Posted on 05/29/2019 11:34:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“...that is because he does not have the backing of congress”
More importantly he doesn’t have the backing of the media.
The media runs the world. Whoever has the media controls everything, because over 75% of the country hasn’t got a clue. The Dems have the backing of the media (Hollywood/TV/ESPN/K-12 and Colleges/Facebook/Music Industry/etc./etc.).
When the media finally discovered they could lie, make up stuff, and it makes absolutely no difference to the masses, the game changed. Short of a war to take control of communications, or at least to restore a neutral media, what real chance do conservatives have to persuade the public?
Did you notice Nadler couldn’t answer questions from the press without reading from his statement. What the heck is up with that?
Maybe he’s waiting for them to finally pull the trigger on impeaching him. That way they can’t spin anything, accuse him of some type of obstruction, or somehow try to control the narrative. He can then dump everything, in his defense and they all have to sit there and take it. And there’s not a thing they could do about it.
his attorney staffers told him what to think. What I noticed is that he is dropping his insistence that Mueller testify.
How did Nadler’s staff know what the press was going to ask?
Ya, Nadler is also SCARED TO DEATH of bringing Mueller out in public, red-headed-stepchild action.
Why is Mueller getting special treatment?
It’s not up to him to clear Trump - it’s up to him to indict Trump - if he doesn’t do the latter, the former is understood.....
If Mueller had made those comments the day before he could have been fired for cause.
(Loss of pension and benefits too!)
Mueller said he couldn’t indict a sitting president. Then why all the fuss, time, and money?
RE: It’s not up to him to clear Trump - it’s up to him to indict Trump
Actually, Mueller said that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option,” citing department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Here’s what he said:
“Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
The question then becomes — if you can’t formally charge him with a crime, the least you could do is provide EVIDENCE for a legal body to charge him with a crime. Even that Mueller could not provide.
Nothing has been released yet.
RE: Mueller said he couldn’t indict a sitting president. Then why all the fuss, time, and money?
If Mueller can’t indict, the least he could do is provide sufficient evidence to show that there is legal basis for indictment. Where is the evidence?
Not being able to provide that, he should simply say that the Special Counsel does not have sufficient evidence, not leave a cloud hanging.
Sounds like the whole process was just one big waste of time and money.
Hired only Democrats...
Spent over two years on the investigation...
Left no stone unturned...
Spent something like $35 million...
Can’t say if his crew was incompetent or Trump was innocent.
I can.
Nadler didn't really answer any specific questions. The press didn't press him on the one BIG question, is he still going to insist Mueller testify?
Mission Accomplished!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.