Posted on 01/17/2018 5:46:50 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Sure Bannon can because the message is so good. He needs to do that anyway because nobody else will.
Trey “The Empty Suit” Gowdy was on Fox this AM, raining down fire and brimstone on Steve Bannon, his obvious hatred oozing from every pore. This from the big talker who, along with his GOP conspirators, let Hillary Clinton skate after she destroyed 33,000 government emails, always used her personal server as Sec. State, smashed her Blackberries with a hammer, and lied about illegally possessing top secret documents.
What Gowdy wants is TV time. The voters of SC may still be impressed by that.
What I also heard in Trey Gowdys interview this morning was something like this: Trump supporters want this to end and so do I after we get to the bottom of the matter.
What that said clearly to me is that he’s not a Trump supporter and doesn’t care the damage this charade is doing to the country.
Gowdy is a mouth who never follows through on his grandstanding.
Issa was the same way.
There was no DOJ IG report.
What constraints does Mueller really have? To me, the whole Manafort investigation, the 4:00 AM raid, going after crimes that had NOTHING to do with the Trump campaign and Russia, and the indictment itself, was a statement that said “We don’t have ANY constraints!”.
Without Rosenstein pulling back on it—and he did not—the sky was/is the limit.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
agree. no restraints. sky’s the limit
Compare the no-constraints charter of Mueller to Hillary’s email (...not investigation but) “issue”, where everyone who testified did so with immunity or without being under oath!?
In there is a disparity in justice. It begins here. Shouldn’t Bannon demand the same deal?
But this means nothing to the media because they won’t report the half I used to make the contrast, i.e., the Clinton “deal” by prosecutors. You’d think they’d have a obligation to inform the public, but they hide and propagandize everything.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? = Who will watch the watchers?
Indeed, who?
The answer used to be the public—you and I, the citizenry, and we can approve or condemn via our votes. Yet the eyes of these watchers—us—is the press.
They have utterly failed.
By taking sides and leaving out information that would challenge their worldview and who they support, they’re more than useless—they are a down-right danger.
Therefore, injustice, just because it is against those who you are against, prevails.
No one is well served by this type of justice. Not even the Left. How would the media behave if the shoes were on the opposite feet? A rhetorical question, as we all know the answer!
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.