- Here’s what happens: A report or revelation that would end literally any other administration in the history of the country is released. Then, as predictably as night follows day, a complete bullshit story is spun out to a friendly writer (we will not call them journalists, because what they do is not journalism). That bullshit story is published, and Trump’s enablers can deflect with whataboutism (a tactic so infuriatingly successful, they don’t even need another move once they make it). Within about one day, it gets so exhausting to both journalists and news consumers, everyone tunes out and moves on to the next thing.
You know why I get tired of it? Because it's not my job to prosecute him for the things that would 'otherwise end an administration.' And if it's not my job, and no one else is going to do it, then why get all spun up about it? Especially with this Russia thing. If there's something to be found, it's the job of the many people investigating it to find it. And when I say something, I mean impeachment level somethings. Even these DT Jr. e-mails don't prove that Trump ever knew about any of the meetings. Just that his son met with a Russian government official and they still don't even prove that despite their worst intentions that they were able to profit from this meeting. Not watching the news makes me happier. I listen to the NPR news once in the morning on the way to work, and once on the way back, and hardly ever do I miss anything that has a shelf life of more than a day.
I used to work in renewable energy, and every time we started an initiative for a new wind farm we would meet extensive resistance from the local community. So we had town halls to try to give them comfort and at those town halls there would be a vocal minority who dominated the meeting with ignorant fear and bias. One thing we quickly learned was that our logical replies had nigh on zero effect on these people, BUT the debate did have an impact on the silent skeptics. Gradually they would grow to accept the project, and over time they would embrace it. Wheaton's pessimism is because he is focused on the vocal minority and not the silent majority of the opposition. That is not the right place to put your focus. We are gradually seeing a steady decline of support for Trump. I read this week that there are currently more people in favor of impeachment than there was under Watergate. The Republican health care plan has only 16% approval. Even among Trump's constituents the support is only 25%. WW2 lasted 5 years, Watergate 2-3 years. We need to be steadfast and keep pushing, keep challenging, keep pushing for "nation over party", keep supporting the media and NGOs, keep chipping away and not lose the will to fight. I think we can still get there, and pessimism certainly won't help.
I don't know if Wheaton's fatalism is warranted. After all, this whole Russia thing hasn't gone away. It's been a consistent feature of reporting on the Trump administration. It doesn't seem to be getting any better for them either.