Thursday, July 25, 2019

The Testimony And It's Secret Meaning

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Yesterday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller appeared before two congressional committees---and before the nation, as television, radio and the internet delivered it live.

"Dazed and confused" was how more than one news source described it.

Many used the words "caught off guard," "mumbling," "stuttering," and "nervous."

Even the far-Left news organizations struggled to find value in it for their agenda, but CNN finally discovered the "real message," the "real purpose" of the testimony.

Be informed.

While Republicans directed their questions to what Mueller "actually said" in his report, the Democrats tried to get to the "secret meaning" of what Mueller meant in what he said in his report.

The testimony according to the Left.

Most leftist news reported what we already know, attempting to make it sound like "breaking news."

Yahoo News published this: "Mueller confirms report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction."

MSNBC: "Mueller: A President could be criminally charged after leaving office."

But CNN was able to actually decode Mueller's message---not what he actually said or wrote in his report, but what he meant, by the way he answered questions, and his body language.

They published this: "Mueller's Three Word Bombshell."

The article begins with this:
"It's quite possible that Robert Mueller does not want his testimony to become the trigger for a historic indictment of President Trump. But drip by drip, word by word, Mueller nonetheless---however reluctantly---produced the case that Trump is lying..."

CNN says, "Although Mueller avoided handing Democrats the soundbite they wanted...the message was there."

So now, CNN will spend days unpacking Mueller's hidden message.

And CNN explained why the Left wanted Mueller to testify yesterday. The purpose wasn't to get to the truth; It was for political gain.

The oracle of the Left said, "Democrats wanted Americans to pay attention to Mueller's report. They wanted the movie to go with the book they didn't read."

In other words, they wanted to revise what is (and is not) in print.

They hopefully reported that Republicans badgering Mueller in the hearing "probably turned off non-partisan viewers."

Concluding with this:
"In the end, Democrats did not get the perfect soundbite. But drip by drip, they may just have enough to convince at least part of the country that Trump committed crimes. Enough for impeachment? Maybe. Enough to swing votes in 2020? Definitely."

So it really was all about political gain for the Left. Not about taking care of our country. Not about getting to the truth.

It was all about overturning the will of the people---overturning the vote of about 63 million Americans who elected Trump.

The testimony according to conservatives.

There were a number of thoughtful, fact-based questions from the conservative Republicans during the testimony.

Perhaps Republican Congressman John Ratcliff best defined the response from the conservatives.

Townhall reported this:

"Now your report, and today you said that, 'All times the Special Counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles,' so which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?" Ratcliffe said.
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.
"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.

This whole matter is, indeed, a "unique situation."

I often disagree with Fox News' Chris Wallace. But on this, I agree.

Wallace said during the live broadcast of the testimony:
"This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller. He has seemed very uncertain with his brief. He doesn't seem to know what things are in the report."

Wallace continued, "I think it does raise questions about the degree to which he actually was in charge of what the final report was."

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH.) probably said what is on the mind of many informed people in the country today.

He said the testimony was about the Democrats "last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump."

Then he said this directly to Mueller:

"My Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something on the lines of 'here's why President Trump deserves to be impeached', like Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago."

The true testimony.

Pastor Jack Graham is the pastor one of the largest evangelical churches in America.

He tweeted this:
"Just returned from the UK where the churches are empty and evangelism is nearly non-existent due to the church capitulating to the culture and abandoning engagement in political and social responsibility. Faith and freedom are diminished and very few hear the gospel...Those who sit in offices and write articles and tweets calling for withdrawing from the political process in America for the sake of evangelism should wake up to the reality of fighting the good fight and take a look at W. Europe to see the future if we don't take a stand."

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Faithful.