Loading...
Title : The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.
link : The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.
The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.
I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, which is the 3rd part in a series about what to expect from the Mueller report. It's an interview with Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating President Trump and where an effort to impeach Trump would begin.The NYT interviewer is the host of the "Daily" podcast, Michael Barbaro, and, at about 8 minutes into the conversation, he traps Nadler with this stunning question: "You said that you believed the President obstructed justice, and I wonder why you would... say that publicly before the release of the Mueller report? What's the value in doing that? Does it not kind of inherently portray whatever investigation..."
Those 2 ellipses are places where Nadler interrupts. On the second interruption, I believe Barbaro was about to say that the Judiciary Committee is going to look political and biased.
Nadler, seems to anticipate that accusation, and he says says, "Well, I believe in answering questions honestly. I was asked a question." There follows a snorty little laugh. The laugh might mean: Hey, it's your fault, Barbaro, for asking me. Or it might mean: Oh, I get how you boxed me in, Barbaro, you rascal.
Barbaro observes that when Nadler was asked if he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, he could have just said "Let's wait until the Mueller report comes out." That wouldn't have been dishonest. Nadler responds, "Well, maybe I should have." Which I interpret to mean: Yeah, I wish I'd thought of that.
Listen for yourself, and check my interpretation. Don't miss the snorty little laugh after he asserts "I believe in answering questions honestly." To my ear, it's creepy and villainous.
I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, which is the 3rd part in a series about what to expect from the Mueller report. It's an interview with Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating President Trump and where an effort to impeach Trump would begin.
The NYT interviewer is the host of the "Daily" podcast, Michael Barbaro, and, at about 8 minutes into the conversation, he traps Nadler with this stunning question: "You said that you believed the President obstructed justice, and I wonder why you would... say that publicly before the release of the Mueller report? What's the value in doing that? Does it not kind of inherently portray whatever investigation..."
Those 2 ellipses are places where Nadler interrupts. On the second interruption, I believe Barbaro was about to say that the Judiciary Committee is going to look
The NYT interviewer is the host of the "Daily" podcast, Michael Barbaro, and, at about 8 minutes into the conversation, he traps Nadler with this stunning question: "You said that you believed the President obstructed justice, and I wonder why you would... say that publicly before the release of the Mueller report? What's the value in doing that? Does it not kind of inherently portray whatever investigation..."
Those 2 ellipses are places where Nadler interrupts. On the second interruption, I believe Barbaro was about to say that the Judiciary Committee is going to look
Loading...
political and biased.
Nadler, seems to anticipate that accusation, and he says says, "Well, I believe in answering questions honestly. I was asked a question." There follows a snorty little laugh. The laugh might mean: Hey, it's your fault, Barbaro, for asking me. Or it might mean: Oh, I get how you boxed me in, Barbaro, you rascal.
Barbaro observes that when Nadler was asked if he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, he could have just said "Let's wait until the Mueller report comes out." That wouldn't have been dishonest. Nadler responds, "Well, maybe I should have." Which I interpret to mean: Yeah, I wish I'd thought of that.
Listen for yourself, and check my interpretation. Don't miss the snorty little laugh after he asserts "I believe in answering questions honestly." To my ear, it's creepy and villainous.
Nadler, seems to anticipate that accusation, and he says says, "Well, I believe in answering questions honestly. I was asked a question." There follows a snorty little laugh. The laugh might mean: Hey, it's your fault, Barbaro, for asking me. Or it might mean: Oh, I get how you boxed me in, Barbaro, you rascal.
Barbaro observes that when Nadler was asked if he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, he could have just said "Let's wait until the Mueller report comes out." That wouldn't have been dishonest. Nadler responds, "Well, maybe I should have." Which I interpret to mean: Yeah, I wish I'd thought of that.
Listen for yourself, and check my interpretation. Don't miss the snorty little laugh after he asserts "I believe in answering questions honestly." To my ear, it's creepy and villainous.
Thus articles The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.
that is all articles The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-nyt-daily-podcast-traps-jerry.html
0 Response to "The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political."
Post a Comment