Wall Street Journal Thinks Maybe John Mogan Didn’t Rob That Bank After All

Oh, dear God.

It’s difficult to know exactly where to begin when picking apart “The Jim Carry Cover-Up“, an opinion piece published late Thursday in the Wall Street Journal.

The thrust of the piece – which I encourage you to read for yourself – is that Jeff Sessions probably wasn’t colluding with the Russians in an attempt to do the Trump campaign a solid when he met with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak last September.

Why was that meeting likely not (more) damning evidence of interference by Moscow in the US election? Well because, to quote the Journal, “surely [Sessions] knew someone would discover a meeting in his Senate office, which isn’t exactly a drop-site in the Virginia suburbs, and the meeting in Cleveland had multiple witnesses.”

So basically, Sessions would have had to be an idiot to think no one would go back and point to those meetings as possible evidence of collusion.

The Journal goes on to note that “like former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn not telling Vice President Mike Pence about his meeting with the ambassador, this is a case of dumb and dumber.”

Right. But just because these two halfwits are f*cking stupid, doesn’t mean we should assume that they didn’t do anything shady. Especially when the balance of evidence clearly suggests they did.

What evidence, you ask? Well, the fact that both Flynn and Sessions lied about their contact with the Russians, for one thing.

To be fair, the Journal acknowledges this and indeed that’s the whole point of the article, but when you read the piece it kind of feels like maybe the author is trying to pull a “me or your lyin’ eyes” on readers.

That is, yes, we all saw Sessions commit perjury in his confirmation hearing, but because it would be incredibly stupid for him to assume that no one was going to go back and check on things, he’s probably innocent.

Again, the piece doesn’t come out and say that, but I challenge you to come up with an interpretation that’s materially different after reading it.

So I guess my question is this: should we have assumed John E. Mogan II probably didn’t rob a bank in Ashville, Ohio on August 24, 2015?

After all, it would pretty goddamn stupid to rob a bank and then post a picture of yourself eating the money you stole on Facebook:

facebook

That’s John, and as Lt. Dale Parish of the Pickaway County Sheriff’s Office noted at the time that picture was posted to social media, “good decision-making isn’t his strong suit.”

Bad decision making is one thing, but robbing a bank and posing with the money on Facebook is entirely another and by the Journal’s logic, we should, if anything, probably interpret that picture as evidence that Mogan didn’t rob the bank.

Of course, just like new reports that Jared Kushner also met with Kislyak last year seem to suggest that the Sessions and Flynn contact was no coincidence, the fact that, just one month before the above-mentioned bank robbery took place, John Mogan had been released from prison where he served time for bank robbery certainly seems to suggest that he did indeed rob the bank.

But again, the Facebook pictures say different. Because like Sessions lying in his confirmation hearing, there’s no way John would have been that stupid had he really done it…

phone

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Wall Street Journal Thinks Maybe John Mogan Didn’t Rob That Bank After All

  1. In a race between stupid and crooked stupid usually wins by a nose. That doesn’t mean crooked didn’t run a good race.

  2. Forgive my mishit on the enter key.
    I read today that it is not unusual for Someone like Kislyak to meet with candidates. Yet he didn’t meet with Hilary. So if he was preparing for eventualities at a time no one gave Trump a chance, but didn’t meet with Hilary when everyone thought she was going to win, what eventuality was he preparing for?

Speak On It