The conventional interpretation meaning the one Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to prosecute? I’m not sure what you’re asking.
I’m asking if you are just as open to the idea that Mueller is an honorable public servant and Trump genuinely complicit in impeachable offenses as you are to idea that Trump and Barr are the true heroes here, which is the narrative you seem to be putting forward, or at least are suggesting is equally plausible.
To that end, you did not address my main point that it’s disingenuous to suggest that every theory is equally valid. I’ve yet to see you defend yours except by ad hominem attacks on Mueller’s integrity.
And I have no idea what the QAnon take is. No one putting I’ve heard assembling bits of evidence on the origins of Russiagate has mentioned QAnon.
Google it. It is a variation on the theory you are proposing, that there is a convoluted Deep State anti-Trump conspiracy behind the entire SCO probe. You have suggested that I am not up on the various theories out there. I find it hard to believe you have not come across this one.
“Yesterday the guy was a sphinx, and today he’s a straight shooter? The cryptic speech he gave this week certainly rules him out as a straight shooter. Barr at least takes questions, so there’s another bit of data.
You are the one calling him a sphinx and saying his speech was cryptic, not me. Barr takes questions? Sure, but he answers with lies. The one thing every credible observer will admit about Bob Mueller is that he has a well-earned reputation for rock-ribbed integrity. (Note the word “credible.”) Barr does not, and is getting worse every day. I refer you to this piece dismantling his recent CBS This Morning interview (also: every public statement he’s made since becoming AG for a second time). http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/william-barr-interview-cbs-mueller-coup-trump.html
IMHO straight shooters don’t last in Washington. The whole place is a big theater conducted for the public and a nest of corrupt vipers backstage. I don’t trust any of these DC careerists an inch.
Your belief that there are no decent public servants goes beyond healthy skepticism and even cynicism and into nihilism. Yet at the same time you are willing to treat the GOP side of this fight with the benefit of that doubt, and not the other. Hmmm.
You suggested Moscow couldn’t have sown disinformation to make Trump look bad, because they ran some anti-Clinton Facebook ads and (allegedly) hacked a DNC email server. That’s scarcely much of a stumper; those are no more contradictory than Wall Street donating to both campaigns.
The way you are underplaying the extent of the Russian attack on our electoral system says it all about your lack of credibility….particularly the use of the qualifier “allegedly” re the hacking of the DNC. Are you suggesting it was some 400 lb guy sitting on his mother’s bed? And to equate it with Wall St hedging its political bets by purchasing influence in both parties is absurd. We can’t have a rational discussion here when you are brazenly denying cold hard facts.
I eagerly await the allegation that I am the one doing that.
But if you’re looking for a reason to stick your fingers in your ears, you might as well go with that one. You know Putin, right? He’s a Trump loyalist through-and-through, who would never do anything that might upset The Donald.
I assume you saw Putin state on the record in Helsinki that he wanted Trump to win, right? More to the point do you have a credible explanation for Trump’s mysterious pattern of bootlicking toward Putin? Hint: it rhymes with “rump power bosco.”