As Long as We're All Having Fun While the Ship Sinks

I hate this article at Politico by Darren Samuelsohn so much: Russia Probe Lawyers Think Mueller Could Indict Trump.

First, the entire premise is rubbish. It's a bunch of speculation by anonymous sources, which of course most of the reporting on this subject is (and much of that has been irresponsible, too), but making predictions about outcomes is truly unhelpful.

Unless, that is, the objective is to issue reassurances (that should not be offered without any guarantees) to a resistance who are patiently and compliantly placing their hopes in the outcome, trusting that it will solve the Donald Trump Problem, while, in the interim, Trump and Congressional Republicans undermine the republic, our democracy, and everything we value at every turn.

Then making broad guesses makes a lot of sense, I guess. Cough.

Second, I find it quite troubling that the article doesn't make it abundantly clear that Bob Mueller's recommendations might never be made public if Rod Rosenstein doesn't decide to make them public. Many people, I have discovered, hold the expectation that, the moment Mueller issues a report, it's going to see the light of day and we're all gonna get to read it. That is not the case. And I'm not sure that this passing and insufficient explanation makes that clear, at all:

The Justice Department regulations that govern Mueller's work offer no clear endgame for the public to follow his investigation.

They do stipulate that the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, has oversight of and final say on all major decisions by Mueller — specifically including any indictments. Rosenstein is also required to submit a report to Congress on the grounds for closing the investigation.

And I don't think it's anything resembling responsible journalism to have a headline blaring "Russia Probe Lawyers Think Mueller Could Indict Trump," but expect readers to travel all the way to the 35th paragraph to find this single line on a critically important piece of information: "Rosenstein could also deny any attempt by Mueller to indict Trump."

Third:

The lawyers' assessments hardly resolve the public debate about whether a federal prosecutor can indict a sitting president — one that several attorneys involved in the Russia probe said they are closely tracking through online op-eds and Twitter dustups. ("It's so much fun!" said one.)

Glad they're getting their giggles over the question of whether a traitorous president can be indicted for his crimes against the nation.

Listen, maybe the lawyer who said that isn't a glib asshole with no stake in the future of their country, but someone who just needs to detach from the work a bit because they're extra invested in the future of their country. I don't know. But what I do know is that shit didn't need to make it into the article.

And neither did this: "Whatever Mueller and his deputies have planned, the attorney said, it is not likely to be anticlimactic."

Anticlimactic.

I guess the catastrophic failure of a year-long investigation to result in any accountability for an authoritarian traitor president who would thus be empowered to feel like he can literally do anything he wants with total impunity could be described as "anticlimactic."

Blink.