I really cannot wrap my brain around how Chuck Todd has been able to achieve the career success he has with such blatant mediocrity in how he approaches his job.
We already know that he doesn't think that committing journalism is part of his job, but apparently refusing to connect the dots extend to his own understanding of the day's events too.
So perhaps that's why, faced with the news that the FBI launched a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump to investigate whether he was actually in the White House as a witting or unwitting agent of Vladimir Putin, his first question to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is whether the FBI "overreacted."
Mind you, Tim Kaine was the vice presidential candidate of the campaign that was hacked and violated by Russian disrupters (allegedly at the direction of Donald Trump), so maybe he's not the one to ask if hacking and trying to affect the outcome of an election would spur an overreaction.
But setting that aside, how is it possible with everything that is out in the public record that the way that Todd would frame this is as a possible overreaction?
Former FBI Special Agent and National Security expert Clint Watts broke it down on Twitter how all the clues point inexorably to the need for this investigation:
Look at all those dots. None of them are classified information or information that Chuck Todd's own news department hasn't reported at one time or the other.
Why in the hell would anyone think that the FBI investigating would be an OVERREACTION????
Keep in mind, we don't know everything the FBI knows. Journalist Kurt Eichenwald spoke to his intel sources well before the election and he, too, said that all the red flags were obvious, both domestically and abroad. Rather than another long tweetstorm, you can read Eichenwald's recounting here. It's harrowing.
But it shows how little the mainstream media is interested in the real threats to this country.