On Wednesday, Trump went on another Twitter rampage to distract from the Paul Manafort trial, hollering at Jeff Sessions to end the Muller probe. This wasn't anything new since Trump has been doing that for over a year.
Mueller, a Republican, has indicted or secured guilty pleas from 32 individuals, including four former Trump aides, in the probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Trump has repeatedly denied that his campaign was involved in the effort and has also wavered on whether Russia interfered in the election, as U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded.
For months, the president has kept up a sustained attack on the Mueller investigation in an attempt to undermine it in the eyes of the public.
That was not written by The Daily Beast or Vox or any of the left leaning news sites. That wasn't even written by The Washington Post. That came from The Hill. The aggressively neutral to the point of apologist Hill. The Beltway insider Hill. I read that and almost fell out of my dentist chair (routine cleaning, no cavities, thank you very much).
I had stopped reading The Hill ages ago because of their refusal to include exactly this kind of absolutely necessary context in their stories. News does not happen in a vacuum and just reporting the "what" without the "why" does a disservice to the public. It does very much help Republicans and Trump, though, who need the "why" obscured at all times.
A Trumper will read this article and become livid at the "liberal media bias" but read that segment again carefully. It's not biased in the slightest. It's a bland statement of facts. The most loaded word there is "wavered", but it's a perfect description of Trump's position on Russian interference. It changes from day to day, sometimes from hour to hour. Otherwise, the writer might as well be describing traffic. There is simply no opinion or judgement one way or the other.
And, goddammit, that's what journalism should be! It should be a reporting of the facts, with context, regardless if those facts make one side or the other look bad. If a politician is lying, call it a lie. Don't tell the public that you can't because you don't know if Trump is aware that he's lying. And if you actually believe that, then he's mentally unstable and you should be reporting that. But instead we get these lame excuses about why we can't call it a lie. What the fuck kind of journalism is that? Well, it came from Maggie Haberman so it's not journalism, per se, but you get the idea.
For the last three years, the media has been tiptoeing around Trump, pretending he's not a lying criminal for the sake of appearing "neutral". But all that's done is enabled Trump and the corrupt Republicans around him to run rampant and set the Constitution on fire. There's a reason Trump has been attacking the press nonstop since the very beginning: A press reporting on him accurately would be the end of him. If every report on Trump's attacks on the Mueller's "witch hunt" included a brief bit about how many witches it's already caught and how hard Trump has been trying to undermine it, people might stop calling it a witch hunt and calling it what it actually is: The rule of law catching up to the most corrupt regime to ever stain the American presidency.
I'm not going to hold my breath that The Hill will finally stop giving Trump a pass but this article was a much needed ray of sunshine. We should all only be so lucky if more journalists followed this lead.