THREAD: This @NYtimes story nicely captures the absurdity of media coverage of #TrumpRussia. At first glance, it seems like a big deal. "Oh my god," we say, "he knew TWO weeks before the inauguration." Except, it's based on a bullshit premise.
The bullshit premise of news articles like this is that trump has been told about Russian attacks and yet inexplicably keeps pretending he wasn't told or doesn't believe it or doesn't remember it. But OF COURSE he knew. He was part of the conspiracy. /2
If you look at the headline on the main page, you see a pure distillation of this narrative. "Trump let his self interest away his view of Russian meddling." It wasn't "meddling," it was a cyber warfare attack against our country. /3 
It wasn't "self interest" that "swayed his view" of Russian "meddling" unless you mean the way self interest moves a criminal to deny to the police the guilt of his accomplice/boss. The underlying message is that somehow Trump didn't know. /4
Now- the norms of journalism prevent the media from assuming trump's guilt (though it never stopped them from assuming Hillary's). And in an ordinary administration, you would give the benefit of the doubt to the president that he is not a traitor. /5
But this is CLEARLY not a normal administration and there is enough evidence around to make the assumption of trump's innocence deeply problematic. The story isn't that trump LEARNED about Putin's actions 2 weeks before the inauguration. It's that he was TOLD about them /6
It's a subtle but important difference. The Time's narrative assumes trump is telling the truth that there was "no collusion" while the facts themselves leave that as an open question. We don't yet know if trump himself knew/authorized the coordination, but we should be asking/7
With mounting evidence that members of the trump campaign coordinated with Russia and the latest Mueller indictment laying out a timeline that shows hacking began AFTER trump made his public call for Russia to hack Hillary, the default position that trump didn't know, is absurd/8
This times story IS important. It is another example of trump's lies to the public about Putin and the Russian attack on our election. It is further evidence that trump lies to support Putin & Russia. But it isn't a smoking gun/gotcha article. /9
In the end, this is just another story where we can say - wow, trump is a liar. But that's not really news. The real scandal is that trump most likely knew LONG before 2 wks before the inauguration- because he was an active participant in the plot against America. /END
