This is a good article. What concerns me is that many in media are seeing overwhelming evidence of crimes—say obstruction or witness tampering—but continue saying there's merely a "likelihood" (Charles Blow) or that it "looks like we'll find" crimes (Alex Finley). No—we're there.
2/ My point is, only in America's unusually corporatized media culture would you have so many subject-area experts who know perfectly well what they're seeing be hesitant about getting out over their skis while I'm feeling like I need to remind people this is a national emergency
3/ I'm by no means saying journalists should take their cues from laypeople, I'm simply noting that when a large mass of Americans can plainly see criminality on their TV and computer screens nightly and major-media journalists are saying "Hey, maybe...?" it kills our credibility
4/ Critics of Trump aren't asking (as Trumpists do) to have media regurgitate back to them whatever they're feeling at the moment, but they're certainly asking media to at least reflect in their comments what much of America is seeing playing out on their TV or PC screens nightly
5/ Witness tampering is one of the less complicated scenarios (put aside statutes) a layperson can witness, as is obstruction, as is making false statements, as is (frankly) a scheme to defraud voters, so after Friday the disconnect between laypeople and media seems to be growing
6/ Today I saw Carl Bernstein (a hero) be asked on CNN's air if this was a criminal presidency and he actually said well I don't know that we have evidence of that but we have evidence the president is at the center of a criminal conspiracy, and I was like, what's the difference?
7/ If the president was at the center of a criminal conspiracy that more than arguably aided his election, and if the conspiracy continues in the form of obstruction, witness tampering, making false statements and fraud, isn't this the point at which we say "criminal presidency"?
8/ Giuliani rightly says that, as to Trump, litigation over even his most heinous actions will fundamentally be a political rather than legal one, assuming Mueller wont violate DOJ regs, so my question is, how is US media doing at framing that political debate in a realistic way?
