Does the NYT article mean we are close to the real explosion?

[Igel]

10. So a good media is one who goes to officials

and asks for permission?

No, it's an assumption, like many of the statements in the NYT.

It may be that something's about to break.

It may be that the NYT is pissed that there's a political impasse and decided to fire a salvo to weaken the anti-Democratic side.

It may be that an editor finally decided that the story had enough substance to print.

It may be that they're frustrated that all the adverts that it's "Mueller time" didn't work out as planned and when faced with discouragement on the part of readers that it will ever be Mueller time have to remind them that it takes time to make a good bier--but something's still brewing.

Picking the assumption that confirms what we believe because it confirms what we believe is a cognitive bias. It's especially bad when there's no need to pick any of the assumptions.

Personally, what I've seen of the NYT coverage is old news repackaged for those who don't want to remember or who don't remember.

It's like the coverage a couple of days ago that Trump's suddenly said "steel slats" are okay--it's news because it's new, he just changed his mind weeks into the government shutdown. It shows weakness, it's a shift! The end is in sight. Except that this was reported a couple of weeks ago. It's not a shift. And that end that's in sight is more of a butt. Trump may cave, but that's not evidence that it's seconds away.

When Mueller was appointed he was appointed to a counterintelligence investigation because there was evidence sufficient to appoint him. That evidence had to be noticed and assembled by somebody. There were FISA wiretaps on various and sundry prior to the '16 election. That implies an investigation. If Rosenstein was thinking about wearing a wire in meeting with Trump prior Mueller's appointment, it means that he had suspicions prior to accepting to oversee Mueller. I mean, FBI folk were already trying to find ways to dispose of Trump the day after the election and playing word games with things like "confidential" ("yeah, it's absolutely confidential, but that doesn't mean I won't be taking notes and then make sure they get leaked&quot . To think otherwise is to be naive to the point of self-deception in service of deceiving others.

So now it's news that there was somebody investigating this? It was front-page news 2 years ago. I personally don't see much new in this news. Then again, I don't find that my beliefs about Trump really matter much when I'm not in the voting booth.