BREAKING: What Literally Thousands of Criminal Attorneys Told America Two Years Ago Was (of Course) True, But Now You Can Buy a Book That Says It and Media Promises to Pay Attention to It This Time Now That It's a Discrete Product Available for Review and Purchase https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1308006675345965056

PS/ I'm still trying to figure out why thousands of experienced criminal attorneys were not permitted to be taken seriously when they assessed the fact pattern amassed by media and investigators and declared that Trump had committed a dozen felony acts of obstruction.

A mystery.

PS2/ Media had an accurate narrative in-hand 2 years ago: the consensus of professionals was Trump was a felon. Instead, it declared we couldn't make any determination until a single report came out. Barr saw his opening—if all the truth is in one report, just destroy the report.

PS3/ Media knows how to sell products. It doesn't know how to sell truth. There was a consensus about Trump's actions well before Mueller's report came out—a consensus among professionals. But reporters knew better than the professionals: they knew we should bank on *one* report.

PS4/ Barr, seeing that U.S. media was going to put all America's eggs in one basket, realized he only needed to *blow up the basket*. And now U.S. media is making the same mistake again: focusing our attention on a product—Weissman's book—not the truth professionals have told us.

PS5/ The question of whether Trump had openly committed felonies was closed two years ago. It was closed by the judgment of *thousands* of criminal attorneys. Because media didn't know how to "package" that judgment or report on it meaningfully, we waited for a *failed report*.

PS6/ Now we're being sold a chronicle of that failed report as—again—being somehow more important than *the truth that was established among experienced professionals more than two years ago*. And once again, this *aids* Trump by letting him and his agents just attack *one book*.

PS7/ Networks of information are *always* stronger than isolated data-points. But journalism refuses to enter into the digital age by recognizing the power of *networked journalism*. Why? Because it dilutes the power of individual full-time journalists, and that can't be allowed.