1/ I'm noticing a pattern in how my Russiagate-skeptic friends think about news. It boils down to thinking like *lawyers* instead of thinking like *scientists*. It’s understandable given that this is a story about an eventual trial. But I think it’s a mistake. Hear me out.
2/ Imagine your partner stopped responding to texts/calls all night and returned the next morning with no explanation for where they were, who they were with, etc.
3/ Later you see your partner in someone’s Instagram story dancing with that one person from work they’ve always been flirty with. And then you see your partner receive a text from that same person that just says “:P”.
4/ Every time you ask your partner about the next tidbit, their story changes slightly, and eventually they start replying to everything with “I don’t recall”.
5/ Well, sure, maybe you couldn’t convict them in a court of law on the basis of that circumstantial evidence alone, but you sure as hell could DUMP THEM and tell all your friends, with confidence, that they cheated on you.
6/ And that is exactly where we’re at with Trump-Russia.
7/ What's emerged from the Mueller investigation—and from @MichaelAvenatti's case and the @SDNYnews Cohen investigation—is a *clear* picture with motives, detailed timelines, damning texts/emails, financial paper trails, witness testimonies, all of which *corroborate each other*.
8/ Those of us with the luxury to observe this saga as civilians need to stop digesting each new tidbit as if we were *lawyers* and start digesting each new tidbit as if we were *SCIENTISTS*.
9/ A *lawyer* approaches the evidence by asking "maybe there’s an innocent explanation for every little suspicious detail". But a *scientist* approaches the evidence by asking “is there any alternative (and exculpatory) story that explains all of the evidence?”
10/ And that’s the thing, Trump et al. has offered NO alternative story besides “10,000 coincidences”.
11/ Even Fox News and other Trump shills that are freer to lie don’t even suggest alternative stories, they just say “witch hunt” and project ulterior political motives onto the investigators.
12/ Team Trump is literally your partner saying they can’t recall where they were last night, everything is a coincidence, and you need to stop being jealous.
13/ As a *lawyer* you might just accept this. But as *scientist* the (mountain of) evidence already in the public sphere is more than enough to say DUMP THEM.
14/ Why does this matter? Because, as we’ve known for months, Mueller will not indict a sitting President. That means this is heading towards impeachment proceedings or worse, a constitutional crisis when Trump tries to fire Mueller (and everyone else in the DoJ).
15/ Both outcomes are inherently *political*. If Congressional Republicans calculate they can get away with protecting a traitor, they will.
16/ Those of us that are interested in *facts* continuing to be the basis for political discourse need to project very clearly that we *know*—and we do—that all of these fuckers are GUILTY and any politician that protects them gets VOTED OUT.
[END]
[END]
PS1/ Thinking like a *lawyer* leads to despair and pessimism. Since you can basically ALWAYS say “maybe there’s an innocent explanation for this” you get jaded and stop reading/investigating.
PS2/ I’ve also noticed that my Russiagate-skeptic friends don’t seem to want to dive into the details. There’s too much stuff. They’re tired. Not knowing the details (all of which are damning) then reinforces the skepticism and pessimism. Vicious cycle.
PS3/ But as a *scientist*, you're eager to collect more data, and refine your best guess hypothesis. It’s exhilarating, not exhausting. You want to read ALL of the articles and threads, watch all the clips, etc.
PS4/ If you’re reading this, and want to switch from being a *tired lawyer* to being an *exhilarated scientist* but don’t know where to begin, here are some suggestions.
PS5/ First, understand that NYT/WashPo/etc. report verifiable facts but shy away from any statement that is remotely "speculative". This means they don’t always contextualize the facts within the broader theory/story that the facts support.
PS6/ To gain that context, you need to go to Twitter. A paradigm shift in journalism is happening there.
PS7/ This is what @SethAbramson calls “metajournalism”. His thread is on it is brilliant. Read it.
PS8/ If you only read @SethAbramson, you’ll know more about Trump-Russia than anyone reading just NYT/WashPo/Politico/etc. But there’s a whole community of journos/“metajournos”/wonks/etc commenting, reporting, and swapping their “speculative” theories and varied expertise.
PS9/ Among them, in no particular order, are @yottapoint, @ericgarland, @HoarseWisperer, @gregolear, @aliasvaughn, @20committee, @LincolnsBible, @NatashaBertrand, the list goes on. Definitely also follow @MichaelAvenatti.
PS10/ Understand that this is a noisier and more speculative medium. But that's the point. We want the *best guess* at the truth, given the current body of evidence (*scientists* not *lawyers*). This is how Twitterers knew MONTHS AGO what's coming out now in the mainstream press.
PS11/ Start with those folks and you'll quickly find more. It's in their threads and commentary that you'll gain the *context* for the facts reported in the individual news articles.
PS12/ The other non-conventional media source I like is podcasts. Podcasts are good for story-telling, and it's the *story* connecting all of the verifiable facts that is missing from the mainstream press.
PS13/ Story-telling naturally involves (evidence-driven) speculation which the press shies away from. They really don't want to get called "Fake News".
PS14/ But speculation is GOOD. Scientists speculate *all the time*. Stories are how we go from facts to testable hypotheses i.e., stories are *predictive*.
PS15/ Listen to Stay Tuned with @PreetBharara, from the beginning. Also listen to Trump Inc. (by @ProPublica) and @realTrumpcast.
PS16/ If you only listen to those three, you'll know more about Trump-Russia than anyone just reading the mainstream press. There are other great podcasts that also sometimes report on this. @reveal is just generally exceptional investigative reporting.
PS17/ There's also (in no particular order) @intercepted, @democracynow, @PodSaveAmerica, @NewYorkerRadio, @onthemedia, the list goes on.
PS18/ Podcasts are the best bang-for-the-buck because you can listen to them while you're on the way to do the stuff you're supposed to be doing (not this).
PS19/ I hope this all inspires you to engage in the saga. Trump-Russia is a "generational event". It will define this period in history. There are still many directions it can go in and those depend on how we as voters, citizens and observers watch, listen, and respond.
