Chiar si cei care nu sunt familiarizati cu politica americana au auzit, de fapt tot globul a fost informat, despre asa numita „Russian Collusion”. Adica despre faptul ca rusii ar fi colaborat cu echipa de campanie a lui Trump in cursul alegerilor din 2016. Unul dintre cei mai vocali sustinatori ai acestei teorii a fost Adam Schiff (un influent politician democrat din Camera Reprezentantilor, care a fost extrem de activ si in demersul de impeachment recent indreptat impotriva lui Trump) gazduit generos de CNN, WP, NYTimes, etc alaturi de alte voci importante din fosta administratie Obama care ne spuneau ca e doar o chestiune de timp pina cind vor iesi la suprafata probe zdrobitoare in acest sens. Ei bine au iesit, dar rezultatul a fost exact invers. Din transcrierile depozitiilor facute in Comisia de Intelligence din Camera Reprezentantilor, condusa de Adam Schiff, reiese ca toti cei care se jurau pe la televiziuni ca stiu ei precis ca a fost „collusion”, au declarat cu acest prilej exact contrariul. Motivul este simplu: una este sa spui ceva in studiourile TV si cu totul altceva sa declari ceva sub juramint in Congres (pentru informatii false sub juramint poti face puscarie). In paralel au iesit la lumina detalii legate de maniera in care FBI a gestionat partizan si total neprofesiionist o alta ancheta legata de Michael Flynn, care a fost timp de 3 saptamini consilier pentru securitate nationala la Casa Alba. Tot cu stirea administratiei Obama (era in perioada de tranzitie).

Editorialul din „Wall Street Journal” se incheie cu o concluzie care face trimitere la canalele media importante care au derapat catre zona de activism. Sigur, astfel de derapaje exista si de partea cealalta insa CNN, NYTime sau Washington Post, care se autodescriu derpt un fel de gardieni ai deontologie profesionalei, au, foarte important, o audienta globala

„President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says”.

Pentru ca WSJ poate fi accesat doar cu abonament am mai extras citeva pasaje din editorial:

„Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy—Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.