In the strongest incident supporting evidence of climate change thus far, Hell hath frozen over.
On Fox Business News, Judge Andrew Napolitano spoke in very strong terms in support of the Democrats, Congressman Adam Schiff, and yes, even Hillary Clinton regarding the 2016 election and the Mueller report.
Host Neil Cavuto asked Judge Napolitano about the (absurd and hypocritical) bleatings from Republicans demanding Schiff resign as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for the energy and drive he puts into into, well, doing his job. Especially since the Mueller report has come out and AG Bill Barr has delivered nothing but an anemic and exculpatory "summary" in its place to Congress and the American public.
But Judge Nap backed Schiff.
He (ed note: Mueller) must have SOME evidence of a conspiracy, because if he found NONE, that would have made its way into Bill Barr's letter.
Some people have interpreted this report to say there is NO evidence of collusion and NO evidence of obstruction of justice. That's a political interpretation, not a legal one. The Democrats are looking for what evidence is there, so that they can — as they are permitted to do under the Constitution — second-guess Mueller and second-guess Barr as to the meaning and value and quality of that evidence.
Cavuto asked, might Schiff be aware of something that Mueller wasn't? When he says he is convinced there is evidence of collusion?
I don't know the answer to that. But I think that Congressman Schiff is correct. In that report will be evidence of the existence of a conspiracy. Not enough evidence to prove the existence beyond a reasonable doubt. In that report will be evidence of obstruction of justice. Interfering with an FBI investigation for a personal gain. But not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Congressman Schiff wants to dwell on that. If he has other sources, since he's the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he has to decide when and under what circumstances to reveal those sources.
The most jaw-dropping moment, however, came between the two moments cited above, wherein Judge Napolitano flayed James Comey for his press conference regarding Hillary Clinton. He spoke in very strong terms about how the Justice Department rules are very clear that they do NOT reveal evidence against someone who is unindicted. And HRC was not indicted.
When Jim Comey went on national television three summers ago and said, "We're not gonna indict Mrs. Clinton, but we have very serious evidence against her, and here's the evidence!" he broke those rules. You don't REVEAL evidence about a person not being prosecuted.
Gee, how different might our world look if people watching Fox Business and Fox news heard that very cogent analysis three summers ago?