an incompetent liar for President fine. I have standards.
313
Mr. Buskirk writes as if the Mueller report consisted of nothing but Barr's "conclusions." Read it. There are detailed accounts of this administration's corruption and ineptitude on every page. This alone should be damning -- but to the insensible, it's perversely spun as "vindication":
Mueller report: "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. [...]
And:
"[W]hile the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time."
And:
"A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment."
In other words: The evidence of misconduct is so serious and voluminous that it must be pursued.
197
Since you are wrong about everything where should I begin?
292
Chris, you are wrong. You are just not the person who will figure out how the magician does his tricks in plain sight. Lets briefly review a few tricks of the Treasonous Republican Underling Mole of Putin (acronym TRUMP). Russia if you are listening said the President...openly asking them to release hacked democratic e-mails... Expecting loyalty oaths from Preet Bhahara and James Comey and firing them when they followed the rule of law over his whims...Gleefully gloating with Sergei Lavrov in the oval office for Russian TV; American media were not invited. The list goes on and on. So why are you are buying Barr's version of the report instead of the report itself? Could it be that you are afraid to face a reckoning?
123
Is this Christopher Buskirk real, or is he an invention? The article demonstrates such ignorance, in that plain facts are ignored or replaced at every turn, that I have to wonder. Any thoughtful conservative should be horrified to see this representation of conservatism in print.
162
Mr. Buskirk, please ponder this.
6/14/16 - DNC reports hack of its server. Guccifer 2.0 claims credit.
7/22/16 - Wikileaks releases DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 tweets, "Wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I'd given them!!!"
7/27/16 - “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” - Donald Trump, live televised news conference
7/27/16 - Same day as Trump's news conference, Guccifer 2.0 hacks Clinton's email server.
8/13/16 - Guccifer 2.0 releases 700 MB of documents.
10/4/16 - Guccifer 2.0 releases yet more documents, however these were mostly already known and some were suspected as being fabrications by Russia.
7/13/18 - Dept. of Justice indicts 12 Russians and identifies them as the team that acted as Guccifer 2.0
I'm not providing reference links here as links seem to slow down the moderating of comments. However everything above is easily verifiable in AP news reports and in the DoJ indictment itself.
This is just a summary of a few key events, not an attempt to describe ALL the events related to Trump, Guccifer 2.0, hacking ... which would require more space than a comment allows.
99
Two comments for Mr. Buskirk:
One: Have you ever thought as to if Flynn could be considered an easy target for blackmailing by Russians because he lied about two contacts with them, why can't Trump himself and entire Trump clan cannot be subject to huge blackmailing?
Two: You write ... “Why is our own participation in scapegoating so difficult to perceive and the participation of others so easy?".
A sound point if you presented that as a behavioral theory that applies equally to Conservatives (Hillary haters) and Liberal (Trump haters) alike. However, you conveniently used the question to paint liberals as zealot villains. In so doing, you have also shown your own bias and proved that you are no different a journalist than the liberal ones. Pretension stops here.
74
Well, that was a complete waste of space. Vindication? Really? Read the report and check your blind spots. "Not sufficient to indict" is a very long way from "vindication."
95
As Barr penned that infamous, unsolicited 19 page memo on near limitless presidential power to get appointed as Trump’s A.G., this stream of nonsense which is truly insufferable seems to be the handiwork of someone auditioning for a lucrative gig on Fox News. Apologize to the Fake President?? Amazing!
77
Mr Buskirk?
Russian collusion hoax?
Read the New York Times, front page, today (digital edition)
"We scoured the Mueller report for every known contact Mr. Trump and his associates had with Russia or WikiLeaks. Our tally: 140."
I still remember Trump saying that he believed Putin, over the 17 US security agencies, that had investigated and corroborated Russian meddling in the election.
Trump said, "I asked Putin , and he said he didn't interfere in the election. I believe him".
I guess you are living in your own echo chamber.
101
Mr. Buskirk, You seem to ignore that the Russian government has taken to celebrating the demise of US standing in the world while also celebrating putting the monster in office. You are complicit. You are also in denial. One can only wonder what purpose is served by allowing you this platform other than to one day serve as an example of the willfully ignorant who supported that monster.
58
Ridiculous.
But the fact is a lot of people in this country think just like Mr. Buskirk. Somehow we have to find a way either to break through their willfull ignorance or sideline them.
What do we do next?
71
I just watched a Trump supporter say on live television that he thinks Trump is a despicable human being but still supports him. Another echoed the "witch hunt hoax" nonsense. As I said to my sister before the report came out - there is not going to be a written quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin but rather that an ex KGB master like Putin will have been grooming Trump for years. First by flattery to appeal to his narcissism, holding the carrot of money to satiate his greed and desperate debt and finally using the useful idiot and his posse to interfere in the election. In other words, Trump is/was a Russian asset but his ego lets him believe that he ended up in the Oval because he is such a stable genius. If Congress doesn't move to impeach, the door is open for all future candidates/Presidents to consider themselves above the law. Sure Bill Clinton is wondering today if he should have simply ignored the threats and refused to testify. Would Ken Starr have stopped if his investigation would be delayed by a Supreme Court challenge? Doubt it. Mueller conducted one of the shortest investigations over one of the biggest scandals in US history. But if Americans don't mind a criminal President the future looks very bleak.
50
I am glad to see this opinion piece which is commonplace on WSJ.com or FoxNews.com but publishing it here saves us time from going to yet another website to read what we already know how to hoax-makers think and respond to facts.
39
Admit what, that Trump is corrupt, mentally unstable, unfit and unqualified for office?
80
What competent president, if confident of personal innocence, when presented with evidence that a foreign nation interfered in an American election, would not be the first to say, “Please investigate this fully. Only American citizens can elect an American president. Although I’m sure that I won fair and square, we need to make sure that our electoral system and that our social networks can’t be tampered with by outsiders”?
What competent president, if confident of personal innocence, would try to stop investigation into how a foreign nation created fake personas, wrote fake posts, and abused social media like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to mislead American citizens?
What competent president, if confident of personal innocence, would fire and/or obstruct the work of U.S. government officials for investigating how a foreign nation meddled in a U.S. election?
We are not upset with President Donald Trump because we are irrational. We are upset with President Donald Trump because he acts like a guilty man, and he does nothing to defend the USA from foreign meddling! We have been waiting to see the Mueller report to know the extent of foreign meddling and how to prevent such meddling in the future.
Do you believe that a foreign nation should sway our elections, from now until the end of time? Trump acts like that would be fine with him—and that is a completely rational reason for us to be angry with him--and suspicious.
92
"The problem is that the Mueller investigation, as Mr. Barr explained, “did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.”
Barr should have stated further that Mueller's report stated, trump was not exonerated. Further, why wasn't Mueller standing with Barr? But why would you write an editorial that, proffers a liar, sexist, racist, misogynist and a criminal. Do you really believe this is good for our democracy and this Country?
24
On this Good Friday, after the world has joined in celebrating the past of and offering new life to Notre Dame, that age old exemplar of spiritual striving, I find this column only another depressing case in point regarding the “positive evil” of Trump and his zealots. It does not matter to the author that Mr. Mueller cited, and proved, at least 8 instances of Trump blatantly lying to the American people, or that those in his employ possessed of conscience either ignored or disobeyed him. This gloating bit of false justification will no doubt be quoted by Rush Limbaugh to his golfing buddy, with back slaps and guffaws all around—I’m sure that Mr. Buskirk is an tizzy waiting for his own invitation to an outing. Just don’t bet that if anybody asks him whether or not Trump cheated, he will tell the truth.
33
This is not an opinion piece and the NYT should should not treat it as such. It is right-wing propaganda that contradicts the publicly available facts. The theory is simple and effective. If they keep repeating this nonsense often enough and in as many media outlets as will let them, people will believe it.
138
Really? I withhold judgement on your opinion until after we know all the facts. With so much of the report redacted, your optimism is premature. Let's see what the congressional hearings reveal before proclaiming the innocence of this President.
14
Seems pretty delusional to declare a victory lap on the strength of the alleged “vindication” inherent in the Mueller report. We can all admit that “collusion” was a problematic term from the outset. It has little or no legal basis and ought to have been avoided. But, several facts are still abundantly clear.
• The Russians utilized social media to interfere and influence the election in Trump’s favor.
• Trump was trying to build a hotel in Moscow during the period of alleged collusion and lied about it.
• Trump and his campaign staff lied about their contacts with Russians.
• Trump has taken steps to normalize the relationship with Russia, seemingly at odds with American interest.
• Trump lies like he breathes, reflexively, frequently, and (disturbingly) when he doesn’t need to and when his lies can easily be proven.
• Despite rhetoric to the contrary, though Trump won the election, it wasn’t a mandate in any form. He has never had majority support, and only because of the Electoral College. Sure its technically a win, but shouldn’t it seem, at best, a hollow win?
Support for Trump is support for an agenda of greed, and captures how he has hoodwinked his supporters into putting their faith in a proven liar, who they somehow believe “Tells it like it is.” In fact, though, he is a man of his economic class whose policies benefit the wealthy while hurting regular people.
46
Again, what does it take for facts to be taken as facts?! Even the Mueller report can be read along political lines? I agree with other posts. Read the report. And unless there is a new English language, please apologize to everyone who can read, analyze and draw conclusions.
42
Adam Schiff SWORE he had REAL EVIDENCE re: collusion...he owes the country an airing of his finds - he must be help accountable for his lies & scaremongering. So hey Schiff, show us your evidence - NOW!
24
The way I see it Hillary was really the Russians' candidate of choice. They had her in their back pocket. When the Russians wanted to acquire 20% of America's uranium the Russians gave her and her phony-baloney foundation $32 million and, thereafter, Hillary's State Department readily signed off on that deal. (Where was Obama on this?)
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
As far as reaching out to Trump goes, the Russians were merely hedging their bets.
22
The question I would like answered- “What would have happened if President Obama had been documented to have lied half as much, golfed half as mucky and spent half as much of taxpayers funds at properties that he owned as Trump has been documented to have done?” Don’t waste time and money impeaching him, just come together vote him out of office AND then take him to criminal court as suggested in one of the footnotes in Mueller ‘s report when he is a private citizen!
35
This must be an example of the Deep State I keep hearing about. The deep state of Denial.
34
This isn’t a serious argument. It’s blatant trolling, pure and simple—and dishonorable—intending to incite angry reaction, not to encourage thoughtful, tempered deliberation. For his arguments are utterly flimsy and ridiculously refutable. In fact, they’re so truly bad they don’t deserve intelligent responses. And I’m not being flippant.
Did you notice that his arguments never, not once, even refer to the actual Mueller report? How can Buskirk claim that Barr was right in his interpretation of the report, without citing even one word of the report itself?
Sadly, Buskirk’s trolling has obviously succeeded, likely to his great delight. But there’s no joy to be embraced here. We can simply be sad in our “thanks”: thanking him, that is, for exacerbating the ever-more-strident cacophony and division that embodies our political lives—and that erodes our democratic ideals.
48
Mr. Buskirk your eyes must have colluded with the dark to offer an opinion that is far from objective. Yes reconciling with the truth is part of healing and you too should consider doing the same.
9
I'm suspect of any publication entitled "American Greatness" .
32
I join those of my fellow NYT readers who seek and appreciate diverse opinion in saying that scraping the bottom of the alternative view barrel to get this piece by Mr. Buskirk has been counter productive.
His views are cartoonish in their foundation and presentation and thus just give credence to everyone who says Conservatives are disingenuous idiots.
Please choose better in future.
52
Buskirk missed a few buzzwords.
Groan here.
9
"But why is it not enough to simply acknowledge that you dislike Mr. Trump and disagree with his policies? "
Here's why:
• When offered dirt by Russians on Clinton, DJT Jr. did not call the FBI, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
• Jr., Jared, and Manafort took that meeting
• THEY CONCEALED IT FROM THE PUBLIC
• a year later it was learned they had LIED about that meeting, saying it was about adoptions,
• PRESIDENT DICTATED THAT LIE.
• Manafort offered info a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness.
• Manafort offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence.
• Trump asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails,
• Russians hours later attempted to hack a Clinton server
• president’s son-in-law sought a secret back-channel with Russians through a Russian Embassy.
• Roger Stone made contacted GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, a hostile intelligence agency.
• sr. campaign official was ordered to reach Stone to ascertain nature of said dirt on his opponent
• national security adviser-designate conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions,
• HE LIED about it to the FBI.
• while campaigning, Trump sought Kremin’s help for real estate deal in Moscow
• he concealed it from the public.
• he then advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians
The actual "why" is encompassed in sickening detail in Mueller's 448 page report, which, of course, you can't be bothered read:
44
Is this a joke? Let me be clear: my opposition to this piece is not because the author disagrees with me, but because it's style, tone, and rhetorical substance is not only lazy and hypocritical, but intentionally so. It's the only way you could spin the outcome of the Mueller report in the way the author has. Apologies due to the president, when the Mueller report corroborates nearly every piece of reporting on this chaotic, immoral, and corrupt administration over the last two years? Liberals are guilty of biased scapegoating and conspiracy theorizing? The president pushed a birtherist conspiracy theory for 6 years during the past administration, continues to argue that climate change is a Chinese Hoax, and recently stated that windmills cause cancer. The hypocrisy would be laughable, if it weren't equal parts sad and frightening.
I am getting close to relinquishing my subscription to this publication. Not because the Times is attempting to publish opposing viewpoints, but because the Times continues to publish arguments that wouldn't meet the standards of an 8th grade persuasive essay paper (I should know... as this is my profession.) This isn't being inclusive, it's baiting your audience into engagement metrics to drum up ad revenue (and here I am, typing away at comment #3469 on a piece that isn't worth the time it took me to read it.)
56
Why would you bother to submit an article to a news outlet that is, according to you and your brethren, one of the high holy purveyors of liberal, fake news? Is it because the NYT is the most prestigious paper in the world that upholds the highest journalistic standards, and wow, that looks good on one’s resume?
You can’t have it both ways, and neither can Trump. We aren’t buying it. Any of it.
32
For some of us the Russian collusion investigation was never serious. It was intractably, by definition, through and through, unserious.
We knew that Vladimir Putin hadn't videotaped Donald Trump urinating on prostitutes in the Obama's bunk beds in a Moscow Motel 6 in 2013 or whatever the heck "kompromat" there supposedly was. Lunacy.
It was like opening with great solemnity and swearing of oaths an investigation into whether there are faeries in DC's Rock Creek Park. No, there aren't faeries in Rock Creek Park.
But nevertheless the investigation kicks into gear.
"We have to chop down that grove of 300-year old oak trees," they say, " to see if faeries are hiding behind the trunks." And Trump yells, "No!" And then they say, "OK, now we're going to plow up that Colonial-era cemetery because!" And Trump shrieks, "Don't do that!" And then they say we must blow up the historic Georgetown stone bridge because we have to get to the bottom of this serious question: Are there faeries in Rock Creek Park?"
And Trump is heard yelling and fuming and cursing in the Oval Office, "Fire them! Go fire them! Can I fire them? This lunacy has got to stop! Somebody fire them! I have to fire these idiots!"
And Rudy and Doug and Mike and Jay say, "Unfortunately, Mr. President, though you can legally fire them -- you just have to let this play out."
And Trump says, "But it's so stupid."
And they say, "Yeah. We know."
What and infuriating waste this has all been.
9
Alright, you got me, NYT and Buskirk. I'll respond to this piece of liberal-taunting clickbait.
Trump welcomed help with his campaign from a hostile foreign power. He had ties that led straight from him to Roger Stone, to Wikileaks to Russia. Vladimir Putin is a dangerous gangster who tainted our elections. Investigating his involvement with Trump was the prudent thing for a functioning nation to do, and it revealed that Trump put his presidential bid above the laws and safety of our land.
And, hey, I remember when you wrote something similar about Benghazi. Oh, wait...
21
It is amazing that any sane person could see Trump as anything but a complete pile of lies and filth. Buskirk is interesting to read because he shows just how deep into the swamp fools like himself will follow a lifetime crook and con artist. For those who think the Times shouldn't print Buskirk's craven drivel, I say it's important to see how autocrats find followers and cause them to debase themselves. "American Greatness?" Really. The saddest thing is that a man so manifestly unfit as Trump has gathered a ship of fools around him. Racism, corruption, lies upon lies, ignorance, and laziness are what define this man. Is that really what defines American Greatness for the Republican Party today? Unfortunately it does. Fortunately for the rest of us, every person who touches Trump and follows him like a lemming will inevitably walk off a cliff. Trump will laugh and denigrate you too one day, Mr.Buskirk. In the meantime go back and read some history.
18
Stupid article. Completely misses the point of what an investigation actually is. I mean, there's a murder. The police launch a murder investigation and they do have a top suspect in mind. Turns out he's not guilty of murder, but a string of lesser crimes. A hoax and a witch hunt? How many indictments were brought again? it's not a witch hunt if you genuinely find actual witches.
As for an apology- how about someone apologizing to Hilary for the TEN Benghazi investigations that found nothing with which she could be charged. Over 80 days and millions of dollars and yeah, that turned out to be the real witch hunt. Has anyone apologized to her for suspecting her of something? Why should they apologize to Trump then for the same? And the Mueller report reveals how dishonest and corrupt this administration is- will Trump apologize for that?
Actually, would Donald Trump ever apologize for one single thing he's ever done in his entire life? No, I don't think so. So why on earth should anyone apologize to him for anything?
26
Spot on, Mr. Buskirk. Spot on.
And while we all argue over our correctness in the matter, the Right continues to solidify and maintain its strong support. Those of us on the Left cannot move on until the person who we can clearly see is bad is Officially Bad.
He's an idiotic poser. He's in office. Not much we can do about it now, especially 3 years in.
Can we please just move on!? Let's focus on how we are going to win in 2020. We are wasting our energy and time on this loser.
4
Okay, fine. Here is your official Liberal apology: there was no collusion (especially as we have now all come to understand that "collusion" is not a crime). There were too many self-interested grifters involved for there to be any organized "coordination". There were merely incompetent attempts at obstruction. And lying, of course - constant, ridiculously self-evident lying, by almost everyone associated with this "administration". Let's not forget the bigotry, the bullying, the incitement. The self-dealing. The "very fine people" among the Charlottesville neo-nazis. The children in cages. The trashing of allies. The Helsinki humiliation. But - I digress. Yes, we were so very very wrong about collusion. We are sorry. You officially own the Libs, now and forever.
11
You, Mr. Buskirk, and others like you seem to be obscenely comfortable with a president and his enablers in government, appointed and elected, operating in the sleazy, shadowy edge of legality. That position is antithetical to virtually everything I believed this country to be since its founding. Power without a foundation of ethics and secular morality destroys democracy as its enemy. If this is what, as you call, Middle America wants in its leadership, I see no hope for democracy at least as I’ve known it for 74 years. As far as the “media,” your apparent full-bore fulmination of distrust does this country no service, not to mention a bit hypocritical in trusting The New York Times to publish your screed unredacted.
15
There was a Republican rep on tv this morning blaming Obama for the Russian interference.
8
The only thing Barr was right about is that Trump was angry and frustrated about being investigated. [Different day, different topic, same Trump].
I encourage those commenting here to take time to carefully and completely read this NY Times article today on the number and nature of Trump Campaign and Russian contacts both before and after the election.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
"Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis.
The report of Robert S. Mueller III, released to the public on Thursday, revealed at least 30 more contacts beyond those previously known. However, the special counsel said, “the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”
Very few, if any, of these interactions were publicly known before Mr. Trump took office."
Yet.. we are expected to guzzle down this cough syrup from Mr. Buskirk and follow his demands. You know why this editorial is posted here? .... to draw traffic to Mr. Buskirk jounal website.. which is clearly hard right in agenda and nature. I'd take this editorial a lot more seriously if it was not so blatantly partisan in nature... rather then more centrist and objective in it's approach
10
And these people who are going to jail were just mucking about on their own, eh?
1091
Wm. Barr holds a “press conference” and blatantly lies about and mischaracterizes the Mueller Report as if no one else is going to read it. What could he possibly be thinking when he must have known his most salient “points” would be clearly refuted by the plain language of the report. Who in their right mind does such a stupid thing?
Ah, yes, someone currying favor with Mr. Trump.
The president has an almost inexhaustible ability to corrupt everyone and everything in his orbit.
10
Only a willful fool ignores the detail in the Mueller Report and concludes “Barr is Right...”.
14
One word - Balderdash. Enough said.
13
You have about as much credibility as Sara Sanders and her boss Mr. Burskirk.
14
Mr. Buskirk ... let me ask you ... Is Mr. Trump your idea of a "great" American president? Really?
At this point he seems to be in about the position vis a vis Russian Interference that OJ Simpson was after the trial that acquitted him of murder. Yes, in the face of very considerable circumstantial evidence, he remains unconvicted.
But are you really happy with Mr. Trump as your president? Couldn't you have found somebody better ... almost ANYBODY would be better ... at being a decent, sane American?
13
The time to "both sides" everything like this is past. To paraphrase Kellyanne Conway's husband, Trump is a cancer and it's up to the government now to excise it.
13
Buskirk presumes to guide the steps of journalists and government officials even as he stumbles headlong into the gaping chasm between insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution and the need to apologize for an obviously baseless political persecution. The bridge across thin air he urges to get us over to the side of Trump's innocence is more amorphous and ethereal than the theoretical connections of dots by journalists Buskirk denounces. How ironic, furthermore, that he is allowed to do so from a pulpit in the cathedral of left-leaning, irresponsible journalism, the NYT. Has he, by the way, seen today's Wall Street Journal's front page story on the Mueller report titled "Putin Has Won"?
9
After reading David Brooks today it feels like you are interested in provoking tribalism and readership rather than creating a better democratic society.
5
This is the silliest op-ed I have read in ages. If Buskirk defends Trump after actually reading the report (my bet is he never read it), his power of denial is among the strongest in print.
16
Nothing to see here, just move on. There’s a crisis on the border, a super caravan is forming in one of those three Mexican countries....just south of Mexico.
6
It's amazing how different people can read the same report, and it means something entirely different to them. I suspect that this author did not actually read the report, but listened to Barr and Trump's summary of the report.
5
This piece is an excellent example of the lengths to which the right wing media will twist the facts to defend Trump. It should be mandatory reading for all of us who wish to see Trump replaced in 2020.
What needs to happen now is for the mainstream media and any potential 2020 challengers to focus on Trump's incompetence. Most Trump supporters, I suspect, believe that Trump is not a nice person. But they overlook his personal failings because they believe that he is doing a good job as President -- despite all evidence to the contrary. But what has he actually done to improve the lives of his supporters, aside from his wealthy donors? I would argue: nothing of substance. Lots of sizzle, but no steak. THAT needs to be the take-home message.
5
Liberals may have read too much into the Mueller report—before it even appeared!—but Mr. Buskirk, in an equally wishful way, reads far too little. It’s not really a good thing that we have to be assured our President didn’t collude with Russia in its efforts to influence our election. I thought all along that Russia sought Trump’s election because his ignorance, credulousness, and lack of character would damage America and diminish American influence in the world. That the Russians were able to dupe Trump into complicity in their efforts to such an extent that his presidency has been compromised by investigations and by his questionable actions in response to them is a bonus for Russia.
9
I don’t understand Trump’s base. They claim to be more American than anyone largely based on the color of their skin. Yet they are willing to tolerate a corrupt and debased president largely on the idea that he is tough on immigration, and he keeps the Browns out.
What has now been made normal in American politics saddens me and I pray constantly for the future of my nieces and nephews.
9
The Russian believed the Obama admin, including Hillary, interfered in their elections and Ukraine’s internal affairs. Of course they favored Trump and the Obama admin should have expected Russia would retaliate.
4
you are wrong, mr. buskirk. liberals were Right about wanting to get to the bottom of the illegitimate election of Trump, with the help of a foreign unfriendly power (that would be the Russians). if you read mueller's report, you will find that the Russians were active in affecting the election outcome in a more advanced and savvy fashion than any liberal could have imagined. If Trump officials were working behind scenes the with the Russians (or out in the open as Trump himself encouraged more illegal leaks of the DNC emails at his rallies full of democratic haters) the liberals are not to blame. read the report, perhaps no criminal charge came from the investigation for the Trump campaign, but not criminal does not = innocence in the campaign's blind (yeah right) cooperation with a foreign power; or to Trump's direction in the White House for his staff to lie and distort facts to Mueller in the Russian Election Interference investigation. This conduct is certaining unbecoming and certainly worthy of the consideration of impeachment for obstructing justice.
4
One of the greatest job applications I have ever read. Maintains the perfect balance of psychophony and stridency.
9
Ummmm OK, maybe actually read the report? You know, I used to vote Republican periodically and I really miss the days when intellectual rigor and moral grounding were still considered virtues among conservatives. These days the GOP cozies up to dictators (Vlad among them), relishes detention centers and children in cages, and treats competence as a weakness - and Chris Buskirk is on the sidelines cheerleading, having sold his soul for a few more hits on his website. When the GOP drops treason and gets back to reason I might come back - but I'm not holding my breath.
6
I can agree with the author that the behavior of TV liberals - most notably, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Morning Joe, Lawrence O’Donnel - was at times deplorable. They were almost giddy when a negative story came out about the administration. That being said, it is not just the liberal media: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson (with Marc Levin on the radio) play the same role on the right. The bottom line is that all of these TV personalities are accumulating excessive power and personal wealth by fanning the flames of discord. Put more starkly, they are getting rich off the collapse of America.
We have read many hypotheses on the negative impacts of social media - social media channels like Facebook have been described as “brain poison.” The 24x7 “news” channels are just another form of a toxic online social community in that you have a captive audience spending countless hours captivated by what they see and hear on the screen, being programmed what to think and say.
In my humble opinion, the world would be a better place if we all would just unplug from this garbage and DO something productive with our lives versus succumbing to the programming of a bunch of self-interested demagogues getting rich off the country’s demise.
12
American Greatness is an extreme rightwing journal that favors Trump and his ilk; "greatness" in its name reflects Trump's motto on his ballcaps. But he has only managed to make America betray her longstanding missions that were revered all over the world. Now, those less fortunate see us as a banana republic.
4
Here is a counterpoint for your diverse newspaper:
An OpEd from the editor of The Journal of American Greatness! (Luckily I never heard of it until now)
What do they publish as content?
How we ruined the natives and stole their land while we decimated their population with the diseases we brought over?
How we enslaved poor devils from Africa and made unbelievable fortunes from their labor until we “freed” them because the Whitney Gin produced what they did for much less?
How we refused to use the same latrines and seats on the buses with the descendants of these slaves until the (nineteen)sixties?
How we napalmed children in countries we hadn’t heard about before the Cold War?
How we ruined a country for good because we taught they had weapons of mass destruction (they didn’t, we did as it turned out)?
4
You may not like the President or his behavior but for the many commenters on here that have turned a blind eye towards the flagrant abuses of power waged against the President and his campaign before the election and afterwards should give you all pause. I sincerely hope that the truth comes out about these abuses of power and that people are held accountable.
9
Just another no collusion Trumpster. This is all you can address with regard to the President. Let me give you some facts to address line by line. How about how he believed Putin above his own agencies? Why does he trust him above our allies? I never believed he was directly involved but he gave me enough evidence to at least be suspicious. Further I don't know one person who voted for Clinton who blames her defeat on Russian interference. There are numerous reasons for her loss. I find those who continue to believe and support this man knowing he lies about everything the greatest threat to our country.
4
Bravo Christopher! Now I am sure that your opinion piece got into the NYT just so that they can point at it and say: see we are not one sided...but I welcomed what you said and I fully agree.
7
While Clinton and her inner circle may feel that the "Russians" robbed her of the Presidency, most "liberals" don't share that view. And even if they did, if doesn't change the fact that Russia did, in fact, actively and aggressively interfere with our elections and the Trump campaign, at a minimum, was aware of their actions and approved. And there is no question that Trump actively and aggressively attempted to interfere in the investigation. It's apparent that corruption, lies, and deceit are the order of the day in the Trump White House. Barr is merely the latest figurehead to continue the lies. No, Barr isn't "right". He's merely another Trump puppet -- spouting whatever lies his boss wants to spread.
5
I thought this was a parody of right wing talking points. The Mueller report completely supported the veracity of the NYTimes, Wapo, and Wall Street Journal articles, which were called "Fake News" by Trump in an attempt to quash the reporting. The Mueller report also supported what we all know, which is that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will say anything to help Trump. It takes an enormous amount of energy to delude yourself so.
7
"...adding the fiction of a conspiracy serve?" What a ridiculous assertion that sums up the ridiculousness of this piece. I've said it before and others have said it before: This was a Republican Justice Department that instigated this investigation, which was headed by a Republican attorney general, and run by a well-known and respected Republican investigator, during a period where Republicans ran all three branches of government. There were (and are) legitimate concerns about collusion and criminal conduct that people from all political persuasions had. The media was reporting what was happening. Pundits were making suppositions. It's what they do. I hope they keep doing it.
The premise of your article is just ridiculous and just as beholden to ideology as you claim "progressives" and "the left" are.
3
I suppose to be fair, the New York Times should give space to those who defend the president in this matter. But Mr. Buskirk's analysis is emblematic of the dismal state of political discourse in this country. Pundits, especially on the right, these days show no hesitation in building an argument on a faulty premise. In view of the glaring disconnect between Barr's conclusions and those in the report, to rely on Barr as the sole foundation for the diatribe that follows is simply intellectually dishonest. Of course, he is doing exactly what the White House intended when it decided to opine on the report before anyone saw it and thus control the narrative.
9
If he isn't guilty, why did he ACT so guilty? Sorry, but innocent people want their name cleared. They don't beg and threaten employees to lie for them. They don't demand actions that employees refuse to carry out because the actions are illegal.
Would you accept this behavior from Obama or Clinton? Or is your outrage purely selective?
3
Portraying Trump as a victim and Mueller et al as vindictive whiners because Trump was legitimately elected (?!!) may appeal to the “movement conservative” readership but is wildly divorced from reality and the views of most qualified independent analysts. The campaign was deeply engaged with Russia (if too incompetent to engage in conspiracy) and it’s clear that Trump wanted to engage in multiple illegal acts but was too bumbling to do so successfully. This latter is being blamed on the “deep state” (i.e. professional civil servants and lawyers who acted consistent with their standards).
3
Mr. Buskirk, attempted buzzkiller of the left. Some good points... and some very weak ones. Biggest piece of malarky was Trump running and being against the "elites." He is the archetype of an elitist, come on, how could you be more of one? As are his cronies. He has represented "the elites" of this country from the get go, and continues to do so, the biggest falsehood being his tax package. I don't watch Rachel Maddow's show, but you know way better than I do that it was around way before Trump was in politics. And just because he wasn't caught doesn't mean he didn't do it. Yup, The Mueller Report was a waste of millions.
2
I am one of those far to the Left who predicted that Mueller would find nothing. The Democrats have behaved like chicken with their head cut off. They should have looked for fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, financial crimes...not silly collusion - which is hard to do and harder to prove. Democrats have behaved foolishly on this matter.
4
I cannot think of a civil response to your tunnel-vision induced cheerleading. "Does Trump feed you actual dog treats when you are obedient?" was the least un-civil one.
9
I find this article to be almost incredible. Decrying devision when trump started his political career with the hoax of birtherism, talked about murderers and rapist flowing across the border, insulted a gold star mother and father, and since then has insulted everyone and lied continuously (besides being, unfortunately for us incompetent). The press has by and large uncovered FACTS which the Mueller report by and large CONFIRMED.
4
So here is the "liberal media" (NYTimes) giving equal time to the "other side." Total false equivalency. Like there is another cogent side to Darwinism or Climate Change, whose scientific evidence is beyond reproach. Just reading even the redacted Mueller Report lays out clearly and unequivocally that Trump and his minions were compromised (bribery, money laundering and every RICO action IN PLAIN SIGHT - "Russia, if you're listening") and are still being used by dictatorial/oligarchic foreign countries. It's not just the Manchurian Candidate - it's the Manchurian Party (GOP) and Populace (Hannity, Buskirk et al) and Press (Murdock). And all to just retain power. Shakespeare is either laughing or weeping.....
1
This is a wonderful bit of satire: it reaches the heights of absurdity. Dare I say it is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for our time.
Good show, Mr. Buskirk. You should consider a career change and fully embrace your gift for exquisitely ridiculing the GOP's vices. Your knowledge of the right is deep, and you sublimely wield its own words and tropes to mock it. You make it look easy.
I'm still chuckling. Bits like, "It won't feel good at first," are some of your finest work. Brillant.
7
Hello from "Middle America". I can't speak for all my neighbors, but I believe this "presidency" is an abomination and Trump should be behind bars.
Please add me to your "Middle Americans" who think Trump is corrupt and complicit with Russian meddling data points.
Finally, impeach now.
10
It's neither the suspicion of collusion or the stain of the intent behind an act of conspiracy that has troubled me. It's the baseness and dishonesty of a man who is supposed to have the character, moral backbone and intelligence to lead a nation. It's not the "liberal media and its allies" who are upsetting the balance of all things good in this country; it's the kowtowing to a demagogue who flails wildly at some idea of leadership and in the end, turns people against one another. I thought that the presidency of Obama would bring about some clarity about who we are by forcing us to look at our recent history and its flaws. But it's clear to me that there are vastly different views about what America is and/or should be. American greatness is compromised by this resistance to some much needed introspection.
And frankly, the divisiveness and sloppy resort to ideology inspired by this corrupt and easily manipulated president is a moral embarrassment. Goodnight, Enlightenment and Progress.
And please retire that refrain about our shock that Clinton lost. What shocks us is that nearly half the nation was content to hire a grifter for president.
7
With the Trump team having over a hundred interactions with Russia, and the finding that Russia did try to interfere in our election, that you are focusing on whether Trump did anything technically illegal is disgusting. Russians were able to hack into voting machines in the last election. Where is the outrage???? While I detest Trump, his dishonesty and attempts at using his office for personal gain, the far bigger issue is that Russia tried to interfere in our election and there is no indication that we have done anything to prevent this from happening again. The GOP is so busy falling all over each other to protect and defend Trump that they are ignoring the bigger picture. Trump will be gone someday but if the Russians continue to make inroads into our democracy we are doomed.
4
It ain't over till it's over.
1
I think the real apologies need to come from the Trump Media that constantly tried to discredit the Mueller investigation and continually called it a "witch hunt".
4
The Mueller investigation is what I like to call a classic (in these polarised times) "what would I do if it were the other guy/gal" scenario.
I put this question to the author (and all other equally enraged by the investigation) what would you be saying if it were Clinton, not Trump, who had been investigated?
I have a nagging feeling that if it were the other way around, all true Clinton haters would have been calling for blood/impeachment/death to the traitor, while all good Trump haters would be claiming farce/hoax/fake news etc.
Once you admit that both sides would have wanted to see the investigation completed (in the hopes of seeing the other guy/gal skewered), then you also admit that, whoever is in power, the investigation should and, in fact, absolutely had to be completed.
A quick side note. Trump may not be a political elite, but he is an elite.
He is of the monied and business elite - an elite that is only interested in its continued enrichment at the expense of the rest of us.
You may have noticed that the rallying cry of, "Drain the Swamp!" has disappeared from Trump's act.
Why?
Because since coming to power, the Swamp os as swampy as it has ever been!
Stop trying to paint the man as for the People - he is neither of or for them.
5
Trump is a disruptor and thus freaks out The Establishment.
He surprisingly defeated the quintessential Establishment candidate who would have rewarded all her friends in the bureaucracy giving them more power. Huge shock to the system who assumed they would win the WH despite their flawed candidate.
That Establishment gave us the endless war in Afghanistan, gave us the Iraq mess, allowed Syria to spin out of control, gave us the immigration disaster, gave us a terrorizing Iran, a China that economically abuses the USA, and a nuclear NK with ICBM’s.
Trump had nothing to do with any of those failures but now is responsible for addressing each of them.
The Establishment now fears his unorthodox methods just might improve these things - thus making their old methods - and them obsolete and irrelevant.
Thus Trump is feared and hated - and must be cast out.
6
Lousy attempt at whitewash and a disgrace to publish this "piece". It is the same false equivalency that pairs climate change deniers with climate change alarmists.
I don't know if the contacts with various Russians amount to criminality but by the behaviour of Trump and co. in trying to keep them hidden I conclude that they (as I do) thought they were criminal. And still they did it.
2
ISIS is gone, jobs have been created, we finally fixed the corporate tax system, we decriminalized drugs, we are debating illegal immigration for once, NATO members are paying more for defense, Trump has a horrible personality and hillary is a has-been.
move on..
6
If Republicans like Mr. Buskirk think that Trump meets the bar of decency, honesty, and decorum for the President of the United States it is their problem. History will not judge them kindly.
They should be the ones apologizing. There is no name for what they are doing to our country.
3
If I only got my news from mainstream sources, I’d probably believe that as well.
2
Much as I detest Trump, what he and his ruthless gang of incompetent, anti-democratic mob are doing to destroy America, I have to agree with this article and its author. The NYT is the primary leader of the media madness and a few of us know why. No onebelieves, however, that any medium will recover its balance as long as big money controls advertising, controls lots of its stock, and shares the mindset of the loser and her handlers.
The problem is that big bucks have bought out the nation. The public will probably never get it back.
2
Assuming the public has learned its lesson about the dangers of journalists connecting too few dots too fast, why should we now make the flying leap from insufficient evidence to prosecute to an apology for a baseless, politically-motivated persecution? Should we remain open to those articles of faith you deplore after all?
1
Mr. Buskirk
Mr. Barr is most certainly NOT right about everything. There was no formal conspiracy and I never thought there was. There was most certainly cooperation by virtue of Mr T being beholden financially to Russian individuals and the state collectively. Trump asked for Russian help and knew it was forthcoming and defended Russia at every turn. That is obvious and despicable but not criminal.
But the notion that there was no obstruction of justice is absurd and Mr. Buskirk's assertion in this matter can only be reconciled by his fervent desire that his loyalty was not misplaced.
Admit I was wrong? Apologize? If I was wrong I would do so. But I am not. Mr. T is a traitor pure and simple. You sir need to admit that.
What is next for the rest of us? Tax returns and abuse of power for personal gain. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Kushner bailout. It's not ever by a long shot. Kind of like Bengazi isn't it?
3
Trump tried at every tune to defy the Constitution and act like a king or mafia don. Many people who worked for him are now in jail. His family had contact with the Russians which was dubious and used what the Russians offered-Hillary emails. What hoax. It's not a conspiracy if it's true. And why do you , Fox and Republicans want this man as president? That's what I want to know. Trump and his minions are immoral, unethical, unpatriotic and corrupt.He does not deserve to be in the oval office. That is what it is about.
2
Maybe you want to learn to read.
Trump's campaign chairman shared detailed polling info and strategies with a Russian agent.
That agent took said data and helped to craft a strategy to bombard key areas of key states with bots that would target key demographics as ID'd in the data provided by Manafort.
Manafort continued to lie to prosecutors, thus concealing key information.
Trump repeatedly ordered others to obstruct in the investigation.
It's all in the report.
You are wrong, Mr. Buskirk.
Trump is a criminal.
4
This paper found at least 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the campaign and after. In no instance did anyone associated with the campaign say "Hey, this is wrong, the Russians are hacking our election, we need to tell the FBI." Not once. Trump lies every day, tried mightily to get his staff to fire Mueller (they wouldn't break the law for him - which seems to have been the crime of Sessions, Nielson, and everyone else he's thrown to the curb). He is a sleazy degenerate who is making money off his presidency and spending my tax dollars enriching himself. He does it to this day.
And you have the gall to ask for an apology??
4
While it seems like "piling-on" - having had more than 3000 other people say the same thing - I nevertheless feel compelled to comment. This was not a "vindication" of the Trump cabal. Yes there was no CRIMINAL conspiracy with the Russians but that was not for want of trying. They were just too incompetent and stupid to pull it off. It is abundantly clear from the report that Team Trump wanted and got the help of the Russians to subvert the election. That fact that Mueller was unable to prove that the Trump campaign did not actually conspire with the Russians on the mechanics of doing so is NOT a vindication. As to obstruction of justice, we have sent people to jail (think Martha Stewart) for far, far, far, far less than what DJT did. But for the fact that we don't indict sitting presidents, he would be wearing a jump suit in a color to match his hair.
3
Is it just me or is it laughable to say that “Trump ran again America’s elites”?
A man who inherited megabucks, with a giant gold building with his name on it in midtown Manhattan, isn’t one of America’s elites?
Please.
7
Sorry, Mr. Buskirk, but as someone from middle America, you don't speak for me. We don't need Mueller, Barr, or Congress to show us what we can see for ourselves: trump's corruption and abuses of power are self-evident. Keep in mind that trump's own lawyers wouldn't allow him to be interviewed because even they knew that he's a pathological liar who would've immediately purgured himself. Trump surrounded himself with a revolving door of associates with criminal ties to shady Russians - connections that trump and his associates repeatedly lied about. Thus, the question remains, if there was no wrongdoing, why the countless lies?
Trump apologists like Mr. Buskirk blame Democrats for an alleged "witch hunt", while selectively ignoring the fact that the investigation was lead by a Republican, assigned as special counsel by another Republican. The dossier was 1st commissioned by Republicans, a fact that right wing pundits conveniently leave out of the narrative. The report was vetted by a Republican, about his Republican boss, trump, who has only himself to blame for the scrutiny his openly questionable behavior has drawn.
But let's blame Democrats - for no reason other than it's politically expedient to do so - while ignoring the crimes and corruption the investigation uncovered, and gloating over a so-called president who beat the rap. What a disgrace.
6
It is so sad, to me, to see how many Americans are seemingly unfazed by a president who 1) not only did not call the FBI when Russia came calling his campaign but too "eagerly hoped to benefit from Russia's crimes to help the Trump campaign; 2) asked aides to not only lie for him while under oath, but asked them to break the law and then proceeded to abuse his power by telling them he'd pardon them if they end up in prison, and has continued to ask even cabinet heads to break the law; 3) didn't willfully conspire with Russia but was apparently too stupid to not know to keep from being played by Russia and rejecting their offer of help; appointed a man to be AG for one reason: to protect himself...and further, fired an AG for recusing himself and not protecting him, and further, firing so many people who'd committed their lives to protecting this country because they wouldn't, again, protect him by killing the Mueller investigation. In other words, so what if he didn't rob a bank; Trump is corrupt, clearly, abuses his power, but that is not surprising. What is sickening is how many Americans don't seem to care. What a low bar Trump supporters have for their president: Hey, he didn't commit a crime! ( but actually, he did). Let's face it, these people voted for a man who was made to pay $25 million for defrauding hundreds of people...even as he was calling Hillary Clinton "crooked". That kind of depravity in an electorate can only lead to..well, a corrupt man being elected.
3
From a Washington Post article today concerning Barr and Trump’s lack of emotional stability: “In a Georgetown University study released just this week, 13 percent of Americans still believed that women were less emotionally suited to political office than men.”
So there you have it: Bill Clinton was our first “black” president and Trump is our first female president. What a pair of bookends....
2
I see that others here have written to note that Mr. Buskirk does not here try to explain any of what he considers erroneous statements in Mueller's report, and it would seem that for anyone seeking to set the record straight, as Buskirk claims to be doing, would need to offer a counterargument to those statements. His contribution here has all the close reasoning of "Why did you arrest me, Officer?" Officer: "Because I know you're guilty."
Part of the problem re Buskirk and others may be their exceedingly (willful?) literalistic reading of words. Again, the scene: "Sir, I'm sorry to report to you that a person not authorized to drive your car borrowed it a month ago and used it to drive to South America." Person: "Someone stole my car???!?" Officer: "No, sir, I didn't say that."
Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.
Kansas City, MO
2
There was ample evidence of conspiracy to defraud the American voter. Given that, it was more than justified to investigate whether the president had direct involvement - considering so many of his "best people" he picked did. And it's a pattern of mob figures to keep themselves squeaky clean and let their paid underlings take the heat. So far, it seems like that's what happened here. A bunch are going to jail. So NO APOLOGY NECESSARY. Now, let's talk about OBSTRUCTION. Trump was NOT EXONERATED. So the report now goes to Congress as a part of Impeachment proceedings. You want Congress to apologize for an Impeachment investigation too? What a hypocrite you are to spew this kind of propaganda and spin. The system is doing its job to remove a president who is potentially a criminal.
2
The hypocrisy is also amusing.
Clapper asked on CNN if the USA ever tries to “interfere” in other countries’ elections. Stammering as he usually does, giggling, and then saying he didn’t want to answer that.
The Dems: Russia! Russia!RUSSIA!
The rest of the world has a narrative of their own.
2
Seems to follow Trump's practice of trying to put out self set dumpster fires by dowsing them with gasoline.
3
Trump denies Russian influence because it conflicts with his sham narrative of being a self-made billionaire. As Grifter in Chief, perpetuating that sham trumps national security. That is why he is such a danger to us all. Impeach!
2
First of all, Mr. Barr misrepresented what Mueller wrote. As is plain to anyone who can read, the one time the report addresses the issue of 'collusion', it is to note that 'collusion' is not a legal term, and not a crime.
Mr. Barr may just have well as noted that there is no mention of ax murdering in the Mueller report.
On the other hand, we see many, many instances of interactions with, and knowledge of, Russian attempts to influence the election - Russia, are you listening?
Of course, simply disseminating hacked materials is not a crime, so Mr. Barr is right there ... congratulations, America, our government is not populated by traitors, just useful idiots, as the Russians say.
Finally, Mueller states categorically that he CANNOT recommend prosecution because a sitting President (according to the Justice Dept.) be prosecuted.
And then he lays out 180 pages of why he should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
How Mr. Buskirk can celebrate this as an outcome is beyond me.
The obvious next step is impeachment, but I agree with the general consensus that impeachment proceedings will only solidify the Trump base.
Hopefully, Congressional investigations will continue with the Trump family and other administrators, and at some point, someone will be talking about the money. Just sorting out the number of lies told by this administration to Mueller or to Congress will take some time.
2
Mr. Buskirk, William Barr is overtly corrupt. Someone concerned with American Greatness really ought to be rejecting corrupt Attorneys General, don't you think?
6
I don’t understand why reputable papers publish opinions like this. The whole premise is based on a lie...a complete fabrication. Barr was not right nor was he honest.
3
Is The Press finally embarrassed?
Almost a half Century ago American President Richard Nixon was elected in a landslide, betrayed by leaks from the FBI and sold-out by lawyers. In 1973 FBI Director Mark Felt schooled 2015 FBI Director James Comey in stabbing a President in the back. Felt succeeded in making history. Comey nearly succeeded in the treachery and treason.
Remember, Deep Throat was an FBI Director. We seldom read about Director Mark Felt even though he has been eerily resonant in our own phony Russian Collusion scenario.
Why does our Press ignore the obvious similarities?
Because the Mainstream Media are embarrassed by their ugly legacy of insider blindness. Two reporters spent a year leaking negative and nominally secret information from FBI files. Then Nixon's White House Lawyer, John-Dean, made headlines by leaking to reporters accusing the boss of committing crimes and hiding evidence. Again unsavory traitors have been recreated... but they failed. These oddly similar insider Coups-de-etat should be remembered as cautionary tales... not hidden as merely embarrassing.
What always shocks me about liberals is the degree of their denial.
Look, you hate Trump and you hate that he was elected. We get it. But the fact is, there is an equally large number of people who voted Trump in, and he is more popular than ever with them. Sure, he didn't get the popular vote, but as we've all said a thousand times, it doesn't matter.
Get over it. For the thousanth time. Get over it.
And focus on the future of your party.
5
Let's face the reality that if presidential elections were conducted by the "one person/one vote" standard - that is, the standard by which EVERY other election is determined in the United States - Donald Trump lost by millions of votes.
The majority of the people who actually got involved in 2016, got off the couch and cast a legitimate vote, voted for Hillary Clinton. She should have been the next occupant in the Oval Office.
The election was determined by about 75,000 votes in three states. Hardly a mandate to govern. This has happened before with the Bush/Gore election.
In both cases, the person who took possession of the White has led the country down a disastrous path. This is hardly the will of the people.
Donald Trump is a scoundrel, a liar and a dishonest human being. He was defeated in a popular vote election. His presidency as far as I am concerned, is illegitimate.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the Republican Party to acknowledge that fact.
3
It would be smart for this author to read the report.
4
Russia has defeated the worlds greatest democracy by identifying corrupt people and using their corruptness for the express purpose of laying waste to democratic institutions and especially the rule of law. Trump is an illegal president. Time is of the essence. Buskirk is not.
2
Where's Tom Hagen when you need him. "This committee owes my client an apology!"
Donald Trump breaks the law (emoluments) and lies every day.
Impeach him.
2
Op ed contributor, Buskirk column shows the NYT includes rw Trump supporters on its op ed page--- lest it look too 'left'? All the news and opinion 'fit to print'?
It's the effect of Fox News GOP state media, setting standards, shaping views of millions of voters with a warped political culture---exerting pressure on other media.
RW media has no duty to fact checking or reality, just puts out lies daily to buttress the wealthy/powerful-- no matter what.
It's a norm, increasing polarization and irrationality.
Fox redefined left,right,center. The main media is on the defensive, to avoid looking too 'left wing, socialist, pro big govt', to avoid rw media critic backlash, and maybe lose readers. The cable news pundits pull their punches.
The result is media caution on what should be centrist in our politics----Medicare for All, taxing the wealthy, govt regulation by elected govt of big banks/insurance and drug industries, green energy, etc.
Our media keeps dark the facts from capitalist nations with generations of universal health care, supported by voters and parties.
Americans now lack Representation for Our Taxation. The media is in effect 'regulated' by extremist rw influence, allied with big donor investors in our elections for excellent returns, defining what is 'centrist' for their their gain, and our loss.
Enter Trump, his courtiers and propagandists for power, and the appalling downward spiral that now Mueller exposes.
1
What we have here is simply Trump Fundamentalism. The shorter version of this would be "Barr said it, I believe it, so shut up, Trump-despisers."
4
Why did the NYT publish this article? It scares me because so many people appear to be low-information non-thinkers. For those folks, just reading the headline could equal a takeaway that the NYT says Trump is innocent and the media needs to be punished. It's that level of non-discernment that got Trump elected and may become the undoing of our democracy.
5
This opinion piece is a window into a strange world that I'm not sure I appreciate the NYT facilitating me learning about.
3
Mr. Buskirk,
I can't take your opinion writing seriously because you make no effort to address the strengths of the other side. (Have you never read John Stuart Mill?)
It's nonsense to say the Mueller investigation was a waste of time when it was so patently successful at revealing corruption at the core of our government that poses a threat to our democracy. The investigation indicted and achieved convictions or confessions regarding Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopoulos, the 13 Russians, van de Zwaan, Pinedo, Gaig, Kian, Alpetekin, Weber, Podesta.
1. Are you not relieved that these crooks have been apprehended?
2. Don't you think it is edifying and valuable for us to know that our President associated with and/or employed so many of these crooks?
1
Apologize??? To the most incompetent, uncouth, lying, manipulative megalomaniac the office of President has ever seen?? Sorry (not)! My fondest hope is that when he is gone, sooner rather than later, that he will never again be mentioned by name in respectable media. For him, that would be the cruelest fate.
7
Why is this nonsense being published in the NYT? Trying to be fair and represent different viewpoints is one thing, but this is ridiculous and dangerous. Media owes Trump an apology? What? They are doing their jobs and if this was such a no brainer and it wouldn’t have taken 2 years to investigate. There was a lot of shady things happening by Trump campaign and later administration. All of which the media was duty bound to report on.
4
Wow.
This is breathtakingly bad and wrong.
9
One day, Sir, based on overwhelming evidences, you may show some intellectual honesty. But I am not holding my breath.
6
Conservatives seem to have a hard time talking about their problem in the White House without complaining about how the liberal media exaggerates everything.
4
This shill named Buskirk lives up to the meaning of his name, which is essentially "a church in the woods" (from the Middle Dutch).
Buskirk has elevated Trump to his high priest and takes his word as gospel. He believes and repeats the misrepresentations of his lay bishop, William Barr.
And like an evangelist, he spreads the word of America's 'greatness" to a flock (aka cult) of blind disciples.
The problem is that his story is false. He narrative is narrow and wrong. He lives in the past and longs for a different millennial future.
3
From out here in Middle America, way beyond the Beltway, in full embodiment of whatever cliche Mr. Buskirk wants to use to describe real Americans, all I see is a need for Congress to keep digging, because even though a couple of coins have been found, the real treasure is still hidden in the sand. I'll admit defeat once the whole story has been told, but we're not remotely there yet.
2
This is a joke, right? Why else is Buskirk smiling in his photo? A little late for April Fools, but given the grimness of the Mueller report, humor is appreciated. Only by the debased standards of the Trump/Barr era can the report be viewed as any sort of vindication. If a Democratic president were documented as having engaged in any of these vile acts, Buskirk and his fellow MAGA's would be howling to tar and feather the traitorous dastard. Bill Clinton's impeachable offense was quaint by comparison. Trump and his henchmen flirted with the Russians throughout and after election, Trump has lied copiously about his efforts to derail the investigation, and he obstructed Mueller repeatedly. In the pre-2016 US, any and all of these acts would be grounds for impeachment. In the post-2016 world we inhabit, we have such low expectations of our president that we shrug off his many outrages ("What do you expect? Trump is Trump.") and continually lower the "barr" of what behavior we are willing to accept. The challenge for all Americans, however, is to work against this debasement of what we hope for and expect from Presidents. If we continue to adjust our standard of acceptable Presidential behavior downward, then we surely will get more Trumps in the future. Just say no to the Trumps and Buskirks!
5
To quote Andy Borowitz's column:
"William Barr reads Moby Dick; finds no evidence of whales."
5
This is satire, right? Like the Borowitz Report but without the cleverness to be funny?
2
Have you read the report yet? Doesn’t sound like it.
2
Seriously Chis?
Given the details peppered throughout the report, anyone who now refers to this investigation as a 'witch hunt" or "hoax" is nothing less than a partisan hack.
Without some qualification saying the report proves this presidents is free of serious wrong doing is evidence of life in the RW propaganda bubble.
You may like what the man has accomplished, and the ways he has attempted to weaken and shrink government might just be the cat's meow for you.
But to turn a blind eye to the portrait of a president that is so dishonest and corrupt?
To infer that the investigation never should have happened despite the billowing "smoke" emanating from the actions of the president and his associates?
And the bare fact that the man's acts as guilty as ....?
A hoax?
This would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
2
This man Buskirk has lost all credibility.
In recent years, I've seen him on PBS NewsHour in their attempt to provide balance, but he is just another smiling empty vessel promoting policies that do nothing but continue to promote the same-old inequities and frauds of our Con-man-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump, -- a purely selfish pathological liar-to-the-core.
6
I can't find anything to say that is without expletives.
4
Are you reading the same thing I’m reading?
5
Nice try Buskirk. Now you should read the rest of the paper that published your opinion piece. And, maybe read/reread Mueller's report. Even the redacted version lays bare how awful Trump and his commandos really are.
2
"Believe the narrative regardless of the lack of evidence, squint to see justifications where there are none and then in an intoxicated frenzy of moral superiority use any weapon at hand to destroy your enemy."
Are you looking in the mirror sir?
2
The number of unsupported generalizations and completely fabricated statistics in this article makes its conclusions completely unbelievable
4
That Mr. Christopher Buskirk believes the election itself is the major issue and that he believes the American populace should apologize to the Kidnapper in Chief speak to the quality of the work found within ‘journal’ (*cough cough*) of American Greatness.
2
One definition of delusion: a persistent false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.
So in your warped view of reality, then, Mr. Buskirk, Trump didn't fire Comey because he wouldn't go easy on his National Security Advisor who had lied to the FBI about his contact with the Russian government about sanctions invoked against them due to their involvement in hacking the 2016 presidential campaign in favor of Trump?
That is a persistent false belief maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Get over yourself.
3
That this "defense" of Trump is so pathetically weak emboldens me in believing Trump should be impeached immediately. They literally have no defense whatsoever.
This writer has a future at the Onion, however.
2
What a laugh. Not enough evidence to charge because the president surrounds himself with liars becomes total vindication. Absurd.
4
Now this piece is what one could call "fake news" or "distorted conviction".
4
I have to admit, the headline was good for a laugh.
4
Saying that our Scapegoater-in-Chief has been scapegoated and using Girard as an explainer is deeply delusional. And on Good Friday no less.
6
Another name calling trash talk about " liberals " and the media.
I would say the Media got it right. Mueller report documents what the Media has been publishing. Only Tump' s dishonesty and disregard for the law is more clearly shown.
1
Mr. Buskirk, please ponder this.
6/14/16 - DNC reports hack of its server. Guccifer 2.0 claims credit.
7/22/16 - Wikileaks releases DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 tweets, "Wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I'd given them!!!"
7/27/16 - “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” - Donald Trump, live televised news conference
7/27/16 - Same day as Trump's news conference, Guccifer 2.0 hacks Clinton's email server.
8/13/16 - Guccifer 2.0 releases 700 MB of documents.
10/4/16 - Guccifer 2.0 releases yet more documents, however these were mostly already known and some were suspected as being fabrications by Russia.
7/13/18 - Dept. of Justice indicts 12 Russians and identifies them as the team that acted as Guccifer 2.0
I'm not providing reference links here as links seem to slow down the moderating of comments. However everything above is easily verifiable in AP news reports and in the DoJ indictment itself.
This is just a summary of a few key events, not an attempt to describe ALL the events related to Trump, Guccifer 2.0, hacking ... which would require more space than a comment allows.
2
Mr Buskirk, you are right. I’m wrong. Donald, I’m so sorry. Even though you directly called upon a hostile foreign power to elect you by hacking your opponent’s emails...even though you employ violent rhetoric to incite hatred and divide our nation as never before... even though you are utterly and absolutely unqualified to represent anyone-let alone one of the most powerful nations on earth...I apologize. Why? Because our wizened elders such as Mr Buskirk, William Barr, Sarah Huckabee and Sean Spicer told me to. And everything they teach me on Fox News is true.
4
So, if you want to be taken seriously, maybe don't use the phrase "liberal media" in the subtitle.
2
For so many reasons, this article is a waste of time. Trump lies at an astronomical rate. He lies on a daily basis, and has no moral conscience regarding his lies. His presidential tweets consist of childish insults and incessant name-calling. He is a known adulterer, and there is proof of his payment to a pornstar mistress. He was overheard talking of grabbing women in the most heinous way possible. And yet Buskirk thinks he deserved to get the benefit of the doubt?? This is nonsense. He has numerous Russian connections and was building real estate in Russia. He befriended Putin instantly, despite evidence of election manipulation. And since when has Trump apologized for ANYthing in his life? Buskirk is clearly drinking his Cult 45 straight from the can.
2
Never ascribe to malign intent what can be explained simply by incompetence, miscommunication, inattention, or (in Trump's case) sheer bumbling idiocy.
1
This is satire, right?
5
I applaud The Times for encouraging diversity of opinion, but oh my. The cantankerous, curmudgeonly uncle from underneath the brim of his MAGA cap at the Turkey Table does a more convincing job defending the current occupant of the WH than this.
2
The most ironic statement in this article is that the press owes Trump an apology. No sir, it is you, and and the people who prop up and support this bigoted hateful narcissist, that owe the country and the world an apology for putting this despicable human being in highest office in the land. And now you continue this false narrative that the report was a vindication. Shame on you. I wonder if when history makes its judgement you will admit you were wrong. Probably not.
1
This column feels like it was written before yesterday's release of the redacted Muller report. The same old same old excusifying of a President's abhorrent and abnormal behavior.
I don't shy from contrary perspectives from conservative or even right-wing writers. But I think we should expect some degree of intellectual honesty from those whose words appear in the Times or elsewhere.
This is drivel.
2
If anything, Girard's thinking should be applied to all the groups and individuals Trump scapegoats and sacrifices ritually upon the altar of xenophobia and misogyny to satisfy his base...
2
Go ahead and hold you breath until you pass out and maybe awaken awoke.
1
First comes the Trump/Russian collusion hoax report.
What will be next - an exposé on the climate change hoax?
I'm just asking so I can be sure my paper shredder is empty before I add that to this ridiculous article.
5
Mr. Buskirk: you clearly did not read the report.
3
It was so Kafkaesque. The New York Times, once unimpeachable, can no longer be trusted and at a minimum owes the country an apology.
1
This is satire, right?
5
Maybe somebody was wrong, but it was not most of us. The vast majority of liberals and democrats had realistic, if perhaps hopeful expectations of the investigation. Far from vindication, just about everything included within the scope of the Mueller report confirmed the unethical, inappropriate and incompetent actions taken by Trump and his administration. Almost all of these actions had been accurately reported by the American news media, and for this I congratulate them.
Mr. Buskirk, the inaccuracies, exaggerations, and misstatements in your opinion column demonstrate your fitness to join the American Republican party. Obviously you embrace the president and his administration's behavior. Let's hope you never have anything to do with governing our country.
5
Huh. But the right wing media elites who have often worked as an unquestioning p......ublic relations arm for this administration get a pass?
And the corporate media elites who have been rolling up TV stations under right wing consolidated corporate control, eliminating a spectrum of voices in a community get a pass?
And the venture capital corporate owners who have been buying newspapers, selling off their assets, gutting staff and pocketing large investment returns while (they have admitted) lying that they are trying to float dying businesses get a pass?
Enough with the propaganda line that “the” “liberal” media and honest reporting of a significant national threat in the form of foreign government influence and interference, mercenary personal financial enrichment schemes and the protection at all cost of vast financial wealth and connections ... that reporting on these things is the problem. Large amounts of American media are under right wing corporate control in this country. And are being systematically dismantled.
Your straw man of The Liberal Media no longer stands up.
3
Wow-- thanks Christopher. Nice job, and kudos to the NYT for publishing your piece even though it probably grates on them.
The thing that finally won me over to Trump during the Republican primaries was when he asked, Wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia? There is no organic reason for the US to be enemies with that country. Forget all the cold war stuff, and just think about it. Nothing wrong w/the Russians.
So for me, the biggest downside of all this Russia collusion business has been the harmful effect it must have had on our President's ability to improve that relationship. I've often thought he should just blow off the Mueller thing and it's media clowns, and invite Putin to the WH for a beer. Freak out, folks. This is what I'm doing.
Everybody needs to move on now.
179
@Malcolm Beifong
"So for me, the biggest downside of all this Russia collusion business has been the harmful effect it must have had on our President's ability to improve that relationship". I would hope that the fact that Russia influenced our elections would be more unsettling to you than Putin being put off by our reaction.
347
@Malcolm Beifong
Russia invaded NATO allies and support Assad in Syria, together with Iran, remember?
It's not because Russia is no longer our number one enemy that all of a sudden Putin would be an ally.
You want proof: as the Mueller report, Barr and now Christopher Buskirk write here, Russia actively meddled with the 2016 elections.
THAT is what is wrong with "the Russians", you see?
All American presidents have tried to improve relations with Russia. Trump said nothing new when he said "wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia". The main difference between him and Hillary, when it comes to Russia, is that contrary to Trump, Hillary had tons of experience and a concrete plan to reduce the damage Russia is inflicting on the US, all while having no personal business interests in Russia.
And if you want to know why Russia is a US enemy, just look up why it is that under Trump, bills that increased sanctions against Putin got massive bipartisan support, so much so that Trump was obliged to sign them into law.
Finally, Republican Mueller has indicted and jailed many Trump campaign staffers, whereas he writes that the only reason why he doesn't indict Trump is because it's not up to a special counsel but up to Congress to do so. You cannot possibly all yourself a patriot and then ask DC to systematically ignore blatant wrongdoing. This is a country of law and order, not a Putin dictatorship, remember?
359
@Malcolm Beifong
"Move on" to what? More of the same? If our country and our relations with the world have been thrown into chaos, insecurity, and lunacy, we should just ignore what our intelligence agencies and actual facts tell us about what a corrupt, incompetent bully we have for a president and just pretend like everything's fine. Got it.
249
It is telling that you quote Barr, not Mueller.
8
“The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” - Really? Mr. Mueller has led a very professional investigation with virtually no leaks.
And "propelled by his political opponents? " It was not Democrats who appointed the Mr. Mueller (a registered Republican), but Mr. Trump's own Deputy Attorney General (another Republican) who concluded that there was plenty of evidence to justify an investigation, which there certainly was. Plenty of contacts with the Russians, government as well "never well defined" actors (a Putin specialty), and plenty of expressed interest in their help, even if no criminal action was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And there certainly were plenty of attempts to derail the investigation that failed only because many would not do Mr. Trump's bidding.
But perhaps we should most concern about the fact that the Russians clearly did interfere in our elections and will certainly try to do so again. A real President would lead the charge to preempt his. In fact, no real action can be taken without his orders. Yet Mr. Trump does nothing, not even admit that there was interference. He is failing to protect our most scared institutions from foreign attack, perhaps his most important duty. This alone should disqualify Mr. Trump as commander in chief.
3
How about Trump apologizing for giving the impression of collusion and actively trying to derail the investigation?
He could something say like this: "I'm sorry that there was an appearance of collusion with the Russians associated with my campaign. Thank you Mr. Mueller for your investigation of this matter."
I am not holding my breath.
1
When I worked for a newspaper, I was taught to that the headline needed to have the most important fact, and never more than two
Le Monde's, France's leading newspaper nailed it today
" Dans le rapport Mueller, un Donald Trump déplorable mais pas coupable"
No translation necessary, as long as you know pas means not.
The two most important facts, right there in an 11 word headline
The NY Times on the other hand reported it as
"A Portrait of the White House and Its Culture of Dishonesty"
Leaving out the most important fact for US policy : That Mr. Trump was found not guilty
Vive la France
1
If you actually believe that mendacious tripe you could have sat on the Warren Commission. Some Americans can still believe what they see with their own eyes.
t's too bad that this column, an exercise in moral truth-telling if ever I saw one in the New York Times, will not be read by most Times readers (because of its heading), nor others of the electorate or in the media. It might well be attached to the Mueller/Barr report as a corrective to the TDS rampant among most of the nit-pickers who will read it in the hope of finding something - anything! - upon which to hang the corpses of their preconceived notions and beliefs.
Maybe the Times can offer Mr. Buskirk a weekly column in place of those of Messrs. Douthatt and Brooks, who seem to now write in such a rarified manner and style as to make them almost totally incomprehensible to both sides of any argument.
We deplorables need a voice at the Times!
3
This opinion piece is just disgusting. Talk about ignoring the facts. The Russian hoax? Even if Trump really was "cleared," Russia wasn't, which was the most important thing we should be focusing on. Instead of uniting us to condemn Putin, let's attack the media! Even though the report states that they got almost everything right! Just shameful.
1
Another member of the Willfully Blind urges donning the blindfold.
5
This is a fictional piece, right? I mean, really, it's a pretend narrative of events. Or, putting it another way...Mueller says he's found a creature with two webbed feet, white feathers in abundance, two wings, a beak, and it lays eggs and quacks but says that's all he's really allowed to say. What ard we to make of it? The author of this article apparently never encountered a duck...or a Trump.
1
Please do hold your breath. We'll wait.
Director Mueller has patiently and meticulously detailed the basis for ten charges that elevate Donald Trump from an uncouth boorish liar and common miscreant to a president worthy of impeachment.
5
As a former Republican, as a Republican who voted for Al Gore and then switched to Independent when he lost, let's just say that you have no issue with supporting the most corrupt president in modern history, at least, one who is nothing but a liar and scam artist extraordinaire. And let's also note that you have no qualms supporting the double standard as it applies to Republicans vs Democrats when it comes to character, let alone, supposed corruption, real or invented.
Republicans get away scott free, taunting Democrats to challenge them, and the mainstream media, too, while they relentlessly go for the jugular when Democrats are holding power, fabricating issues to their favor based on no factual evidence what so ever. Talk about gaslighting. Case in point—impeachment proceedings being brought against Bill Clinton, for nothing more than oral sex, compared to the mob boss mentality of the current sitting president.
But, that's OK, I guess. The moral hypocrisy displayed by Republicans is revolting. Yet, they are never challenged. At the end of the day, Trump is still repugnant, as a president, as a human being, playing the American people for the fools they far too often are.
4
I consider myself to be a liberal. I read the New York Times. My company even sells anti-trump bumper stickers that compare Trump to Putin, etc. But I have never taken it as an "article of faith" that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. Yes, I half-expected, half-hoped that this is what the Mueller report would reveal, but I am actually not shocked or stunned that the report does not find this.
Much as Trump might have wanted to collude with Russia, he is such a dim bulb, that he might not have been able to figure out how to actually do that.
I can't speak for other media, but I don't think the New York Times has perpetuated a conspiracy theory. Mueller was doing an investigation into possible collusion, period.
The real undisputed issues with Trump are his dishonesty and self-serving corruption. Meanwhile, we also know that Russia did meddle in his election. From my standpoint, collusion would just be icing on a big, fat, ugly cake.
3
Some things are beneath the dignity of comment. This is surely one of them.
5
Yes Mr. Buskirk I agree, certainly, the Emperor has a fine set of clothes and beautiful robes that he wears as he parades in front of us...
Or is he a naked liar and scoundrel? Is he a bully, a cheat, and an adulterer?
Maybe that's not in the Barr Report that you're reading through your rose-colored glasses, but he's an embarrassment to our country, traditions, and values who needs to be voted out of office.
3
More of the Big Lie. Only the venal and gullible will buy it.
5
As I read this, I am reminded of what my mother said as I was growing up, "what is wrong with you?" Clearly Mr. Buskirk needs a dose of my late mother.
5
No amount of logic can defeat hate. Trump is exonerated. But Liberals must have someone to blame. So lies replace fact.
2
Oh come on, do hold your breath!
4
As a person not living in the United States I personally view comments like these as not to be taken serious. There is quite a difference between an exoneration and the conclusion to which the Mueller Report comes. Furthermore it is quite strange to see people clinging to a racist, homophobic, islamophobic and sexist president because he is "anti-establishment" which by the way could not be more wrong. Donald Trump is the embodyment of the Establishment. A rich, old and white man. It is hard to believe that there are any other reasons for people to support him than his blatant rascism.
3
You insult my intelligence by asserting that my interpretation of this investigation would be dictated first and foremost by the state in which I live.
1
Your commentary is accurate, in terms of the hopeful handwringing by everyone who has recognized the tragedy of this Presidency for the U.S. It's well-argued but feels like gloating in the ease hindsight. It is not clear what you are actually arguing, nor the point of doing so. Many have fretted and forecasted the futility of documenting the potential illegalities in this President's bumbling but revolutionary campaign and term. Had they been able to collude it might have happened. Who knows? At least there were no impediments beyond competence, this much seems clear. The key folks got as close to indictable offenses as they could manage, and then lied about anything belatedly recognized as problematic. How uninspiring and unbecoming. Many important news organizations, while being stung by assaults on the press, have not been able to come to terms with this new political reality, to their detriment. And now there are good thinkers waving this damning but mostly inconclusive report around like it's a victory, or a cause for rapprochement. Lordy. It's exhausting. Kudos for getting your words in, but can we please step back and think how the U.S. might do better? Are you really asking for apologies from everyone who is frustrated and uninspired?
You mean like the reckoning for Birtherism? WAIT, DOES THIS MEAN RACHEL MADDOW GETS TO BE PRESIDENT?!?!
2
I'm not sure whether Buskirk is just trying to be provocative and get some name recognition, or if he is seriously expressing his beliefs. Either way, this is a silly article.
2
Very funny!
1
Poor Buskirk. Such longing for attention a lot like his hero, the great fake Trump.
2
April Fools Day was over two weeks ago! Certainly this is a joke. I'm no fool and it's exceptionally plain to me that Mr. Buskirk, Trump and Barr think we all are.
1
This fellow, comically practiced in the art of SNL class self-incriminating rhetoric, lacks the moral certitude to rise above ignorant pandering to honor his luck in American birthright by reading and evaluating facts. It's Monte Python funny to those of us with brains and heart enough to giggle at people who are proud to be dittoheads, but disturbing to see how far witless prejudice and fear takes callow wimps like this. The government has been hijacked by nimrods and are being cheered on by TV watching superficial punks who repeat without question, like Mao's red book carrying peasants. The stupid have always been among us, but never has the country been so beggared as to have indulged Goobers this much. But the republican party has been working to create their Theocracy by using the selfish and the addled for just such a mission, and the numbers, even in the slanted Rasmussen polls, still reflect the actual will of the American people (when republicans aren't suppressing votes or conspiring with foreign dictators who find them convenient fools to use) are not in their favor. Of and for the people is what makes us a Democratic Socialist Republic, and mentally compromised sycophants will never displace the honor we owe those who sacrificed to make sure we helped one another to make a more perfect union, even when childish fiction writers try to undo the bond. If they don't like their country, they should leave it.
Come on. This guy is a troll. If Hillary had won and her campaign met with the Canadian ambassador while Bill was trying to build a hotel in Toronto, he would be talking out of the other side of his mouth. He doesn't like fake news. Was he critical of the Marc Rich conspiracy theory? Of the birthers? Of the hypocritical small government "evangelicals" who want to control women's bodies while not caring about the asylum seekers who come to the United State because of the havoc wreaked by the CIA coups and meddling in America's "backyard". Give me a break
Just what were you reading? The report confirms about everything the fact-based media reported.
3
400 pages + supporting attachments is a lot to read through. You did not read the report Mr. Buskirk.
4
I looked up “vindicated” in the dictionary (FYI - a “book” where you can find out what “words” mean).
It does not mean “exposed in colossal proportions with overwhelming evidence to be a sleazy, dishonest, bully, possessing the worst examples of human nature, and completely unfit for leading the country.”
4
Why do the NYT and WaPo feel compelled to give voice to conservatives. When was the last time the WSJ every published a liberal point of view?
3
Was this column a late April Fools joke? The behavior described in the report is devastatingly unethical and corrupt!
3
This author is in denial, or not the coldest beer in the fridge. Trump owes the country and the world an apology. Of course it will never happen. How someone can support someone as corrupt and lacking any sense of morality is an enigma. Are they brainwashed or on Trump's payroll. Are they so blind that they cannot see how psychotic Trump is. Sorry, sir, but it is Trump who needs to confess his sins. His racist remarks. His misogynistic rants. His tacit approval of putting kids in cages and separating them from their parents are just some of the many horrible things Trump has done and will do. This author needs to look in the mirror. What he'll see is a sad excuse of a man who has no sense of probity or what is right.
2
Barr lied about what Mueller said and intended about obstruction of justice. He quoted Mueller as using definition of 'coordination' which is at odds with campaign finance law. The report is loaded with loathsome lies, prevarication and scheming by Trump and his staff. This columnist and Barr are stooges who don't deserve a public stage.
2
Mr. Buskirk. What is telling is that you do not actually list any innocent behaviors that you think were exploited by liberals. Trump Jr’s meeting? Trump request for hacking? Manafort sharing polling data ? Which one was exploited politically? Huh?
If we have a smart Democratic Party they will use the juicy facts to nail you all to the wall.
1
Save your breath, you can never prove a negative!
Buskirk states that Trump is owed an apology. Sorry, Buskirk. On the contrast, Trump deserves to be cursed for his odious role as destroyer of the democracy framed by the likes of Jefferson and Hancock.
1
This isn't an opinion piece, it's a misinformation piece intended to gaslight people into disbelieving the words of a report we can all read with our own eyes.
Can the NYT please restrict your opinion pieces to people who are prepared to at least acknowledge reality, not outright fantasists.
4
What planet are you on; what century are you in: https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-report-shows-how-barr-selectively-quoted-it-2019-4 . There are not many explanations for your behavior, beyond the old political trick that if you repeat lies often enough people will believe you.
As for Barr's behavior, what is surprising? He has long favored expansive executive power. He has long favored such outmoded policies as mass incarceration.
3
I don't care how cleverly anyone parses this thing, I look at Donald Trump and I think, "If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck...."
1
This alternative facts section was truly entertaining! Should definitely have been in the “entertainment “ section.
1
I know exactly why William Barr wrote the very brief “summary” (wink wink) of the Mueller Report immediately after going over it. For the same reason he held today’s perfunctory “Press Conference”.........After two years of a president who neither reads nor understands basic, elemental facts, is there any question about his followers?
Want to bet how many of them can, or will, read the actual report?
1
LOL... I doubt the so called, "Elite Media" will ever confess to their, " collusion delusion."
Thanks
1
As to Ed Board & here
The “Times” notes, “Although Mr. Mueller was unable to bring criminal charges against the president himself, his report lays a foundation for investigation by Congress, which has the authority and the responsibility to check the executive branch and hold the president accountable. “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” the report states.
But additionally, this morning’s debate (on “Democracy Now”) between former “NYT” journalist and Pulitzer Prize winning, David Cay Johnston, and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and founder of the ‘Intercept’, Glen Greenwood, beginning to counter-punch each other regarding whether faux-Emperor Trumpius (of the ‘tougher-talking’ neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party of the Empire) or whether “Empress-in-waiting”, Hillary Clinton and the DNC, (of the ‘smoother-lying’ neoliberal-con ‘’D’ Vichy Party of the same Empire) were most guilty of turning the 2016 (s)election into a conspiracy-theory cat-fight (instead of any serious and honest presidential campaign) — concluded with both these Pulitzer Prize journalists (and myself) coming together to agree that both deceitful candidates of both Vichy Parties are totally unfit to be the leader of any functional democracy — but only suitable to be leader of a Disguised Global (crony) Capitalist EMPIRE.
1
American democracy is far less great today because we tolerate a President acting both to hinder justice and to give comfort to foreign authoritarians.
It is a minor victory for the health of American democracy that the New York Times gives space to the editor of "American Greatness". It is a continuing wound that such authoritarian opinions are so prevalent.
3
"Mr. Trump ran against American elites and their insular culture. Their response was to load onto him all of the sins they see in American society and attempt to sacrifice him to appease their gods." Huh?
Your wrote this blather after Barr did his pre-report spin, right?
How else could you reach these conclusions. Please don't think you speak for "the American people"--the majority of whom do not approve of this pResident. Mueller has laid out the roadmap for impeachment on obstruction of justice and expects the Congress to do its own investigation as to impeachment which uses a different standard than criminal law. His contention is to abide by the DOJ ruling that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. Mueller does not set the bar(r) so low and his report doesn't agree with the obvious lies of our Attorney General. Open your eyes. Expect true greatness from your country, not grifters.
3
The "journal American Greatness"?
"The Russian hoax"?
This is an attempt at comedy, yes?
-
Poorly done. I barely laughed.
3
Did you read the report, is this really the way you want your President to behave? Regardless of what you think, this was not a hoax there was and is a lot of criminal behavior going on, we can do better than people like you and Trump.
1
This is like reading a newspaper article in the Twilight Zone.
3
Is this a joke?
Did he read the report?
4
I'm sorry, what is this?
Lifted without attribution from a sleazy pretend-Conservative rag, or published in self-aggrandizing tandem, you will, I'm sure, explain yourselves withe old "diversity of viewpoints" chestnuts. In the case of the NYT, however, that argument comes fraught with darker potential.
In ways subtle and not so, you seem to betray hesitance born of corporate ownership, shareholder nervousness, abiding fear of social media.
Anyhoo...take you at your word...I'm all for diversity of opinion when it is well reasoned and stated with clarity and aplomb.
That's really my problem with this mess. Obviously only a fool would agree with this desperate media toady's bizarre idea of functioning politics but, far worse, he has no class, no verve, no elan, no direction other than to poke and prod and provoke.
If the stakes weren't so high, and his competition so steep, I might expect to find this foolish man in the pages of, what, Mad Magazine?
Yet here you are, NYT, with yet another bucket of tripe.
3
I’m almost 60 and been actively involved in politics for over 40 years. Never, NEVER, previously have I read a bigger pile of denial, obfuscation, intentionally missing the point of a criminal investigation, and slimes apology for conduct by the President and his White House gang. And that includes Watergate.
But, I must say, Buskirk—who with this column seals his reputation as more of a Minister of Propaganda than an actual thinker/news analyst—is very insightful about why the Russia collusion investigation and press “story” does not play well with much of middle America. Dems should be paying close attention as the calendar inches closer to the primaries.
2
Holy Cow. This guy just doesn't get it. The point is the Mueller report paints a crystal clear picture of a deceitful, morally bankrupt president and administration running roughshod over our american values and societal institutions.
1
I have some swampland I want to sell the author. Believe me, it's prime land I bought from Trump.
3
Mr. Buskirk, as an exercise, please read Mueller's report again, but replace "Trump" with "Clinton" or "Obama", and tell me what you would write in that case...
2
Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it better... oh wait he already has. Endlessly.
Mr. Buskirk is a reminder of the challenges to any attempt to have a reasonable discussion with the MAGAistas
5
just 'cause you support Donnie, doesn't mean we all do. after all, this "long-delayed report" is just the first shoe dropping. unless you're totally blind, there's more to come ... and apologize yourself ...
1
There are so many brazen and untrue assumptions in this piece that it staggers the imagination. Sorry for the cliche. I would recommend a course in logic for the writer, as it is apparent that he doesn't understand how to use reasoning and facts to draw conclusions - just pulls them out of the air willy nilly.
Putting words in print does not in and of itself make them so. But then again this piece is on the opinion page and everyone is entitled to theirs.
2
Wait, what? Is Mr. Buskirk trying to tell us that the Mueller Report is fake news? That's what it looks like.
2
Pathetic. Unless the president is convicted of a crime, everything he does is fine. Lying, supporting foreign dictators, allowing intrusion into our electoral system, attempting to obstruct justice -- it's all fine. Sorry, I guess us Democrats just aren't wired that way.
4
I always find it comical when the righties are allowed into the NYT opinion section. They present their "argument" to the NYT reader as if that reader were a common Fox News junkie who demands nothing in the way of facts or objectivity. Who is he expecting to sway with this nonsense? There is nothing in this entire essay that quotes any passage from the Mueller report. Rather he quotes from the honorable William Barr instead - hardly a non-partisan participant in this circus. From Mr. Buskirk's telling you would think the President emerged from his 6 hours of television watching today smelling like roses when anyone with a brain and the ability to read a reputable newspaper could tell you it was exactly the opposite - indictment or not. This is the world that the Fox News crowd inhabits on a daily basis. It is a terrifying place.
4
Your headline made me laugh since the report shows the exact opposite of what Barr said. You know we can read and comprehend what we read?
2
It is shameful that this news organization would allow outright propaganda from an obviously outrageously biased source to be published here.
2
Did he just accuse the "liberal media" of a lack of objectivity?!
2
Mr. Buskirk you are telling a blatant and disgraceful lie. Barr is lying and you know it. In the face of Trump's irrefutable and irrepressible attempts to interfere with the investigation, Barr has the audacity to claim that Donnie "fully cooperated" with the investigation. Barr must resign and you deserve the infamy that will be your legacy.
3
Kelefah Sanneh, writing for The New Yorker in 2017, described Chris Buskirk as "a little-known polemicist." I'd say the characterization still fits.
2
Perhaps you didn't read the report or actually watch the 'liberal' news media. Have you ever read an account of anyone who doesn't believe that Al Capone had people murdered, was a bootlegger, supported gambling and prostitution, etc.? Yet, he was never convicted of any of these crimes. I suppose if you were a reporter in Chicago at the time you would be plastering the newspapers with how Capone had been exonerated- nothing to see here. If you believe everything you just wrote about Donald Trump, you are perfectly capable of writing such an article about Capone.
Agreed, Mueller was unable to reach the threshold of being able to prove Trump conspired with the Russians. God knows with the myriad contacts with the Russians there was opportunity. But nobody made a Nixonian tape to play for everyone.
Two questions Mr. Buskirk....1- So you think it was ok that the Trump administration didn't denounce and 'rat out' the Russian interference helping the Trump campaign? 2- And do you think it's ok to order subordinates to commit illegal acts as long as they refuse to carry them out?
2
A mirror image article, responding word for word, can be written about the GOP, tea party and Fox during the Obama years. Still waiting for apology...
1
Are we not forgetting that "phew, Trump's not a criminal, he just lies here and there, get off his back libs" isn't the same as someone worthy of the honor of respresenting the American people in the highest office? I would't trust this guy to give my change back if I sold him Girl Guide cookies and yet there he sits in the White House.
1
An opinion that dissents from orthodoxy! How could this have gotten into the Times?
1
The biggest take-away is our president is a liar and can't be trusted or taken at his word.
His people lie for him.
This is where we are.
Are you saying that's exactly as it should be?
Are you saying America should be content with that?
It's certainly not my idea of what a president should be!
1
This is some solid satire...
2
When I first read the headline of this article, I thought it must be satire, given that the report clearly contradicts Barr’s summary. Sadly, it appears it’s yet another addition to the ever-growing collection of “ignore the facts and just believe what we want you to believe” screeds that this administration and its apologists have proven so adept at producing. I’m sorry Mr. Buskirk, but you’ll get no apology here. No apology is warranted. If anything, Mr. Barr owes us all an apology for misrepresenting Mr. Mueller’s report.
1
Rather than filling the Times with dross that belongs at the likes of Fox "News" or Breitbart, try actually reading the Mueller report.
I have.
While there are many words that can properly be used to describe it, "vindication" is manifestly NOT one of them.
1
Sorry, I stopped reading the minute Mr. Buskirk used the phase "elites" in describing liberals and the corner of the media who do not agree with him (which means I stopped read nearly immediately).
I am sick to death of inflammatory editorials. I don't need to read another individual's opinion, ripe with outrage and incendiary language designed to rile up a certain segment of the population and insult and demean another. Give me the news and let me make my own opinion on the day's events.
Please leave this kind of garbage to Facebook and social media. That's what it's there for: sub par writing, manipulation, insults, and faux outrage.
2
Here is a further attempt to divide the people. Every catchphrase is included in a poorly written piece. Let's just say now, to be clear, 'leftist liberals' are the people with a conscience and sadly, the 'right' are people who are being exploited via FB and other tools, lied to and manipulated. I believe the author is looking for WH job and he is practicing his pitch here.
1
Really, the bottom line is this:
The Report makes it clear that Trump is a reprehensible human being whose incompetence has his own administration refusing to carry out his orders.
Go ahead and vote for him if you really feel the need.
It confirms everything a progressive needs to know about you and your agenda. In fact, I will feel free to judge your personal moral compass as well.
Hillary was wrong - it’s not a “basket.”
It’s a landfill.
3
Where did you find this turkey? Why?
5
Barr lied about everything.
Calling that truth is like calling short, long.
The majority of Americans are done with listening to Republican lies.
4
What sort of rag is the journal "American Greatness". Sounds like a cheap knock off of the Trump world mantras. Apparently, these sycophants lack reading comprehension. We were not wrong and history will remember people who played along with this.
3
The Times is so intent on proving its balanced towards conservatives it continues to legitimize the most outlandish, extreme voices. This is basically no different than running a Breitbart piece. This writer somehow thinks Trump and his gang of oligarchs are outside the "ruling class"?
Rather than try and cozy up to a party that embraces white nationalism and fascism, why not promote some voices that reflect real American values. I'd love to see an actual labor columnist. Most of us Americans are still working class, a fact lost on the NYT and the pundits.
3
This is hilarious. It's Mr. Schiff and the liberals who are to blame for the acrimonious state of affairs in the country today. And you can believe that because editor and publisher of "American Greatness" said so.
William Barr is doing what he was hired to do, redact and obfuscate Mueller's report. Buskirk is doing what he is paid to do, lobby public opinion in favor of the super rich and the ruling class. Who by the way, are mostly not liberal Democrats.
4
Probably the worst thing one can do is to try and rebut this absurd piece of sophistry with rational argument. One of the most important lessons I learnt from life is the futility of arguing with the irrational, and this is a perfect example.
Chris, you might think you live in the real world, but the *actual* words of the report put a lie to your nastily partisan rhetoric. What have we come to when educated people pass off rampantly political spin for real argument?
Shame on you.
2
“And then, of course, there is the recently arrested Michael Avenatti, who was eagerly embraced by Trump haters. He appeared on CNN and MSNBC an embarrassing 108 times in a 64-day period in 2018. How could they not see him for what he is?” How come you cannot see Donald Trump for what he is? Just like Avenatti, a liar, a hater, a man interested only in himself. Just like Mr. Avenatti. Did you somehow miss that comparison?
3
Okay it's treason, not collusion. Happy?
3
As a liberal I have to admit to relief there was no collusion. Trump certainly did some incredibly stupid things like calling on Russia and embracing Wikileaks, but I’m grateful he’s in the clear on collusion. But obstruction? Lying? Retaliation? More lying? Sorry. He’s still a sleazy individual with concerns only for himself and not the country. I would prefer to set this all aside and weaponize his other actions to get him out of office in 2020.
2
Mr. Buskirk, had you bothered to read the report, rather than getting your marching orders from Bill Shine, you would be aware that the investigation was "materially impacted" by repeated falsehoods from persons of interest during the investigation. Also that Trump refused to cooperate with the special counsel repeatedly, even going so far as to seek his termination, as documented in the report. Try again.
2
Thanks for the laughs, the first really good ones since the Mueller report was delivered. Normally I have a difficult time reading the screeds of Trump apologists – not this time – your really good at it –although, never will you be able to supplant Kelly Ann at the pinnacle of absurdist rhetoric in support of the Trump con.
1
Dems are clinging to the word “exonerate”.
Name one trial, investigation or legal proceeding were the record shows that someone was “exonerated”? As we all know, not guilty is not exoneration.
I have no proof that the author is paid by Trump, but can not exonerate him of that charge.
2
I was 3 paragraphs in before realizing it was not a satire however it was still really, really funny even if the author did not mean it to be.
5
Has this author even read the report? Or was Barr's press conference good enough for him?
4
I assume this is parody.
7
This does not read as if the author has even looked at the report itself, or at the actual media reports he mocks. His smug triumphal tone is at complete odds with the details of presidential corruption outlined by Mueller, and the dimensions of a true national tragedy that are gradually emerging.
1
A lecture about conspiratorial thinking in order to defend a guy who spent years accusing Obama of being a foreign born Muslim.
Delightful. And can we count up all the Trump aides on trial or in prison as a direct result of the investigation? Your bar for lack of reason to investigate is incredibly low.
2
Irresponsible opinion writing such as we have here does not reflect the usual standards of this newspaper. It takes time and considerable energy to read and reflect wisely on a 448 page report carefully composed by experienced public servants. The views expressed here are too hasty and conflict with the professional reporting I read in this newspaper.
2
Sorry, no. I have zero appetite for any more shading of the truth fueled by a willful ignorance of it. Any commentator who relies on twisting, shading or denial of facts - facts made more complete by the sum and substance of the report - is very much part of the problem. And without exaggeration, it is an existential problem for our society. I can't ask the NYT to fire this man but I would ask that they limit their op-ed commentators to people offering opinions (of any stripe) so long as they don't wantonly skirt investigative findings, crimes committed in public and falsehoods proven to be false (see SH Sanders). If the NYT took on that bare minimum of editorial responsibility, this person would not be wasting anyone's time or the precious space this paper of record holds dear.
2
This country is divided. Time to make it official. The fly over States will happily secede.
2
Can't this man read? Even the redacted report shows extremely disturbing contacts by Trump's people with Russian entities interfering with our election. The redacted material most likely will show even more damning evidence (and the trials in progress also).
The mysterious private off-the-record contacts with Putin by Trump since "elected" are a series of red flags as to his owing Putin "bigly." I feel as if Russia won our election and our so-called president is giving everything he can to strengthen Putin's Russia on the world stage.
Considering there was no cooperation by Russia and its agents in the investigation (not to mention Trump's inability to recall the answers to over 30 of Mueller's questions and refusal to answer any follow-ups) and the pattern of lies by Trump and his associates, it is amazing that the report can verify what it does.
Trump's supporters and enablers have willingly put on blinders to what this disgusting liar and his cronies are doing to our democracy and rule of law.
3
Mr. Buskirk apparently did not read the same report that Mr. Mueller and his Special Counsel wrote, or perhaps he is in denial re the damning implications. It is clear that Mr. Trump has not been vindicated. I suggest that the author of this piece read with a less prejudicial mind volume two re obstruction of justice. And if there is a choice between Mr. Barr's interpretation or spin or manipulation or - well - lies at the behest of his boss, and Mueller's findings, I will in a nanosecond choose the Counsel's report. It is neither the liberal media nor its allies who need to awake to the facts. On the contrary, they and we have our eyes wide open to the truth of corruption of Trump et al. We have etched in our minds the possibility and probability of obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller could only do so much as he has revealed to us, but he did provide a road-map to Congress re what needs to be done and must be done. It is insulting and absurd that we owe Trump an apology. It is he, along with his GOP sycophants, his MAGA supporters, and Christopher Buskirk himself et al who owe the American public an apology for unprecedented amorality and lack of ethics not seen in recent times.
I am not a fan of the democrats, but the Republican machinery pretending this report is good for Trump makes me want to vote fro Democrats just on principal. You sir, are a prevaricator and liar of the first order. I wish the best for you, but hope that your career as any type of analyst goes absolutely nowhere.
5
Im reading this editorial with an open mind as I typically find that if the times is willing to publish an opposing viewpoint, it must be by someone who's got a better and possibly more convincing angle from the right wing perspective that has merit and might open my eyes a bit more. But i find myself skimming this, seeing the same catch phrases and cliches that I hear all over the conservative news. Im not latching onto it. Its sophomoric.
3
I have to wonder when this was written. After the release of the Mueller report, this Opinion piece just reads as a misinformed person lashing out at liberals. If it were published a couple of days ago, it would read differently. Funny that...
3
When I saw the column headline I thought it was sarcastic. It's not. The President is the lowest form of moral life, and after trying and often failing to get his minions to help him obstruct justice, he has found some willing collaborators. Barr is a shameless liar. And Buskirk's drivel is hard to understand, Do these people have children or contemplate having them? Grandchildren? Do they care about their legacies? They are really M[ing]AGA. (That's sarcastic!)
It is admirable that your papper is devoted to giving us readers a diversity of opinions. I think you always have succeeded in that respect. But really, as a reader i do expect a certain level of journalistic aptitude from the writers on your opinion page, which I find missing in this rant, which in my opinion lacks any apperance of having any knowledge of the many charges unearthed, indictments doled out and shameless lies from your President which were uncovered in this investigation. (And really, "everybody knows" that your Presidnt knew of the meetings about "dirt" on Hillary with the Russians and of the timed releases of the stolen emails- he announced this information himself on several occasions.
There are indeed a few facts and statistics about the polls in the article, but is it really surprising that 94% of Republicans living in their parallel world of Fox News where white America cringes at the War on Christmas, where immigrants are voting for Democrats illegally at the polls, where science and knowledge is eIitest andsocialistic (I think of climate change here) and where I suppose, that Mr Hannity is still waiting for the WMDs to be uncovered in what is still left standing in Irak, THAT they have lost faith in the Liberal media? It seems to me a foregone conclusion.
So to sum it up: I think your editorial staff could have found a more informative and quite frankly, more intelligent opinion to give the other side of this story.
2
Did this guy read a different report?
2
Mr Buskirk is a Straussian, and he edits a Straussian publication. One wonders, then, does he wake up in the middle of the night and ask himself what Leo Strauss would make of the sort of nihilism that he embraces in this article?
I wonder whether the NYT should publish nonsense like this. Maybe they should protect, what shall I call him, an imposters, or, maybe, sectarians, like this author from themselves. Is it not a contribution to the world of untruths that reigns in your country? However, it is good to read that so many react and unravel this fantasy...
1
Even minor excerpts from the report, like how Trump tried to get Sessions to investigate and prosecute Clinton, are damning on its own. This report only vindicates Trump is you are taking what Democrats are concerned about from some anonymous internet commentator who was joking the Trump was some sort of Manchurian candidate for Putin.
Oh my goodness, Mr. Buskirk! You can write, but cannot read? How unusual.
4
Introduced to Christopher Buskirk for the first time and must say that you mastered the Trump art of projecting all his sins onto others! Hard to tell where A Trump thought ends and a Buskirk thought begins. Are they twins separated at birth?
3
So the byline date on this piece is April 18, the same day the Mueller report came out. Had Mr. Buskirk then not read the actual report when he wrote this, or most of it, but only the AG's four page summary?
2
Sorry Chris, your president is a LIAR. Barr is nothing more than a political operative who has no goal except to act out of partisanship. Also, whether or not it rises to the level of some ridiculous definition of a crime they WERE in contact with a foreign country in an effort to affect the election. Not sure what you don't see about that. Had this been a Democrat and the tables were turned you can be sure that the hyper-investigative GOP would be IMPEACHING the President. How long did they investigate Benghazi?
American Greatness? Sounds like your journal should be renamed to copy the name of a Green Day album.
1
Do you honestly think the mob boss signs a written contract to sell drugs on the street? Or calls the hitman and discusses a murder? Wake up dude these are mob tactics we are taking about. Muellers scope was very limited and he plays by written laws and seems to obey even obscure DOJ memos that were written about a different set of circumstances. It seems you are comfortable about having an admin of corruption and had corrupted some previously good GOP members into carrying out his bidding. Why does the NYT publish your opinion? I need to cancel my subscription.
1
Gosh, all the exploding heads...kinda like a weird 4th of July
2
I so adore my friends who say Barr is somehow corrupt, a mere Trump-tool...
Yey these very same people cheered when AG Holder nicknamed himself Obama's "wingman".
Mosy Americans see the silliness and will ignore the schiff swallwell nonsense as well as the media pearl clutching.
2
The only person who is right about everything is God, and he is a figment of imagination. As is Mr. Buskirk's premise.
While I appreciate the effort made by the The Times to include dissenting voices, this puff piece of propaganda does a disservice to legitimate right wing concerns. David Brook's piece in today's paper is an example of how one constructs a cogent and fact based editorial.
Perhaps The Times is deliberately setting this writer up for mockery, which is about as fair as giving Trump a public platform to explain ... well just about anything. Laughter at the United Nations at his offering? Cringe worthy.
Mr. Buskirk's efforts might be worthy of his journal, "American Greatness", but they fall far short in this forum. No more of this. Please!
6
Barr was absolutely right— the White House did provide “full cooperation” as is demonstrated by Trump’s refusal to do an interview with the special counsel and specifically refusing to answer to the counsel’s questions regarding obstruction of justice. We should all apologize and applaud Donald for his transparency.
3
I’d expect a serious columnist to provide objective arguments and solid references to support their opinion. This is just an opinion, devoid of a narrative and entirely disconnected from the factual aspects of the Mueller report. Perhaps acceptable in the RT/Fox News school of journalism. Not worthy of serious media outlets like the NYT.
3
Before we eviscerate Muller or Democrats let us consider Ken Starr. Starr had 35 partisan, hard-core Republican lawyers working for him while he investigated all sorts of things about a Democratic president. Those 35 lawyers then reported directly to a partisan and motivated 36th Republican lawyer, Starr himself.
In this case we have a Republican lawyer, Mueller, who had senior level appointments to both Bush presidents and to Reagan. His 13 employees are career lawyers for the Justice department. The Washington Post reports they "lean left" - Mueller's team sets up a more balanced situation for investigating a president who clearly walks on thin ethical ice, to put it mildly. It was an investigation - investigations occur when something needs to be figured out. Investigations are not what you call it when the conclusion already exists as a truth, which was the case with Ken Starr and his huge Republican team. So the investigation was apparently balanced, redaction was done with the oversight of a strongly right-leaning individual (Barr) whose objectivity is easily questioned. While it did not find some things it did find other things. Buskirk's title line "Admit you were wrong" only betrays his lack of understanding about what investigations are, what they do and what corruption means.
1
Christopher Buskirk thinks trump is being scapegoated, which is hilarious.
What a load of hooey.
Please, Mr. Buskirk, read the redacted version of the Mueller report and consider how it gives clear indications that Trump should be impeached & once removed from office, he should be put on trial for his crimes.
Trump himself is an expert at scapegoating tactics -- Mr. Buskirk you are trying to learn from your master but no one believes you.
Go do your reading homework.
2
You lost me at "liberal media."
3
Mr. Buskirk, Had the shoe been on the other foot, if HC had won the electoral college amid multiple meetings with various Russian operatives, there would have been a similar firestorm from Republicans. And if you beg to argue that, well, you were more likely born yesterday. To wit, many are still clamoring for her to be investigated, further, to this day. So it rings a bit hollow, this sanctimony of yours. The liberal press? What example would you offer as more level headed? Fox news?
Just because the president has thus far evaded legal comeuppance for his deeds doesn't make him any more moral or fit to lead this country. Nor does the the inconclusiveness of the report (at this juncture) mean that there isn't anything more to see here, no matter how you spin it.
1
Calculated "outrage" is a regular tactic in the lineup of republican tricks. To deceive some, to intimidate some, to preempt questions that deserve answers, to hide truth above all. It worked for "Justice" Kavanaugh and his "indignant" defenders, the red-faced tantrums of Trump, the demands for unwarranted apologies here, and on. The danger and dishonor these men and women on the right, and their avatar Trump, bring to themselves and the nation in this and other ways would be hard to overstate.
Seems to me that the Mueller critics, Trump Barr supporters are being disengenious. There's no question that Russia particpated in the 2016 electon on Trump's behalf and were successful. Trump's presidency is not good for most of the people in the country. To me, that's the bottom line
3
Moderate here, voted for Obama and then Romney. Last election I did not vote, but I agree - the democrats are losing out on the moderates by continuing down the resist road. Moderates would like to see things being worked on that will help us. Investigation after investigation continues to turn me off. I'm not alone, I have around 5 moderate friends that all say they will vote for Trump in 2020 for the sole reason is that he will at least work toward something to help the people.
4
@Melvin Conrad
Explain how a tax cut that benefits the wealthy helps the people.
9
The wealthy are over-taxed anyways. We should move to a flat tax.
So collusion theorists have walked themselves back from "collusion" to "links". It's a good start.
Links are contacts. No one was ever indicted for "contacts".
1
This article- If the premise sentence/paragraph is flawed, then the rest of the article has no substance.
1
This article is a joke . Trump and his campaign actively encouraged and worked with Russians , our adversary , while they full well knew that they had illegally hacked emails to disseminate for the benefit of Trump .
The “elite “ media was RIGHT . Trump is hated for good reason. He’s a liar , pressured others to lie , tried to get Mueller fired , fired Comey and is basically a CROOK .
You’re wrong . He owes the American people an apology for not upholding our laws in earnest .
Your writing is pathetic .
16
Buskirk has written that Trump will never be forgiven by his loyal supporters for failing to build the wall. Before that he predicted that 2018 wouldn't be a blue wave election year.
And now... This.
8
Mr. Buskirk is, like most Republicans and like most conservatives (a poor adjective to describe people with such radical views of American jurisprudence) wrong. The only reason there was "no collusion" is the one mentioned in the Mueller report: "collusion" is simply not a legal term. The correct word is "conspiracy". The only reason Mueller did not find a conspiracy was that the attempts to create one failed; either Trump's various contacts with the Russians or the quality of Russian information were insufficient for both parties to come together.
Furthermore, however one praises or criticizes Mr. Mueller for his hedging on the obstruction of justice charge, the fact is clear, that Mr. Mueller thought that that there -was- obstruction of justice, but that he had insufficient grounds for conclude that, in part because of the President's unique legal status and his opinion that Congress, not special counsel, was the appropriate body to follow up on that, because while such obstruction may or may not be legal, it certainly is impeachable.
Special Counsel Mueller was appointed to determine facts. He did his job.
Attorney General Barr, a former football player, was hired to protect Trump from Mueller's report. He did his job.
I hope that it is Trump, Republicans, and conservatives who will face a reckoning in the 2020 elections. Their deliberate sabotage of American government, to replace it by an oligarchy for, of and by the rich, must end.
11
well said.
and to the author's rebuttal of Chairman Chairman Schiff's remarks, well, he didn't say he disagreed with the report. what the Chairman said was that the public, out-in-the-open behavior of Team Trump was shameful. And he's absolutely right.
1
I, for one, am glad to hear from AG Barr that so long as I express sincere outrage I can excuse my own illegal behavior. However, before I start confessing I may have rolled through a stop sign in a state of aggravation, I'd like the AG to codify that standard into law. And please add in that ignorance of the law IS an excuse. I'd like that one, too.
9
Time to rewatch Adam Schiff's "Not OK" speech again, to remind us just what is so slimy and corrupt about the Trump campaign and administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k
6
Mueller's primary mandate was to investigate links between Russia and "individuals associated with" Trump's campaign. It found many such links. Buskirk is writing as if the only goal was to implicate Trump himself in a crime. From the goals laid out in Rosenstein's original letter of appointment, the investigation wasn't a waste of time at all.
4
@Jim S.
No, Mueller's mandate wasn't to find links. Those links are evidence of nothing. Mueller's mandate was to determine whether Trump colluded with the Russians.
Again, links, alone, do not collusion make.
2
No, Mueller’s mission was to probe the Russian interference in our election. Proven.
3
Hi, Chris. I agree. Here is my proposed wording.
Dear Donald:
On behalf of the MSM, liberals and moderates everywhere, I apologize. We never should have taken your losing for granted, and for subjecting ourselves to the last two and a half years of having to wrestle daily with the question "Is obvious immoral and unethical conduct that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law truly immoral and disabling for a Commander in Chief?"
I think that covers it. LMK if you have any edits suggested.
Thanks
Brian
8
This is so hilarious! Great foundation for an SNL skit!
I know the author doesn’t consider it satire, but if you read it that way, maybe imagine Colbert’s voice, it’s really funny!
14
Admit I was wrong? I will do no such thing, nor should anyone else who recognizes that Donald Trump is the most obscenely, profoundly corrupt president in history.
That "Middle Americans" fall for the spin that Trump is an innocent victim of a political vendetta does not make it true. We are dealing with realities here, not optics.
There is no bottom to Trump's — or the Republican party's — moral depravity. Nobody comes away from contact with Donald Trump unstained, and that includes such feckless enablers as Buskirk.
6
Imagine what this guy would be saying if a report like this had come out about Obama or Hilary Clinton.
7
In this piece we see what passes for thoughtful commentary every day on Fox News.
To Mr. Buskirk:
I kept an open mind during the investigation. I believed in the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia but I didn't actually think it very likely. I thought collusion possible because Trump has shown little understanding throughout his life that rules and laws apply to him. Rather, he has long operated as though he can break any rule because a good lawyer would get him off the hook.
On the other hand, while I believe that Trump is a particularly dim bulb, I had a hard time believing that even he could be so stupid as to believe he could get away with actual collusion. I was surprised, however, that Trump Jr was not indicted because he does give every indication of being just that dumb.
I've never so despised a President before. I disliked Reagan. I disliked W even more. I loathe Trump. I don't simply disagree with his policies. I think his every policy instinct shows that he and the people with whom he has surrounded himself have no idea what it means to be an American or to serve the public. I think his vision is backward and myopic. I think his views show that he is narrow minded and ill informed. In a word, I think the man in a dolt. An immoral dolt.
If only he'd been dumb enough to go all in on collusion, we'd be rid of this orange menace and could get back on the path to solving the nation's problems and treating all Americans equally.
12
Disappointed that this comment is not a Times Pick. It's every bit an effective rebuttal to the demand by C. Buskirk of an apology from people who are not so idealogically bound to their beliefs that they wouldn't welcome an accurate if not more honest rendering of the Mueller report conclusion than that of the willfully sycophantic, such as Buskirk himself or even AG Barr.
This piece weirdly lacks substance. It gives me the impression that the writer didn’t read the report, just got the impression (from Barr?) that Trump is innocent, and then he goes on to describe his bewilderment that anti-Trumpism is so strong despite the (alternative) facts. It was interesting to read though...I thought it was satire at first, and it’s worthwhile to see how closely the pro-Trump side’s thinking resembles a joke.
7
So if a Democratic president and his presidential campaign did what Trump and his campaign did do as laid in the Mueller Report -- Mr. Buskirk and other Republicans are A-OK. about it???
3
Mr. Buskirk seems to looking for a job, and wrote a job-talk.
After all, it worked for AG Barr.
6
Mr Buskirk - a President has to be held to a standard of behavior that is above reproach. Have you concluded that lying, deliberately falsifying and forcing behavior patterns that are border line politically criminal is good to give him a pass.
If this observation is correct than why pontificate against a democratic president who did nothing criminal yet is vilified categorically for behavior less subject to criminal justice than the current one. Or is hyperbole and accountability only. Republican bailiwick.
3
Mr. Buskirk accuses Adam Schiff and others of "slandering" the president by insisting on more investigations, but he should be able to step back from his writing and see that by simply labeling in the collective singular "American elites" and "liberal media" he is the one who slanders: furthering an animus toward a straw dog with just enough semblance of reality to make folks see it if they try. Try instead to reflect on the polarizing language these "opinions" are couched in and pause for a moment... take a breath...and learn how to end this back-and-forth.
3
Let's back off from the fine points of what the legal findings of the Muller investigation tell us and look at something far more important - the thoughts and actions of a man who sits in control of creating an extinction level nuclear event over perceived slights or minor miscommunications:
This president is a liar - one who expects others to lie as a cover for his own lies - his "press secretary" admitted to lying, just to enhance the justification for firing Comey.
This president is a bully - the comments about Sessions and Trump's own mockery of the man show little if any empathy or class.
This president sees his election as a mandate for a dictatorship.
This president raises the ire of both the far left and far right - the "John Brown" of this century.
We don't need the Muller report to know that this president is a danger to the entire world and has depreciated the stature of our country to a second tier player on the world stage.
Isn't that enough to remove the man from office immediately?
2
"Right about everything", this is a bit of overstatement.The investigation has put many in his inner circle out of a job or in jail.Trump may have not met the legal test for the concerns against him,but the report clearly shows the Presidency is rotten.What a mess!!Trump only missed charges on obstruction because his aides would not do what he asked.America's biggest relief from trauma and embarrassment will be when they vote Trump out of office.Take a quick world survey and find out what the rest of us think about your leadership.I think the consensus would be preference for leadership that knows the difference between right and wrong.America does not look great again from here.
2
A friend of mine once said: "In chaos there is profit"!
Enter the Commander and Chief creator of chaos. D.J. Trump
WYSIWYG
2
The Russians didn’t want Trump to win, they wanted Clinton. Comey stated multiple foreign governments had her emails. The Russians have them. She had her own server to keep her dirty secrets and that didn’t work. She destroyed evidence- emails, servers, cell phones.. Trump never destroyed evidence, never claimed executive privilege. Do you really believe the Clintons would be that open? She accepted foreign donations to her “charity” when she was Secretary of State. As president she would have been compromised due to foreign governments having her emails. Taking money as Sec of State shows she is for sale. What a combination for Russia and China to use against us. Trump was not indicted by Mueller after 2 years of looking. It’s over. So Tump was mad, yelled, wanrted the guy fired, who wouldn’t ?
2
Trump publicly asked Russia to interfere in our election and Russia did.
Trump repeatedly lied to us.
Trump repeatedly asked others, including Sarah Sanders, to lie to us.
And Mr. Buskirk thinks that's okay?
1
How is this conservative 'total exoneration' article any different than liberal 'total collusion' articles? They are two sides of the same coin.
The author undermines his own rationale by ignoring the facts that were uncovered- simply put, this administration is corrupt and many went to prison for it.
If the author wants to present himself as unbiased, then he should give an unbiased interpretation of the Mueller Report.
Apologies....seriously?
2
Sorry Chris,
your assessment is out of order from start to finish.
1
The quote from Rene Girard is interesting because it calls upon us to do some examination and reflection. I don't endorse the Mueller investigation as a ritual scapegoating. I did not cheer it on because I felt something had to be "cleansed".
I welcomed it because we are a nation of laws. Individuals who are close to the matter, have expertise about the Constitution, and duty to their office made the choice to investigate Trump. The threats to our democracy from Russian election interference are real and the evidence in 2016 was clear. The investigation was appropriate.
The investigation demonstrated that Russia systematically, effectively interfered with the election process. Trump, with a wink, a nod, but "no collusion" allowed this to play out to his benefit.
I welcome impeachment of Trump because he is unwilling and unable to protect out country from the danger presented by Putin. This is not "scapegoating" or being a "sore loser". This man made an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
He lied.
1187
@HFA... impeach Barr as well.
91
There is only a small step between a Trump and a Quisling. Trump seems too self involved, too ignorant about government and politics (as opposed to public relations), too involved in promoting himself at all costs to be concerned about the consequences of his behavior on the welfare of his country. It is a real ”shunda” or shameful thing that Mr. Buskirk seems just about as ignorant and pontificates to others!
But did you read the report?
2
Your own collusion is showing. You need to read the report again and ask yourself: Were there really no reasons for the American public and the media to be repeatedly alarmed at the actions of this president? Apparently there was good reason, as the Mueller report shows. And please stop the name calling already ("Kool-Aid brigage"). It screams, "look how clever I am." If I insult someone often enough, like our president seems to have taught some people, maybe some of my cute statements will stick. The one place I agree with you is Michael Avenatti's attempt to gain fame off of this---something I heard may smart Americans talk about months ago. But, citing Avenatti hardly takes away the fact of the president's behavior. Please. Don't use Avenatti as a distraction. Mueller's report has laid bare this presidents effort to collude and obstruct. So, follow your own advice: Admit you were wrong.
1
Christ, could you leave Mr. Girard out of it? (I've been reading him for 20 yrs.) There are no "winners" in the scapegoat game, but Mr. Trump is a walking, talking scapegoat machine. Never saw a problem that wasn't somebody else's fault. At least the "elite media"-- your scapegoat do jour-- points out lies, grift, and nepotism where it actually exists. Might we both think about a little repentance this weekend? (DJT don't repent.)
1
The Democrats can’t admit their last few years have been a farce of hysteria and lies.
Here’s the problem for Democrats.
Now that it is confirmed that there was absolutely no “collusion” with Russia, and the witch hunt was a corrupt effort by Democrats to stage a coup against Trump, it will be impossible to push your pathetic obstruction” narrative.
In no way is framing a President and then pursuing a trumped up investigation any form of actual justice. So it is impossible for anything Trump did to criticize or complain about the witch hunt to rise to obstruction of justice.
There must be justice somehow involved for Trump to have obstructed it.
Moe Nadler, Larry Schiff and Curly Waters can continue to flog their fake narrative, but will only end up proving that they truly are fools and tools.
4
"The whole ordeal had a detrimental effect on the president and the country." No sir, it is Donald J. Trump himself who has a detrimental effect on the presidency and the country.
All the Mueller report has done is to fail to find that Trump's mendacious and self-serving conduct did not arise to the level of criminality. It is the inability of people like you to see how damaging Trump's abnormal behavior is that aids and abets his destruction of American democracy.
2
Who is the conspiracy theorist here? Mr. Mueller published a nearly 500-page report with evidence and testimony that confirms that the Trump campaign enthusiastically received Russian assistance to help Mr. Trump win. That is a fact.
Clinton voters did not need to justify the 2016 loss.... they were concerned that the FBI was investigating the President-elect's campaign for meeting/communicating with Russians and Wikileaks regularly during the campaign.
Mr. Buskirk is spouting a conspiracy theory of his own when he writes that the media and elites cooked up the Russia story. His idea is a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. To be clear the last sentence is the literal definition of a conspiracy theory.
This article is nothing more than another conspiracy theory spread by Trump apologists to make themselves feel better about voting in a guy who lies, cheats, and steals before breakfast each day.
1
Its the OJ trial all over again. Conclusions have been pre-determined by both sides.
1
Wow. I initially thought this was some sort of satirical, onion-esqe, contrarian piece, but no, Fox News spin on centrist real estate. No thanks.
3
I think you had better put down Barr’s summary and read the actual report.
1
Concluding Barr was "right" is as precipitous as Barr concluding trump was vinicated. Until the full, un-redacted report is made available, the "I-told-you-so" attitude here is childish.
1
Is this really necessary? If this represents the future of conservative thought in America we should all be waking up from our nightmares screaming.
Your piece is filled with supposition, your opinions and bias, not facts. And this one is just my opinion - the general consensus and history as well, will conclude there was a form of collusion, blatant obstruction of justice and a laundry list of corruption and malfeasance by a narcissist know-nothing, unqualified to manage a 7 Eleven. Taking Russia out of the equation, the world awaits our awakening to the fact that we are rapidly becoming a civilization without a conscience. And that evidence you're looking for - try the Southern District of NY - and Mueller, if he testifies.
If this is how conservatives view the Mueller report and Barr's statements regarding it, then their ideological underpinnings have simply entered an area of dystopia that places our rule of law at risk of crumbling around us.
There was NO VINDICATION in the Mueller report. Read it and weep for what America has devolved into. The misdeeds and the corruption in the highest office of our nation have tainted it, and the US, for a very long time. Only heroic work by decent people can ever wash off this stain to our honor.
Thank you for your job application, Mr. Buskirk. Let us know when the president offers you a position. You have splendidly followed the Roy Cohn playbook—far better than AG Barr’s attempt—and are now the new poster child for the Republican Party in their continued efforts to convince the populace that lying and alternative realities are the bases of our American democracy.
1
OK, there are currently over 2,800 comments so far. Very little need to add my voice. But I do love an opinion written by the "American Greatness" guy supporting Trump. Does he look at our president and see greatness? It's just too ironic to ignore.
1
What the report made very clear was that the DOJ policy on indicting a sitting President is the only thing that held Mueller back from indicting the President for obstruction of justice. According to this DOJ policy, only Congress can indict a sitting President.
Therefore, Mueller's failure to indict is clearly not an exoneration of Trump.
Moreover, should Trump fail in his re-election bid, he may be subject to indictment for his crimes once he leaves office.
To all of the Presidents apologists; what part of this sounds like vindication for Trump?
"Collusion" is a straw man. The Muller report shows the Russian contacts with the Trump team, which is what we were all yelling about and which Trump is still denying. It is irrational to continue obfuscating over collusion.
The Mueller report has fallen utterly flat of everything the mainstream media held it up to be.
The report is clear: No American colluded, conspired or aligned with the Russians in any way. Certainly not Donald Trump or anyone in his campaign. This is the entire crux of the report.
We heard incessantly that Don Jr and Kushner would be indicted and go to prison. Mueller has not been shy about indicting anyone....yet after 13 hours of interviews neither Kusher nor Don Jr. were indicted.
Disappointing that the report does not point out that Natalia Veselnitskaya was a Fusion GPS employee and was in the Fusion GPS offices the day of the Trump Tower meeting and the days before and after. This will all be revealed in the declassification that is soon coming off everything surrounding this investigation.
The question is, will Nancy Pelosi move towards impeachment hearings over "obstruction" of a crime that never occurred? I think the answer is "yes" due to the fact that they literally have nothing else. They have invested far too much. The economy is roaring, the nation is at peace, and President Donald J. Trump nor any other American ever colluded with Russia.
This Mueller report has utterly fallen flat and the longer the media cling to this narrative the worse it will be.
2
At least 140 documented contacts with Trump/his staff/family and Russia directly listed and explained - yep. No links there. Hint: Not Vindicated.
This is what Americans who do not read the report and rely only on Fox News and/or right wing commentator/propagandists like Mr. Buskirk will undoubtedly (and without doubts of their own) believe. We'll never penetrate their bubble. Here's hoping most American know better -- that they'll know better about what the media were actually saying about Trump as the investigation proceeded, and they'll know better about what the report actually said. And they'll have not, like Mr. Buskirk and the Republican Party, lost their moral compass.
Anyone who can see the Mueller report as a vindication for Trump and an embarrassment to his critics either hasn't read the report, or is a willing dupe, or both. The Mueller report is a catalog of wrongdoing, conduct unbecoming, bad faith, and numerous abuses of power. It no way paints a flattering, or even neutral, portrait of this person's behavior.
As for not formally indicting the president, Mueller and his team make it very clear why they made this choice, and equally clear that it wasn't because he was innocent.
If you have read the report, and you refuse to see this, and see the danger to the nation of overlooking this kind malfeasance, then I despair in the face of such utter disregard for the legacy we were given in the form of this nation and its government. How to communicate with people who routinely say black is white and up is down? Makes you want to give up sometimes and watch it all burn. If we drop the ball here, we deserve whatever comes after.
"Mr. Trump ran against American elites and their insular culture."
Assuming there's any truth to that statement, Trump main motivation would be because the "American elites" won't let him in, to the degree that he has to build his own country clubs so he can have a place to cheat at golf.
This morning's news clips have Mr. Trump hawking his newest chanting point, "Game over!" In response to a reporter's query of "What's next, sir?" he gave a snappy "Back to work!"
If by that he meant his lifelong occupation of covering his tracks, then I believe him.
1
"There are three types of people who promoted Russian collusion hoax. First, those who knew it was false all along, but promoted it for money, power, prestige or dopamine hits from Twitter high-fives. Second, the journalists who had a responsibility to dig into this story rather than just repeating what they hoped was true and what the story’s promoters were telling them."
How is anyone expected to believe a word of this soapy and silly soliloquy when information is omitted for whatever reason? The paragraph above begins with "three types of people who promoted Russian collusion hoax" but only two types are listed.
This reads more like a Barr's cliff note summary vs. Mueller complete 400+ page report - more stuff is left out than left in.
2
Barr has obviously accomplished what he and his boss set out to do. By getting ahead of the Mueller Report narrative using the four page summary, lying about "spying", and yesterday's press propaganda they have convinced many people to refrain from actually reading the report. How else could one come to Buskirk's conclusion? So far I've only read the first few pages of the report and it's already clear that Barr is Wrong about everything.
Appointing AG Bill Barr is also serious evidence of obstruction of justice in my opinion.
Funny how just a few days can change so much. Imagine what a few months will do...
I find it strange that Buskirk would submit this piece immediately before the actual Mueller report was (partially) released. Evidently, he does not subscribe to an evidence-based approach, as is the case with most elected Republican officials nowadays.
2
I’m sorry Trump and Co. are unprincipled to the point of using a foreign misinformation campaign to win an election. Better?
1
Get over it readers. This president was elected to office legally.
If you want to look for Russian collusion, look at Hillary Clinton and the money the Russians funneled into her "foundation" while she was Sec. of State. Look at the Uranium One deal that Hillary had direct involvement in approving. Look at Hillary's payment to Steele to come up with the fake dossier on Mr. Trump.
3
Pretty good satire. Not great, but entertaining.
Thanks...
2
Mr. Buskirk doesn't seem to know the meaning of collusion.
I guess I can't fault him for that, as it seems neither does Attorney General Barr.
Most legal dictionaries have something to the effect of this:
"where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating."
So, if Paul Manafort giving polling data to a Russian agent isn't collusion, then what is it?
If Don Jr. actively soliciting stolen emails from a Russian agent isn't collusion, what is it?
If Michael Cohen reaching out to Putin via email for help isn't collusion, what is it?
2
Trump's obviously-obstructive actions, the author's prediction of a collective shrug at them, and the ready belief of many that Trump takes direct orders from Putin, all reflect a common, self-inflicted, civic ignorance. Most of us possess at best a vague grasp of how law and power work, and we're just fine with that.
Perhaps that's no surprise. After all, we consume a steady diet of news and pop culture that waves its hand over the complexities of legal norms, distills the intricacies of human behavior into aphorisms, and treats cynical hypocrisy as commonplace, even virtuous, at high levels. Is it any wonder our reality-tv star President thinks his actions differ not one wit from those of the Kennedys and the Obamas? He is the poster child for treating glib generalities as guiding principles.
But, let's not kid ourselves. We're not far behind him. If people don't care about obstruction of justice laws, then it's probably because they can't be bothered to think through just how critical those laws are to a functioning government. If people believe in simplistic notions of cloak-and-dagger intrigue, then it's probbly because they find the subtleties and contradictions of intelligence gathering and influence operations too boring and dense to absorb.
Every day, we reveal as a country how constitutionally unwilling we are, from the Commander in Chief on down, to do the work to develop and act with a nuanced understanding of a complex world. We should all do better.
2
Brilliant satire, Mr. Buskirk. You should consider writing for "The Onion."
I especially admire how your entire column and thought process with its many excellent words is summed up in the passage aimed squarely at Russian "hoax" truthers:
"the operating principle was that of the zealot: Believe the narrative regardless of the lack of evidence, squint to see justifications where there are none and then in an intoxicated frenzy of moral superiority use any weapon at hand to destroy your enemy."
Brilliant! Very extraordinary how you employ a double meaning to describe your own far-fetched propaganda! Spot on, sir.
I nominate you for next Attorney General. This column should serve as your resume. Please send to The Kremlin, c/o White House. You should be hired immediately and paid handsomely in rubles!
6
Mr. Buskirk is right, that is if you take your "facts" from Barr's summary and statements rather than reading the report. Direct line from his (and other's) rationalization to Roy Cohn and then to Goring and Hitler. Not suggesting they have another Holocaust in mind, but they understand that in periods of chaos there are no rules, and the powers that be can do whatever they want. We are at a critical period, and the ball is in Congress' lap to restore our values or trash them.
3
This opinion piece reads like a book report by someone who didn’t read the book. Why would the times publish such a D+ effort?
3
Among the many Big Lies that guys like this Buskirk person like to tell everybody (and maybe most importantly, themselves) again and again, pretty much the silliest is the Big Lie that they’re poor, beleaguered True Intellectuals, standing lonely at the Gates of Freedom, guarding the True America ‘gainst the hordes of, you know, Them.
Well, anybody who pays attention knows darn well what they mean by True America, and who Them are. And they include The Media, as though these lonely sentinels weren’t themselves well-financed undergraduates from joints like the claremont Institute and Hillsboro College, among the legions Buckley and others started animating as far back as the 1980s and Dinesh d’Souza’s grotesque “Dartmouth Review.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/intellectuals-for-trump
As for the “argument,” here, it’s nuts. Basically, it’s NO COLLUSION!! yet again, followed by a good deal of authentic frontier gibberish about Trump Derangement Syndrome. Which Buskirk suffers from.
So I get that the Times wants to publish a diversity of editorial opinion, which is rather more than a blog site like “American Greatness,” can say. But please, folks, get somebody competent, somebody capable of more than this bizarre rejection of the Mueller Report, accompanied by rounding up the usual suspects, a lot of sneering, a good deal of faux intellectualism, and a dollop of threat.
As they say, never keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.
5
While Mr. Buskirk makes a few points (very few) worth noting, the tenor and language of his screed belongs on a 3rd rate cable station not in the NY Times. Couldn't you have found someone with less rage and more intelligence? Rational discussion is sorely needed at this time.
3
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/mueller-report-corruption.html
With thoughtful conservatives on the OpEd page, like David Brooks, do we need the fringe, too? Where on earth did the NYT find this fellow?
Oh, I know, it's to attract the friends of Wm. Barr and company: maybe they can be tempted to read the NYT.
2
Mr Trump can't open his mouth without lying. Not a good idea for a president. You need to come to your senses and realize that Barr is a liar also.
1
And your right wing media, Fox etc. are totally straight-up - just like the current White House.
2
@thechrisbuskirk
Greetings from John Miller, John Barron, 'Individual 1', and (my favorite) David Dennison.
P.S. - Your headline.
Did you learn to embrace that style of journalistic integrity at Trump University or the Alt Right College of Gaslighting?
Important to note: this is in the Opinion section.
The New York Times’ commitment to publishing diverse commentary is admirable but Mr. Buskirk’s writing is not worthy of your reader’s time. Those who either agree or disagree with his opinion should find his contextual thought weak and his organization of his argument non-existent. His writing is just a rambling diatribe without balance, objectivity or clarity of thought. He represents the delivery of the lowest form of “opinion”. Yes, those who lie should apologize; Trump, media, federal employees and if Mr. Buskirk wanted to make that argument he should have organized his writing around this theme objectively. In my opinion, he should apologize for such a bad work product and The New York Times should apologize for publishing bad writing.
4
Mr Buskirk apparently lives in a parallel universe, where up is down, right is wrong, honesty is dishonesty, and only the bad die young.
1
The idea of liberal and conservative is tiresome. It’s lazy journalism. Trump is no more a conservative than Bernie is a liberal. This paper is printing your article. Does that make them liberal? If whatever this administration or FOX is is conservative, I guess count me as the opposite, but I don’t really hold many liberal views if one looks at the true definition. Your OpEd should have been yanked.
1
Why even publish this rubbish? Intelligent disagreement and dissent I would understand, but not hypocritical, sycophantic drivel?
1
How many straw men can one possibly set up in an editorial?
1
Bus Kirk is a blind trump supporter who will say and do anything to support this corrupt individual.
2
By Christopher Buskirk
Mr. Buskirk is editor and publisher of the journal American Greatness and a contributing opinion writer.
That’s all I had to read
2
If you can't say the same thing about Trey Gowdy and his crew, plus the conservative media that cheered him on, then I'll have to write you down as a flaming hypocrite. But you're not alone.
2
Democrats have weaponized the media as they follow the playbook they constructed immediately after the election. Their problem is that they will blindly follow that playbook no matter what the evidence shows, as they continue to spew their venomous vomit at America.
3
A Trump hack quoting René Girard is beyond grotesque. The author obviously cannot read plain English. Otherwise, he would certainly call Mueller a "Russia Truther".
2
Mr Buskirk, are you a cheerleader? You sound like one to me.
I find very little reality in your opinion piece. Trump has been a liar long before becoming president and he has not changed one bit.
He made NYC for the worse with his ugly buildings and his immoral buying off city administrators, and he is doing the same thing still - if anyone did their homework on Trump the Developer they would not hire him to build their shack in the back yard never mind an interpreter and enforcer of the USA constitution. I honestly don't think Trump has the same interpretation of the constitution as the founding fathers had - his presidency is just as damaging as the last republican president - Bush!!!
2
Before the Mueller report Trump was a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, science denier and pathological liar. After the Mueller report Trump is racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, science denier and pathological liar. He’s not America’s best, but he’ll be gone soon and hopefully we can all laugh about it years from now.
1
Wait, this is real? I only clicked completely thought this was a heavily sarcastic piece of satire. Incredible.
2
The publication of this column suggests the New York Times may have the ability for some truthful introspection after all.
1
This is garbage. There clearly was collusion, possibly not in the criminal sense. Read the report.
1
We talk about Collusion and/or Conspiracy and/or Coordination.
What about COMPETENTCY.
1
Why am I not surprised he's from Arizona?
1
I disagree with Buskirk on the Leftist apology. The Left should never wake up and their bubble never burst. It is good for the country. We need Trump to finish his work. This will ensure his 4 more years. The Dems should keep doing what they do now...carry on, be our guest.
1
Tee hee.
1
Mr. Buskirk: Wow. Are you looking at the same Mueller Report as the rest of us?
1
Here you go, Christopher: I dislike Donald Trump. I disagree with most of his policies. He is a liar and a cheat. AND THERE HAS BEEN NO EXONERATION.
2
I don't know about other subscribers to the NYT, but I am really not OK with paying to have such a childish, ridiculous "analysis" of events of vital importance to the future of America.
4
What a charade this is! Trump could have shut Mueller on 5th Av in plain sight and Barr would have redacted the police report while Hannity would have pivoted to "lock her up" and Republican sycophants licked Trump's boots. This is sick!
Trump must be impeached. Democrats have the moral responsibility to do so!
Dear Mr. Buskirk, “orange man bad” is not an “unquestioned assumption,” it is an obvious statement of the truth. The man is bad. He makes himself detestable in nearly everything he says and does. Like when he named his megayacht the “Trump Princess”. What an egomaniac! What a buffoon!
1
Did you read anything about the content of the report? It’s as if you wrote this a month ago off of Barr’s propaganda summary.
The NYtimes and CNN's consistent support of these types of messages are why they are facing such criticism about their journalistic honesty. This is a misleading editorial and the Times has shifted so far to the right it wouldn't be recognized in another era. I know you won't have the courage to publish this, but it's impossible to sit and read this man's lies with no consequences.
1
On behalf of every American who believes that truth is the highest value (or at least a higher value than ruthless self-interest), who believes that we are or should be a nation of laws not of men, and who believes that no one, from Tricky Dick to Don the Con, should be above the law, I sincerely apologize. With a cc to Kellyanne Conway.
Ambrose Bierce defines a “pleonasm” as an “army of words escorting a corporal of thought.” Welcome into the army, Mr. Buskirk.
No quotes.
This dude not only drinks the kool-aid, he bathes in it.
Once again, if Trump really believed he did nothing wrong, why all the lies? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Mr. Buskirk, you are entitled to your own delusions, but please do not attempt to foist them upon sane people.
1
Why do I pay for this paper again? Is it not clear that it is only because of stupid DOJ rules, aka NOT the constitution, that we can't indict him, but the instant he is out of office he is fair game? If Obama tried any level of this skullduggery he would have been arrested months ago. Trump's employees keep getting arrested or it turns out they refused to do his literal illegal wishes: he is an illegitimate unfit president who can't even say the word "origin", all he mumbles is "orange", which would be funny if he weren't leader of the free (?) world. It makes me miss the war crimes, patriot act and grammatical flubs of W. Trump can't speak english or even hold a glass of water with one hand; how is he even president? He can't remember anything, he can't say big words, his motor skills are ???, his employees are corrupt, his friends keep going to jail, and he is a bad businessman who has gone bankrupt so many times most banks won't lend to him! His son in law evicts poor people for fun in Baltimore, and that's just the icing on top. He also refuses congressional oversight, which in light of the whole Benghazi thing is even more ludicrous. Is oversight only something we should do to Democrats? I missed that part of the constitution. Or the part of ethics where rules only apply to one half of the citizenry... I mean, I know Athens did it, but it's not in our constitution. Right?
2
"For nearly four years, members of America’s ruling class, especially those in the media, the academy and government, have operated on one central, unquestioned assumption: orange man bad."
Pretty sure this guy lifted quotes directly from the_donald subreddit. NYT, you can do better.
No one is right about everything, and only fascists make demands in the form of ultimatums.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
1
Mr. Buskirk! You have said enough. Have you no sense of decency?"
1
Is Mr. Buskirk a speech writer or spokesperson for Mr. Trump?
3
I sorry, would you please explain why Bone Spur met with Putin secretly five separate times.
Bone Spur met with Putin, secretly, five times.
There were five secret meetings between Putin and Bone Spur.
Five secret meetings with Putin.
Five.
And all the lies.
Rationalizing, and dresses like an adult; are not the same as Reasoning and behaving as an adult.
You sir, are the former.
4
Umm... did you *read* the report?!?
3
The ravings of a mad king, in a sandcastle, as the tide comes in.
Amen, brother.
What say you, Socrates?
This is amazing!
Great work, Mr. Buskirk.
I'm shocked that the NYT actually printed this. And, based on the readers' comments, almost all of them are still suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome despite the Mueller report.
They'll never stop believing in the Russia Hoax and they'll never stop knowing Orange Man Bad. And, as a result, they'll never win in 2020.
The Russian Collusion story will shortly be interred in the Graveyard of Dead Religions. True believers will continue to mutter their creed as they slowly drift into the dustbin of history.
This is a simplistic straw man argument, with the word “collusion” as the straw man. I would expect this in a student newspaper at some third tier evangelical college, not in the NYT. If you’re going to continue to publish right wing opinion pieces, at least find some that hold water. Either way, cancel my subscription.
1
I'm disappointed in the NYT for printing this expanded version of a typical Sarah Sanders statement. An intelligent article from a Trump supporter would be a good contribution, but surely this black is white, down is up drivel isn't it.
3
Facts are apolitical. If you read the facts as presented in the Mueller report, Trump is a President who cares little for faithfully executing the laws of the country. Instead, he has repeatedly sought to use his power to lie, cover up, and obstruct. He sought to get others to lie for him. He sought the help from a government (Russia) bent on gaining power through his administration (Mueller clearly sees collusion, but due to lack of witness cooperation and general difficulty of gaining prosecutable information involving a hostile foreign government that will not cooperate, obviously, is unable to make a case for conspiracy). The report also makes clear that Trump obstructed justice multiple times and, if he weren’t President, would have already been indicted.
If you care about the nation more than personal politics, you should care that we have a crook (yes, a crook....Mueller left it up to Congress to decide because of the office of the Presidency)as our Commander-in-Chief.
My first thought was to simply call you an idiot, but I guess I decided there might still be a Republican who is open minded. Are you?
1
This column is what you write if you turned off the tv and internet right after Barr was done speaking.
1
Not quite sure why mentioning the fact that you live in Arizona would bolster your credibility for discerning fact from fiction. 370 days of sunshine in your state and you still burn fossil fuels like its 1956.
2
Based on the Bengazi investigations, the Democrats have 9 or 10 more hearings to go before they have matched the Republicans. Bummer!
5
And contrary to the Benghazi investigations, multiple campaign staff have already been put behind bars ... by the GOP's own special counsel, so before Democrats even STARTED to take a serious look into this ...
2
Maybe you should venture outside of “Middle America” once in a while, Mr Buskirk...you might find a whole group of people with passionately held and drastically different interpretations of the evidence.
And by the way, these people, the ones who inhabit the parts of America you don’t choose to visit, are properly referred to as “American citizens”, not “elites”.....
3
As soon as he provides his birth certificate Mr Buskirk.
3
Every liberal I know is doubling down on their TDS. They will not, and cannot, own their being duped by the "professional" media complex for 3 years. It will send them into panic attacks worse than they experienced when Hillary was defeated.
At least the NYT is publishing this article, which is the right thing to do.
In addition to owning this farcical witch hunt that put the nation into paralysis for 2 years, the Democrats will also have to defend their open-borders-illegal immigration-sanctuary policy in 2020. Their position is extremely unpopular.
Those two tasks seem almost impossible to meet.
You did it to yourselves, Democrats.
Can't wait to see what Barr and Horowitz come up with in the next few months. Sedition at the DOJ. Wait for it.
1
@EH
The NYT has always published op-eds like this.
Which proves that your hypothesis of "panic attacks" is wrong ... ;-)
1
On the contrary, it is you who are wrong. Stop covering for this incompetent liar and crook. The investigations will continue. Tax returns will emerge as well as content from over places such as New York State. Face it. Trump and his whole administration are a bunch of liars.
4
As a Transgender person I take Trump’s plan to eradicate us personally. His role models are the worst dictators on the planet. His sycophants are either in prison or on their way. The most corrupt and unqualified President in American history.
2
I understand that the NYT needs alternative views but this was over the top. Not readable if you are any person that reads the news.
2
Mr. Buskirk how can you write this with a straight face after years of birther conspiracies and other conspiracies questioning MR. Obama’s loyalties???
2
Surely, Mr. Buskirk, you can't be heartened by the documentation laid out in the Mueller report. Does it not provide further, damning evidence that the President is perhaps the worst kind of person, morally and ethically, you can imagine? Lying apparently as natural to him as breathing to most of us? Is this really the way our country should be led?
3
Wow, have I read this article in the New York Times????? I have to re-adjust my perception of the NYT. I thought it was not open to hearing other points of view. Judging by the response to this article there are zealots who just can't admit they are wrong. They will continue to trash Trump because they are simply not open to hearing another point of view. Congratulations NYT on restoring my faith in balanced reporting......
@john
In other words, you admit that Trump is lying not only when he calls the NYT "failing" (debunking his many lies in real life increased NYT subscribers), but also when he tells you that it's biased.
Good for you that at least sometimes you do some fact-checking ... ;-)
2
What an unnerving, arrogant article. Today proved we live in a corrupt country, with our so called leader running things like a “don,” and not a Donald. If there is obstruction of justice it should now point a finger at our newly anointed attorney general, Willian Barr. How did he pass the bar, or did he? Let’s get Trump’s taxes as soon as possible and put an end to this embarrassing presidency, and time in our history. Common sense, where art thou?
2
I'm happy to apologize as soon as Trey Gowdy apologizes to Hillary Clinton for the email scandal.
1
Barr made a shallow analysis of the Muller report and came to a pat conclusion. You say he's right about everything, and you agree. Fine--that's one opinion. But remember, it's not his call to make, particularly after such careless perusal of a long, complex document which was carefully researched and written. Nice try, though.
1
Whoa there buddy, Arizona resident here, and not from the same part of Arizona filled with Trump apologists and enablers where you are obviously writing this from.
I'm still thumbing through the report, and of anything it shows Trump is a pathological liar and has constantly skirted the line, saved mostly by his aides to kerb his incompetence and temperament, or otherwise this would have gone a different direction. Flake commented today that he never thought there was collusion because the campaign was too disorganized. Myself I never thought there was collision either, but convenience in letting the Russians act. Trump, his family, and staff knew what the Russians were doing and did nothing about it, instead even covering it up and having staff lie about it, in which people were charged. This report shows that the Russians wanted Clinton out and Trump in. It shows their disinformation mission was a success, and Trump benefited from that victory. They got what they wanted, a useful idiot, and our representatives and citizens infighting. We became their weapon.
The report is not going to change that either, just make it worse. The people who should read it, to see the manipulation in Trump's circle and the capability of a foreign power to influence us through populism, will probably just take the word of Trump and the bobble heads on FOX News.
1
Apologize to Trump? You've got to be kidding! What universe do you live in. Trump and the Republicans are doing everything they can to tear down our democracy and take the spoils for themselves.
However, thanks for summing-up the Trump/Republican playbook, "...slandering innocent people for personal political gain.."
Mr. Buskirk rails against the "liberal elite" in his piece, but fails to disclose that he is certainly not a member of the salt of the earth prototypical Trump voter the media has fetishized since 2016. He's a published author, graduated from an extremely pricey liberal arts college, and runs what appears to be a slick, large conservative publication. Certainly not "Joe down at the diner."
He should post a follow-up when he's actually read the report, of which he clearly hasn't.
1
Anyone remember the attacks on our 44th President, the completely false claim that he was not a US citizen? Wasn’t that:
“a political weapon to undermine the president and overturn — or at least neutralize — the ... election.
The whole ordeal had a detrimental effect on the president and the country. ..: “The president was frustrated ... by a sincere belief that the [unsupported claim] was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, ...”
Seems to me that the multitude of contacts between various Russians and members of the Trump campaign gave a much stronger reason to investigate than the baseless “birther” attacks on Obama. Attacks led by several kooks including one Donald J. Trump.
@Wm. Brown. Who said “Tell Vladimir I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” That was Obama. Sounds more like collusion with Russia more than anything in the Mueller report.
1
Your words: "why is it not enough to simply acknowledge that you dislike –Mr. Obama– and disagree with his policies? What psychological purpose does adding the fiction of a conspiracy serve?"
Birthers. See how this works?
1
In my lifetime, expressions like "The Buck Stops Here" and the apocryphal story of Washington's "I Cannot Tell a Lie" were understood to convey the notion that strong character formed the bedrock of our nation. I would dearly like Mr. Buskirk to explain why it's okay that "The Buck Never Stops With Trump," (it's always somebody else's fault), why the media elites at Fox News (the most-watched TV network) are not bothered by his daily lying -- and why these things do not appear to register with the hardcore 38 percent of people who support Trump no matter what he does.
1
Did Mr. Buskirk really read the whole report? Or is he just basing his opinion on Mr. Barr's report and comments? As far as I am concerned, I will read the whole report and make my own mind based on what it contains.
It wasn't clear if this was satirical, I certainly hope so for the writers sake.
3
If they didn't do anything wrong, why did everyone lie about it?
2
Why is it that Fox News is never included in the term “the media elites”?
They crow all the time that they are the #1 cable news station.
Doesn’t that make them elite? It does in sports.
1
Assertions, not evidence.
1
The sun rises in the west and sets in the east. Admit it. Ignore all of the observable facts and admit the opposite of what they indicate.
It sounds to me like the author of this piece did not read the report before writing it. He did not quote it even once. The essay is full of propagandistic constructs like'the ruling elite.' I don't know if the Muller report is true or not, but this piece is more propaganda than news IMHO.
When this article came up on my feed and I saw the headline, I thought it was from The Onion, or an Andy Borowitz piece from The New Yorker.
2
...[Barr: Trump was] "frustrated and angered by a sincere belief..."
Since when do "sincere beliefs" allow anybody to obstruct justice?
...[Trump's] "his presidency."
I didn't realize it was his. When did it become "his"?
Are you sure "that scapegoating and ritual sacrifice are essential to [my] group identity"? I thought I was in my group based on the stink of corruption at high levels.
I didn't realize was was a zealot, either, but thanks for the info. I thought I just wanted to move the septic pit back to New York. Do you think New York will object to that zealously?
Excuse me, but I've never heard of the Journal of American Greatness. Is it a National Lampoon spinoff or a clone of the Enquirer?
3
"American Greatness" is the willingness of law abiding citizens of all shapes beliefs and sizes to pursue wrongdoing, misdeeds and sleazy corruption @ its' core. The organization this gentlemen claims to represent which in itself claims "greatness" is the epitome of the definitions laid out by Orwell in his chilling preview of this administration:"1984"
Self delusional,, sad and ultimately self destructive
For he and theyir followers haven''t woken up to the trump stink, the one they will be carrying the rest of their living breathing days It never goes away. Never.
1
"Again, the operating principle was that of the zealot: Believe the narrative regardless of the lack of evidence, squint to see justifications where there are none and then in an intoxicated frenzy of moral superiority use any weapon at hand to destroy your enemy."
Et tu, Brute?
So strange reading through the headlines today to come to this article. I skimmed through it waiting for the punchline. This is satire, right? Then I had to laugh and shake my head at the timing. Not meant to be satire, but ironic just the same. The term “hoax” at this point is as loaded and biased as “witch-hunt”. Thanks for offering diversity of thought NYT, but I’d prefer a more measured perspective. It’s time to stop the tide of misinformation, especially as this administration is doubling down on their tactics to lie, deny, and legitimise their corruption.
Come on, Buddy, your naivete is showing. Republicans have spent the last twenty years making "liberal" an evil word and you have bought the package. This nation was founded on liberal principles and liberal minded founders. Democracy is a liberal form of government and our system of capitalism has been salted with government programs from day one. The hundreds of inter-actions between Trump associates and Russian officials and Putin associates is a first in any campaign. The many indictments Mueller established have to mean something was going on. Trump is probably going down more on his illegal financial dealings than his political failings.
2
I think they bought buskirk for pennies on the dollar.
1
So after telling us for years how morally reprehensible and "weak" apologizing is, to then pick a president who brags about ever apologizing, now Republicans want the majority in this country to apologize?
How weak.
You can't support a president who supports birtherism, lying about his inauguration audience, lying about immigrants, Muslims, White Nationalists, and picking criminals as lawyers and campaign managers, and then somehow imagine that you know what moral values are and try to teach others a lesson.
First, learn to lead by example, and then we'll talk.
In the meanwhile, simply admit that most liberal journalists merely reported on the constant new discoveries during the Mueller investigation, by reminding us that what has been proven is that there was a LOT of smoke (reason why a Republican special counsel appointed by a Trump AG had so much work for two years in the first place ...), NOT that that collusion had already been proven, as you wrongly claim here.
So please apologize for falsely accusing "the media".
1
As a relatively liberal democrat I assumed the title and content of this article was meant for me and others like me.
Many like me never thought that the report would produce a silver bullet to end this full-moon-nightmare of an administration. I myself am not feeling saddened by the report. Rather the report just provided further proof that the president is a lying, incompetent dope, who is unfit for the job he holds.
Yet I am wrong in a way ...wrong to let this be yet another nail in the coffin of my cynicism, another example supporting my loss of hope for this country.
It's nice to hear from another perspective, but let's be serious.
Various Trump officials were engaging with Russian officials before the election after Obama publically got in Putin's face and told him to back off. Trump invited Russia to find his opponent's e-mails, which they promptly did that night. Trump wrote a false statement about a Trump Tower meeting with his son and son-in-law and Manafort who was a defacto agent of the Ukraine. With a Russian national offering dirt on his opponent.
Considering this writer is of the political wing that spent 4 years and millions chasing after anything Benghazi, I am appalled at his claim to victimhood of "left" media outlets.
If you are gonna promote playing the bully and use millions to defame the presumtive nominee before the next election, I can only presume you are projecting your own motives....not the media's.
With the lying and hiding done with all things Russia before and during the election, any patriot would wish to defend our country from foreign influence. While a Trump Tower Moscow was being pursued no less.
The lack of integrity is breathtaking as the writer's views can only be explained by partisanship....another projection, I might add
Please consider defending your own country above all else.
1
Ha! As can be discerned from most of the posts here and from the Times own continuing coverage of a crime or wrongdoing that NEVER OCCURRED, liberals will never give up the ghost. Many are still arguing, even now, when in at least 10 places in the report it's noted that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor anyone ever associated with it EVER involved themselves with cooperating with or working with ANY Russian or Russian affiliated entity to undermine the election. Without the false and malicious attempts to suggest otherwise, many by this paper, using innuendo, unnamed sources, spurious claims, despicable attacks and opinion disguised as news, no investigation would have taken place. Now we have Mueller essentially claiming that while he can't prove a case of obstruction, again for wrongdoing that never occurred, Trump must be nevertheless prove his innocence. Where is Victor Hugo when we need him? For that matter, what happened to the dying NYTmes that when this topic finally grows old will continue its descent as subscriptions plummet? We know this will happen soon, for despite the desperate attempt by liberal deranged fanatics, anyone in a position of power to seek impeachment has already said, several times, well that impeachment is complicated. If Barr does what he said he would do and investigate the investigators it's certain that the Times and most MSM will ignore the story and provide superficial coverage. Maybe indictments and convictions will force their hand.
1
Kudos to NYT for printing this - they should make sure Adam Schiff and the rest of the Dems read it, as well as MSM
The U.S. has always proclaimed it operated on a basis of laws,that prosecutors were neutral and that the country, not the individual ,was to be protected in every situation. What happened? This is a conflated endless babbling about what happened, who did what and what should the results be.What a travesty?If anyone can equate actions and results and not conclude collusion, obstruction, lies,deals and a solid case for damage to America, you must live in a dream world. The rule of law and just plain common sense is being ignored and made a mockery. What a sorry exercise and a worse outcome, Sure, we will keep saying there is more to come but we can expect MORE of the same. The NYT should be ashamed to let one of their own the privilege to conflate the obvious.We need to proceed on on the record and what happened, not intent, not speculation or all the other rationalization I hear about doing nothing!
“Barr is right about everything”???? Nice set of blinders you’re sporting there, my friend.
But look, I pointedly avoid cable news during this whole presidency (Rachel Maddow is like a dear friend who just won’t shut up).
No, I prefer to get my information from outlets like this one and other major newspapers. There was never any breathless conspiracy talk here, but there were a WHOLE lot of legitimate questions being asked because of the dozens of shall we say, “highly unusual” contacts between Trumpworld and Russians. Please tell me that if a Democrat had all those contacts, you too, would want to know why. The man is running for president, for goodness sake, and his campaign has dozens of contacts with a country who is actively trying to disrupt our election?
As far as Barr being right about everything, well one great service that the Mueller report has given us was to confirm as fact what responsible journalists have been digging up about how intensely and repeatedly Trump tried to obstruct his investigation. The press did just exactly what they should be doing (just as they did with the Clinton scandal, I might add), ask hard questions, dig deep, try to find out what is true and what is not.
The courts and the press are what is protecting our democracy these days.
When I saw the headline, I assumed the column was humorous. It was with growing astonishment that I realized Mr. Buskirk was serious! Noting the posting date, I'm assuming he wrote it prior to the publication of the report. I look forward to his revised assessment.
1
Whatever degree Trump has demonstrated in terms of narcissism, the media and the left have equaled in arrogance and vindictiveness. This mess doesn't make Trump look better, but it does show that we can no better trust his enemies. What they did to him they can unleash on an of us.
2
Mr. Buskirk, you are stunningly out of touch with reality. Trump’s waking moments consist of aggressively trying and encouraging others to conspire and obstruct for his own personal gain. That he wasn’t successful in all cases, mainly due to others refusing to stoop to his level, is nowhere near the “vindication” you so generously bestowed upon him in your piece. Our country deserves much better than this and it’s too bad people like you are willing to defend this unacceptable behavior at the risk of permanent damage to our institutions and mores.
1
140 instances of contact between the campaign and Russian agents? 10 documented instances of attempts to obstruct justice? No, the report says that Trump is guilty of obstruction, but under DOJ rules, he cannot be indicted. He is NOT exonerated, as much as your would like to believe it. He is a totally corrupt and immoral man and is running the Presidency like a mob boss. You apologists are out of your minds.
4
This article is exactly the reason Democrats should not be shy about opening impeachment hearings.
4
Others have asked if this is satire--perhaps wondering how this piece could have been published in the NYTimes. Although Mr. Buskirk is entitled to his opinion, no matter how poorly supported by the facts, is he entitled to have it published here? I suppose it does accurately represent how today's right wing spins information, and this does appear to be the party line. Nevertheless, more thoughtful conservative commentators have criticized Barr and even called for Congress to proceed with Trump's removal based on what has been revealed by Mueller's report.
3
Mueller did not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy to steal the election. What he did find, in abundant detail, was evidence of a presidential campaign in bed with a foreign power and engage in the foreplay to treason.
That Mr. Buskirk finds in this report matter to accuse the usual suspects of the GOP to elitism and the will to deprive the American people of their duly elected president shows a remarkable inability to understand plain english, and a lack of common sense I wuould not expect in a normal Mid-Westerner.
There is matter for an impeachment here, if the Senatorial GOP has not itself abandoned all semblance of statesmanship for venal cowardice. This is how REpublics fall.
1
Russia wanted Trump to win.
Trump wanted to stop the Mueller probe. He and his inner circle lied frequently about Russian contacts. Trump actively attempted several times to get in the way of ( aka obstruct?) the Mueller investigation.
The 24 hour TV news cycle whether FOX, CNN, or MSNBC with its constant need for content, however banal or spurious is a seriously flawed format,.
Purist op-Ed’s, from your trench or mine, so often ignore the truth, found somewhere far from a FOX a CNN talking head.
A good start is for the Times to have Brooks and this fellow in the same paper, on the same day, with different viewpoints
"Mostly Clinton-supporting prosecutors"? Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller, McCabe. All Republicans. I know who you mean: Strzok and Page, Ohr. The "liberals" that got into the mix. Not at that the top, by any means.
This was an investigation into Russian interference in our presidential election, which, astonishingly, actually happened. This was not a hoax, as Trumpers chant. A presidential candidate and his campaign had over 100 contacts with Russian officials during the campaign. They all lied repeatedly about this. Trump lied about it, live, to the American people.
Why is it so hard for you all to understand why this investigation started?
It wasn't Angry Democrats. It wasn't "conflicted" Mueller, or "Lying" Comey, or Strzok and his "lover." It wasn't the dossier. It wasn't some dark Deep State coup. It was Trump asking Comey to give Flynn a break. It was Trump saying he fired Comey over "this Russia thing." It was, in other words, highly suspicious behavior. No, there was not enough evidence for Mueller to prove conspiracy or coordination, but there was enough for him to recommend that Congress to pick up the ball. (Barr shamefully lied about this call in his presser.)
I suggest you read the report and you hold your judgment till all investigations are complete. Far from a conspiracy, this is democracy at work.
2
Just because OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson or Jessie Smullet were found not guilty/charges dropped - do you accept the decision?
Agent Orange here is guilty of obstruction of justice and trying to coordinate/conspire - event though his AG may want to drop the charges.
You note that trust in the mainstream media is in decline among Republicans and go on to say, "Only among self-identified liberals and progressives does a majority continue to trust the media. They like what they hear."
You are reading this the wrong way around. What you should have written was, "Only among self-identified conservatives and Republicans is trust in the media declining. They don't like what they hear."
Conservatives want to continue to believe in white supremacy and enforced adherence to Christianity and its traditions. The media make them look at uncomfortable truths. And that's why they no longer trust the media.
Remember, sir, that conservatives went nuts when Obama wore a beige suit and Michelle wore a sleeveless dress. And you think those on the left have overreacted because of Trump's abominable behavior, criminal or not? You seriously have a problem with your ability to actually think.
1
@EB Funny that the fourth word in your post is the word "trust". I am an American first, not a Democrat, Republican, or an Independent, and definitely not a Conservative, Liberal, or a Moderate, but an American.
I trust the mainstream media, not because of what they say, but they have a vested interest in the "truth", unlike the current administration and even other past administrations.
To label the current administration as trustworthy is in my opinion based upon a huge number of trustworthy sources is fools folly. See: The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life.
The current administration wants to separate us into rival groups so we operate on emotion not logic, and the same goes for the Russian's because they know that if they keep us fighting between ourselves we cannot respond to their aggressiveness and they can defeat democracy or at least weaken democracy so we become less than we are.
So, what should we do, how about quit fighting and dismantling democracy and remember these things we fight about do not need to be handled as if they are total opposites, but can be negotiated.
And never forget that we are American's first, not those fleeting sub definitions that are used to separateand defeat us.
It's obvious that Mr. Buskirk has not read the Mueller report.
He is happy with Barr fictional account.
1
Talk about trust! Is not the author trusting Mueller and Barr a little too much? Read the report and see if you reach the same conclusions they do. Plus, does not the report say it does not exonerate Trump?
Is this An April Fools joke ?
It was trump who devised and promoted ‘no collusion ‘as his mantra.
Media and politicians merely reported trumps lies and missteps while waiting to see just what Russian interference was and how it was done.
1
Mr. Buskirk is guilty of refusing to be confused by the facts.
3
Come on... Following this line of thinking makes a person [you, not me] complicit with incredibly deep levels of corruption associated with this administration. I'm not buying what you are selling, sir.
I am a frequent, deep critic of mainstream media bias and the hard left but I stay far from right wing pundits and media because my blood boils when I am exposed to their truths. So reading this "editorial" bunk this morning forced me to take my Prilosec. The Mueller Report was a complete and total rebuke and expose of the most dishonest and criminal President of our lifetime. There is no spinning his character, his actions, and that of a his entire staff. Barr should be deeply ashamed to be ending his career and yes, this will end it to be defending this man. The media, which is unnecessarily indiscriminate in finding fault with Trump as it has plenty of legitimate fodder and Democrats must deliver the killing blow to this monster
3
If the media whiners had any integrity they would be hot on the trail of how it is we came to believe Trump colluded with Russia.
But they do not. They were the communication arm of the coup.
1
Mr. Buskirk proves again the old psychology joke that points out that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
If he'd wanted to be taken seriously as rational, honest and open minded and thus worthy of consideration he'd have opened with criticism of endless Republican criticism of and investigations into White Water, Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton, and multiple paranoid conspiracy theories they still pursue. Mr. Buskirk doesn't do that.
Barr isn't right about everything. Barr is right about little. And so is Mr. Buskirk.
2
Could Republicans please stop talking about the 2016 election. None of this has anything to do with Democrats mad at the outcome. It has to do with a liar and his lying supporters trying to get the best outcomes for themselves, mostly financially but also politically.
1
Buskirk’s op-ed, on the one hand, and the 600+ comments on the other hand, perfectly illustrate the in-side-the-Beltway squandering of $30 million + taxpayer funds. Four hundred some pages of a “Report” that changed absolutely no-one’s Opinion.
I think you owe "The Colbert Report" a royalty check
Okay, no prosecutable collusion. How about proven cooperation. Either way, he helped the Russians get into the back door of the castle.
Surely the Times could find a columnist from Mr. Buskirk's end of the political spectrum who is also capable of understanding, and writing sensibly about, these issues.
4
Why does the author use the term elite media to describe only anti-Trump views? Either all the media outlets of size are elite or they’re not.
Why don't you just read the report and then write your column. Barr lied about the results of the investigation. You can crow if Trump holds the presidency to the end of 2020.
Donald Trump obstructed justice and should face impeachment.
It may be grosser to discover that Trump's sycophantic behavior toward Putin is just a natural affection, and not because the ex-KGB has kompromat on the president.
Wow, Mr. Buskirk, congratulations on having your opinion published in the New York Times, one of the leading voices of the left wing opposition to President Trump. I agree with everything you have written and, yes, you can say it with a straight face. As possed by an earlier comment, the question should be: how can the liberal media continue to push its tired narrative of collusion and obstruction of justice with a straight face?
I listened to CNN's analysis of Barr's statements and selected portions of the Mueller Report. I normally do not listen to CNN, but I had no other alternative, as it was the only channel on in the Starbucks at BNA, where I was drinking a piping hot coffee with a shot of espresso not an effete lukewarm latte with extra foam. I could not believe what I was hearing from the mouths of the CNN pundits; their analysis of Barr's statements in no way reflected what he said. Did we listen to the same briefing?
There is truly a disconnect in America between what is right and what is wrong, between fact and fiction, between what is true and what is not, between make-believe and reality. CNN and other leftwing media not only voice disconnect but create it; they create it deliberately because they can't accept the fact that Donald Trump, the scion of New York, is the President of the United States, and the fact that the United States is doing better than it has in a long time under him.
I support the President! I support Trump! America first! MAGA! Thank you.
That's the most common sense I've encountered in a NYT article in a very long time.
Interesting how Mr. Buskirk & the Kremlin have the same take on the Mueller Report.
1
Codswallop, served over a stale flapdoodle and dressed with sauteed humbuggery.
1
Wow! Black is white, and white is black. Trump will not be charged with conspiracy, but he invited and welcomed interference in the 2016 campaign by the Russians. And he will not be charged criminally with obstruction of justice, but he repeatedly attempted to stop and interfere with the Mueller investigation. For Republicans like Buskirk, character does not matter!
3
It appears that this writer is fine with all of the mendacity coming from Trump and the rest of them. He probably didn't read the report anyway.
1
The 'Liberal Media' Mr. Buskirk, may get some things wrong, but here what they got right is something we all knew: Trump should not be President.
2
Game of Thrones Live from DC! We have seen this movie before. Bill Clinton was the poster child in the 90's. Kenneth Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. Released to the public two days later, the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power, and also provided explicit details of the sexual relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. The Republican House approved two articles of impeachment, charging President Clinton with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.
The trial of President Clinton got underway in the Senate. Five weeks later the Senate voted and Bill Clinton was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton comes to an end, with the Senate voting to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice.
It is clear there is not a legal path given the results of the Mueller report but only a political path such as impeachment. Clearly the Republican Senate will not vote against President Trump. Better reporting would clearly help us all!
Truly breathtaking. There was an extraordinary volume of interactions with Russians and their proxies, staff-members whose professional bona fides were related to Russia, people getting indicted. The executive in charge of all of this effectively hid his finances, lied as matter of standard practice, attacked the feds, and in all other ways behaved like a guilty man close to getting caught. The Justice Department would have been derelict in their duty had they NOT looked into these matters. Whatever the outcome, not a single apology is owed to this President, and certainly not from the press.
4
There is a difference between proven and unproven. Just because evidence did not reveal itself doesn’t mean something did not occur. And NO THINKING PERSON can possibly believe that Putin does anything for nothing.
1
What most people seem to miss is that all of us are American's first, not a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, and not a Conservative, Liberal, or Moderate. We all need to think about that, because that is what binds us together, not the other labels we use to sub define us, because those labels are fleeting and not long lasting and can change. People need to think about who they are that is not a fleeting changing definition, and once they do that, we all can work together.
There is little doubt that the current administration does not want you think this way, they want you to fight among yourselves and so do the Russians. Do you really what to make America Great, then break through those shackles that people want you to carry and remember you are American's first and not those sub definitions, and we need to work together.
I'm sure a stronger case can be made for Trump, but I find this column very unconvincing.
Many recognize the growing dysfunction in American politics prior to the 2016 election, but no one can fail to recognize it now. Mr. Buskirk seems blame it all on the rest of us.
Hogwash! Just look at the cabinet the President with collusion from the senate has appointed.
2
Right, just like your party apologized to Obama for the ridiculous Benghazi hearings. Or, for that matter, for thanking him for ordering the raid that took care of Bin Laden.
Buried in the report is Mueller's conclusion that Trump's actions were "corrupt." The only reason obstruction wasn't a slam dunk was because the President's men/women protected him from himself and didn't follow his orders.
He's not even a good dictator.
9
No Mr. Buskirk, I have never liked Trump. He is a liar first and foremost and this report surely objectively details why that clearly obvious. What your editorial seems to gloss over is that Russians hacked our election. The IC knew about it, Obama knew about it and told Putin straight to his face to “cut it out”, but Mitch McConnell threatened to scream foul play if Obama alerted the American public. It was left to Trump to confront this attack on our country and he obstructed, lied about and attacked any effort to objectively investigate that crime and take steps to keep this country safe. The report clearly states that Trump’s associates materially interfered with the investigation by lying and destroying evidence so that conclusive proof of conspiracy could not be proved. However fingerprints and means and opportunity are everywhere around Trump. Should this have been ignored? I am grateful that Mr. Mueller and his team did their job despite Trumps inability to do anything but take his investigation personally. Mr. Buskirk, Trump does not need defenders. America does. And right now we have a President and enablers like you and William Barr who have left us wide open because your feelings are hurt. Stephen Colbert put it correctly: “Truth has a liberal bias”. And Trump Is Still A Liar.
8
Come on. He was working on a real estate deal with Russia, a sanctioned country, through the campaign, as they illegally helped him win (which he was privy to). And he lied about it to America.
If not treasonous in a strictly legal sense, he is, at the very least, epically corrupt and greedy. No apologies are in order after reading this bad-faith, propagandistic drivel.
7
People like this writer perceive as liberal and biased any press coverage of Trump and the Republican Party that is not fawning and oblivious to demonstrable facts that undermine their worldview. The report does not exonerate Trump! It says so, flat out! And this guy thinks Trump is owed an apology? “Alternative facts,” indeed. Infuriating.
2
It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
The fat lady is the Southern District Court of New York.
9
This reads like a job application for one of the many unfilled US ambassadorships around the world. Good for you, Mr Buskirk! The Trump people won't mind a little factual aberration here and there, as long as your heartfelt endearment of the president remains visible.
5
Excuse me while I wipe my eyes from laughing too hard.
Barr did what he was picked to do: use his history of writing summaries that obscure the truth to do the same to the Mueller report.
The report says that "Congress can validly regulate the President's exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice."
Do you understand that sentence?
Vindication? Game over? This game is just starting. And don't forget what's waiting for Trump and his family in NY State the second he isn't president anymore
I know the New York Times has to offer opinion pieces to people on both side of an issue but they should at least print ones that are dealing with the same set of facts as the rest of us.
3