“Go Away Until You Learn To Think Rationally”

I see you’re a new user, Mike, so let me first welcome you to Medium.

Let me first ask what you mean by this:

The odds that the entire intelligence community (not a single leak from one of the thousands familiar with the absolutely air tight evidence of Russian interference), the entire free press, and all of the private IT companies familiar with the voluminous evidence is zero, regardless of whether The Mueller Investigation found enough evidence to charge the most dishonest and corrupt president (who you’re protecting) in American History.

I’d like you to clarify because it seems like you are arguing it does not matter whether Mueller’s investigation team found Donald Trump’s campaign guilty of conspiracy or coordination with Russia. There exists so much evidence that not even the best trained investigators could wrap their head around all the details and connect the dots. In fact, even IT companies, press organizations, and officials in the U.S. intelligence community, who have spent the last 2–3 years intensely digging into this, do not understand all the evidence, even though these are the people, agencies, and interest groups responsible for creating our perception of the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory.

Essentially, we can’t ever really know what the Trump campaign did because there’s so much evidence. Focusing on one detail might lead us to overlook another crucial detail. We need to slow down and consider that some pieces of evidence may not be important while others may be more important.

Am I following this? I don’t quite understand your “needle in a haystack” theory nor does it seem plausible.

That said, thank you for making this comment one of the more ludicrous responses to my essay so far.

Here you attribute my well-researched post as the product of my worship of The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald:

How many Glenn Greenwald loonies are out there anyway? It seems amazing that they keep coming out of the wood work, and it sure seems like their pushing a conservative agenda, so I don’t blame Chris Crawford for being suspicious.

It’s a fantastic way of not engaging with anything of substance in my essay. You presume anyone of us who make these arguments must be reading him daily and are not engaged in any sort of independent thought.

Then you casually state that it’s fair to treat what I argue as part of some conservative agenda without any regard for the fact that I advocate against Donald Trump by suggesting what must be done to defeat him in 2020.

I particularly enjoy the assessment you give of Greenwald’s “psychological issues”:

Glenn’s psychological issues, which he plays out through his reporting seem clear, what I don’t understand is why anyone else feels the need to follow him down this utterly ridiculous rabbit hole. Glenn hates The National Security State (we should assume that they are *all* lying with no evidence whatsoever), The Democratic Party, and The News Media (they are all lying, especially MSNBC, though not Fox News where he goes to commiserate with a well known racist about how bad the rest of the media is. He also has a fondness for the Russian Media on which he appears to tell the world how evil his country is, because we all know what an honest guy Vlad Putin is. I sure hope he snaps out of this mental illness soon. I miss him.

Actually, I understand. You saw that he was one of the journalists I credited for sifting through news stories and demonstrating how media outlets ran with “scoops” that had no basis whatsoever. Since we’re into psycho-analyzing people, you thought, “Oh, he must be Greenwald cultist. He couldn’t possibly think any of this on his own.”

You think you know Greenwald. You used to read Greenwald apparently. You’re unhappy with how he doesn’t subscribe to your view about US foreign policy and national security agencies and their role in promoting an agenda of geopolitical dominance around the world. So, you lash out at him and do so in the comments threads of pieces from anyone that you think might be under his influence.

Again, all of this happened so you did not have to engage with anything meaningful in my essay. In fact, I bet you did not read it all. You stopped after you saw Greenwald’s name mentioned and quickly scrolled to the responses to see if anyone had put me in my place.

Did I get anyone of that right?

Once again, Mike, let me welcome you to Medium.