Is this not slander? Can she not sue? Should she not sue?

Ross Barkan, a quondam Democrat (and possibly still one) writing at the Guardian, assumes that Barr correctly and fairly reported Mueller and reads lack of evidence as something approaching unquestionable and blatant proof of innocence.

And that last regarding a man we are pretty sure (and not only on the authority of Michael Cohen) runs an corrupt family enterprise and whom we can all see has been sucking up to Putin for a long time for the sake of personal gain, even bending US foreign policy to that end.

And so this erstwhile Democrat endorsed by AOC in a failed 2018 primary race now echoes the fierce and absurd Republican attacks on Democratic media and pundits in the wake of the Barr letter.

And while that is, after all, just the stock in trade of right wing flacks, he then goes a step too far and accuses Rachel Maddow and unnamed other Democratic pundits of personal venality.

This is what it means to be venal.

And this is his charge.

The worst-kept secret in the liberal media ecosystem is that Donald Trump is great for business. 

Rebranded for the resistance, liberal newspapers gobbled up thousands of new subscribers while local outlets die across America, unable to feast on the Trump manna. 

On television, left-leaning stations, at long last, competed with Fox in the ratings game, fueled by a never-ending Trump obsession.

With Trump has come Russia: two years of conspiracy-mongering about whether the president, a failed real estate mogul and reality TV star consumed with dubious deal-making, conspired with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. 

Robert Mueller’s determination that no evidence exists to prove Trump and Russian colluded to fix the election has exposed, once again, the venality of A-list political punditry. 

At the top of the heap is none other than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

And there he is, sliding from an accusation that the Democratic media trumpeted the scandal to run up ratings and make money to an accusation that A-list pundits in general and Rachel Maddow in particular are personally corrupt, mercenary, and open to bribery.

You may say that is not what he meant, but I don't care.

That is what he said.

The rest of the article is a mad, absurd, and sometimes incoherent rant, here and there approaching gibberish.