Nadler guilty of elder abuse of Mueller
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It's almost impossible to overestimate the damage the Mueller hearings did to Democrat hopes of completing their coup d'etat against the president. All their hopes were riding on Robert Mueller, and his efforts were an abysmal failure. He went from hero to goat in five hours.
One could almost feel sorry for Robert Mueller, whose reputation as a man of unimpeachable integrity and straight-shooting lawman burned to the ground in front of him during his testimony Wednesday before Congress.
He appeared frail, uncertain, and feeble. He simply was not up to the challenge. He fumbled simple questions, paused awkwardly on numerous occasions, and repeatedly made it clear that he was almost completely unfamiliar with his own report.
The Washington Post noted his "shaky demeanor," and observed that under questioning from House members, "his voice grew thinner, less certain. He sometimes searched for words... (his) halting manner seemed involuntary." It was, in sum, a "haltering, faltering performance."
I said on my program a number of weeks ago that I did not believe Mr. Mueller even knew what was in his report, and almost without any doubt did not write it . (Newt Gingrich is out there today calling for an investigation into who actually did in fact write the report.) Mueller had an aide at his elbow all day, there to prop him up and answer questions for him. But when the special counsel tried to pitch the ball to his wingman, Republican questioners wouldn't let him. They reminded him that the questions were being directed to him, as the supposed author of "The Mueller Report," and weren't being directed to anyone else. The aide turned into the proverbial potted plant.
So Mueller was left to twist slowly in the wind. Even regressives were appalled at his performance, which was supposed to lead directly to impeachment proceedings. (Mueller studiously avoided using the "i" word at all.)
The Washington Post observed that "he clearly did not want to be on Capitol Hill" (he was only there because Nadler made him come), and that "even Democrats who favor impeachment acknowledge that Mueller's performance did not provide the made-for-TV moment for which they had hoped."
Mueller seemed confused a good bit of the time about basic facts. He asked lawmakers to repeat their questions no less than 48 times. According to NBC News, Mueller "deflected or declined to answer questions" at least 106 times.
He was unable to give detailed answers even to questions he had agreed to address.
He admitted to being unfamiliar with essential specifics of the investigation. He didn't even know what Fusion GPS is even though Fusion GPS, hired by Hillary and the DNC, is the outfit responsible for the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier was the basis for all four FISA surveillance warrants the DOJ got to spy on Trump and members of his campaign. It kick-started the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax and gave rise to the very claims Mueller was supposed to investigate.
At one point, Ohio Republican Steve Chabot said, "When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS, is that correct?" Stunningly Mueller replied, "I'm not familiar with that."
Mueller claimed that "conspiracy" and "collusion" are not the same thing, even though his own report states flatly that they are. Rep. Doug Collins had to read the relevant section from Mueller's own report to him.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries tried to pump some air into the obstruction of justice balloon by reciting elements that he thought fit the obstruction pattern. No luck. Said Mueller, "I don't subscribe necessarily to your — the way you analyze that."
When a friendly questioner, Rep. Greg Stanton, a Democrat from Arizona, asked Mueller which president had nominated him to be the top prosecutor in Massachusetts he couldn't remember. Stanton had to remind him that it was Ronald Reagan.
Democrats and the Talking Snake Media pummeled Mueller mercilessly. Michael Moore called him, "A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions."
David Axelrod said the whole thing was "very, very painful." Laurence Tribe said, "Much as I hate to say it, this morning's hearing was a disaster." The "d" word was also invoked by Chuck Todd of NBC News and Chris Wallace of Fox.
One House Democrat aide admitted, "It was a very bad day for us," while another called it "horrendous." Dana Milbank admitted that Republicans "eviscerated him," and ruefully added, "So this is why Mueller did not want to testify."
One other important detail was surfaced by Rep. Debbie Lesko, who informed an apparently clueless Mueller that the investigation relied more on liberal media than on actual investigating. The report cites the Washington Post 60 times, and the New York Times 75 times, but Fox News a scant 25 times.
Said Lesko, "I've got to say, it looks like Vol. II is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there's almost nothing in Vol. II that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost the American taxpayers $25 million."
It's almost impossible to overestimate the damage the hearings did to Democrat hopes of completing their coup d'etat against the president. All their hopes were riding on Mueller, and his efforts were an abysmal failure. He went from hero to goat in five hours.
House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler gamely kept pedaling. He sought to persuade Nancy Pelosi in an after-event bull session to pursue impeachment, but she continued to insist that such talk is "premature." ABC's Terry Moran said unambiguously that "impeachment's over."
Shannon Bream's staff invited 70 Democrats to come on her program to talk about the hearings and didn't find a single taker, not one.
Dan Balz of the Washington Post ruefully admitted, "Democrats are now left with one option to end Trump's presidency: The 2020 election." He added (emphasis mine) , "It will be left to the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, with the help of the party, to develop a comprehensive case against the president , one that can win 270 electoral votes. To date, that hasn't happened ."
So here's a leading member of the regressive media conceding that things look really bad for the Democrats and really good for Trump. That's gotta hurt.
Bryan Fischer hosts "Focal Point with Bryan Fischer" every weekday on AFR Talk ( American Family Radio ) from 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. (Central). He is author of The Boy to Man Book: Preparing Your Son for Manhood .
This column is printed with permission.
Tags
Who is online
367 visitors
Great article!
In total, this Mueller testimony could hardly have been worse for the Dem's, or better for the Republicans.
The Democrats did Mueller a real disservice by forcing him to come testify, when he didn't want to.
Now, I think we all know why he didn't want to, it's really kind of sad.
This is from the Republican-Led Senate Report just out. The TACTICS & TRoPeS of The INTeRNeT ReSeARCh AGeNCY.
Donald Trump swerved his fellow republicans. He used Russians (IRA) to get them out of the race. In addition, Trump used Cambridge Analytics datasets (that is another article one day).
So this article could simply be another 'hit job'; rumor mill, and/or whisper campaign set up by Russians who are still operating in America and online to manipulate conservatives. That is, get some conservatives to spread it around and 'pollute' the atmosphere!
The TACTICS & TRoPeS of The INTeRNeT ReSeARCh AGeNCY.
Literal Division: Secession
The IRA sowed both secessionist and insurrectionist sentiments, attempting to exacerbate discord against the government at federal, state, and local levels.
Content focused on secessionist movements including Texas secession (#texit) and California (#calexit). These were compared to #Brexit.
Pro-Trump Operations Commence During Primaries
The IRA had a very clear bias for then-candidate Trump’s that spanned from early in the campaign and throughout the data set.
A substantial portion of political content articulated pro-Donald Trump sentiments, beginning with the early primaries .
Aside from an extremely small set of early posts supporting Rand Paul, this preference was consistent throughout the Right-leaning IRA-created communities.
Some of the pages targeting traditionally Left-leaning audiences, such as United Muslims, very occasionally broached the idea that their members might consider Trump as well.
Comprehensive Anti-Hillary Clinton Operations
A substantial portion of political content articulated anti-Hillary Clinton sentiments among both Right and Left-leaning IRA-created communities.
There was no pro-Clinton content on Facebook or Instagram, aside from a single United Muslims Facebook Event promoting a rally encouraging Muslims to publicly demonstrate in support of Clinton’s candidacy. However, the bulk of the content on that same page was anti-Clinton, and the anti-Clinton motive behind this ostensibly pro-Clinton post is transparent.
There were some pro-Clinton Twitter posts (tweets and retweets), however, the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments. These tactics and goals overlapped with the pro-Trump portion of the operation.
Operations Targeting Prominent Figures
IRA operations targeted a wide range of Republican leaders, including Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Dr. Ben Carson. There were significant IRA mentions that aimed to increase or erode support for prominent political figures, including Julian Assange, Robert Mueller, and James Comey.
These mentions were largely an attempt to shape audience perception during a relevant news cycle. Given the recent news regarding a pending indictment of Mr. Assange, it is perhaps notable that there were a number of posts expressing support for Assange and Wikileaks, including several on October 4th, 2016, the day before Roger Stone’s text message history indicated Mr. Stone believed hacked email data would be made public via Wikileaks.
These tactics and goals overlapped with the pro-Trump portion of the operation.
Okay HA! Did you read what Russians did to Trump's "fellow" republicans? Do you think it is okay for foreign agents to interfere, okay, interact in any signifcant way with U.S. campaigns and elections?
HA, that is not what the Mueller Report stated. Your rendering is an interpretation. Here read this from the Report:
1. That's just two places in the report which clearly indicate that everything is not settled, or determined for all time. If/when new information can be discovered in desk drawers, file cabinets, safes, . . . . Oh, and for the record, "collusion" is not a term used by the Mueller Report Team. "Conspiracy" is.
2. Finally, it is time to stop with 'false flags.' Mueller was a decent enough republican (still is) up until he took on this task against your president of choice. I will not deal with partisanship and talking points when we are looking at the only work we will ever get on this case. In other words, the system used its 'best men' and did not take into account their political persuasions—which most Americans are 'guilty' of. Afterall, what investigators could Trump and his team supplied who would not be "Trump personnel"?
What we have is all we shall get. Running around trying to create alternative narratives is a dangerous position for either the witnesses involved will produce evidence they did not give to the Mueller team (and would be guilty of perjury, other crimes, or legal entanglements) or they will share nothing at all new. And, the Mueller Report stands as it is.