Good insight from Omarosa and corrected Craig Melvin.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

He asked Omarosa "what do you think of the president being cleared of collusion?"

She pretty much snickered and said it's SPIN -. Exactly what trump et al is good at. Wait to see the entire report.

Hope someone at MSNBC heard that. And they stop taking the Barr meme as truth and fact.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Most of them I've heard aren't-- they are clear that no indictable evidence does not mean...

that he is innocent.

There are many more non-Mueller investigations out there-- don't lose hope.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Isn't no indictable evidence about the obstruction piece?

Or both? They are pretty much saying no one colluded at all

[mr_lebowski]

5. With 'the Russian Government' ... indeed, no it was through Russian cutouts

However, this not being Russia (and hence we have a lot less to 'go on'), it's difficult to prove that these actors can be considered legitimate 'Russian Government Actors' ... which is precisely why the Russian's used people like Natalia and Maria B, and Guccifer 2.0 (though they got busted on that one).

[TreasonousBastard]

6. About all of it. Remember, unlike Ken Starr, Mueller kept to the assignment...

deliberate conspiracies by Trump or his minions with the Russians to affect the election.

He indicted a bunch of Russians for trying, but seems to have no good evidence that the campaign specifically asked for, and received, help with the election.

Other indictments have been through other divisions and states. We have not seen the end of this.

(Whether or not we ever see the end of Sarah Sanders yakking is another question)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Why won't Barr squelch SDNY

[scrutineer]

9. That is the 64 thousand ruble question

While people are discussing this obvious coverup, what is Komrad Barr sabotaging quietly elsewhere in the DoJ?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Thought so. And was reading some of other

Stuff may get dismissed too. Will try to find article on it

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. Link

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R50S3

[scrutineer]

13. ...

Republicans haven’t exactly been shy about politicizing the Justice department in the last few decades. And William Barr is every bit as sleazy as Ed Meese and Alberto Gonzoles.

State and local jurisdictions are another matter.

[JudyM]

7. Yep, really misleading conflation.

Been bugging me, too.

[lagomorph777]

12. "no indictable evidence" according to Barr's spin.

Barr is already a proven coverup professional - cleaned up after Iran-Contra.

So I automatically discount anything Barr says, especially when he's making claims about what Mueller says.

I'll believe it when MUELLER tells me.

[uponit7771]

2. Damn, Omarosa is making more sense than the whole of M$M

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. She knows him.

[Caliman73]

14. She is in a different position than they are.

Omarosa is a former Trump employee and ally. She was treated poorly by the administration. She did not comport herself very well during the time either, but that is not the issue. She has an axe to grind and likely has insight into Trump's intentions given that she was around him for some time. She had access, no longer has access, and will never have access again. She stands to lose nothing basically, by talking about Trump in negative terms. Her former access to him and proximity makes it so that media outlets will pay some attention to her.

The media is about access and an appearance of neutrality. If they take a position and yell SPIN like Omarosa is saying, they run the risk of having Trump who as John Fugelsang says, "is ratings crack" black ball their access. He will likely attack them in some way anyway because they are not saying that he is innocent and it was all Hillary's doing, but he would likely seriously try to pull the plug on their ability to report on him if they actually called him out in the way that Omarosa is able to.