MILWAUKEE, WI – AUGUST 17: In this screenshot from the DNCC’s livestream of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, actress and activist Eva Longoria (L) introduces Former First Lady Michelle Obama to address the virtual convention on August 17, 2020. The convention, which was once expected to draw 50,000 people to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is now taking place virtually due to the coronavirus pandemic. (Photo by DNCC via Getty Images) (Photo by Handout/DNCC via Getty Images)
Have you watched any of the Democratic Convention? If, like the vast majority of America, you haven’t, I must confess to joining you in the legions of the “non-viewing”. You can’t “attend” so saying “non-attending” doesn’t apply. We are quickly learning the limits of distance [fill in the blank]. A convention without a crowd is like attempting to kiss your wife through Plexiglas. Blahhhh!
The little that I’ve seen though the lenses of CNN and Fox News was … borrrring! Everybody was “mailing” it in from remote locations, and it showed. It ain’t working.
The Republicans can learn from this debacle. Here’s my proposal for their convention in the era of COVID. Trump – like or hate him – is quite an interview and stage presence. Use him. Bookend the convention with 2 rallies in states that will allow large outdoor gatherings. The list could include Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Alaska, and Alabama. The Republicans will bottle the crowd energy, and people who wouldn’t think of rubbing elbows with MAGA’ers get the energy of the moment. The first one opens the convention and sets the tone. The last one is the acceptance speech and thrills the warriors to rescue the land from the socialist revolutionary party (Democratic Party).
In between, scatter some Trump interviews, endorsements (short but sweet), and motion pics such as Larry Elder’s “Uncle Tom” and video pieces of urban life under one-party, decades-long Dem Party control. The idea is to keep it moving and hit the public with your campaign points like a sledge hammer. Avoid the snooze-a-thon currently on display from the donkey party.
The metaphor is apt when applied to recent pronouncements and actions of Democrat partisans. The campaign against the winner of the 2016 presidential election most recently descended into foolish impeachment, and may have insinuated promiscuous impeachment into our national political life. Previously, calls to shake up our constitutional order were fixated on the dismantlement of the Electoral College, all this to guarantee more Democrats win the presidency. It’s shameful and grossly irresponsible, like children lighting matches to ignite a cherry bomb.
Are they cognizant of the dangers that they are foisting on us? Trent England, vice president of the Oklahoma Public Affairs Council, lays out the jeopardy to all of us in his piece, “The Dangers of the Attacks on the Electoral College” in Hillsdale College’s Imprimis (June 2019). It’s a must-read.
The effects of foolishness seldom are limited to the offender when it is performed on a political stage, and on a national one at that. Many foolhardy ideas have their origin in ignorance of the past, or a terrible misreading of it. Not well-understood is the fact that the Founders rejected a national plebiscite for choosing the president because they were fearful of domination by areas with high concentrations of population and regions with a unity of purpose. It was a check on narrow interests seizing control of the executive machinery of government.
It worked as a restraint on one of our worst tendencies: to mistakenly see the world through the lens of our immediate neighborhood and the confines of our acquaintances as the ultimate arbiter of “truth”, as in the Jim Crow South or today’s ultra-left California. Indeed, there is a historical symmetry between the Jim Crow South of yesteryear and today’s populous and heavily urbanized states like California, Illinois, and New York. The post-Civil War South accounted for an average of 10.6 % of the vote and the California of 2016 was 10.4% of it.
In the elections of 1876, 1880, and 1888, the old South – the old South of real black voter suppression, not the phony kind falsely attributed to voter ID – was prevented from imposing their partisan choices on the rest of the country. After all, this was the South of region-wide block voting for the Democratic Party, no matter what. This is a region of “yellow dog Democrats” stretching from North Carolina to Texas who “would sooner vote for a Democrat yellow dog than a Republican”. Sounds like a typical faculty lounge, big city, or Manhattan/Hollywood soiree of today.
Four of the five ladies of The View are noticeably chagrined and incredulous at having to hear the occasional disagreements of Megan McCain. The four reflect the bubble of the new “yellow dog Democrat”.
Donald Trump, Jr., in the hot seat on The View.
To deal with their frustration, our deeply blue, and occasionally purple, states have contrived a scheme to repeal the Electoral College without an amendment. It’s called the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative. The thing would try to impose a presidential popular vote by getting enough states to pass statewide measures to require the nationwide vote total to determine their state’s electors. The scammers’ goal is to win over enough states to equal a majority of the Electoral College total, 270. Thereby, the old fuddy-duddy Electoral College will be practically repealed without having to do it the right way: by amendment. The schemers are currently ready to surpass 200.
Robert Burns’ “best laid plans of mice and men [go wrong]” is about to be confirmed again. The ploy is anti-constitutional as well as unconstitutional. First, the gimmick violates the original intent of the Founders, but, then again, when did progressives/socialists ever concern themselves with original intent. The Founders stipulated that a state’s electors were chosen by the states, not a national statistic like the national vote total. The easy-out for progressives is for all troublesome law to be interpreted out of existence. That’s anti-constitutional.
Secondly, the subterfuge violates Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. This troubling passage to progressives requires all interstate compacts to be approved by Congress, and this most assuredly is an interstate compact, whether they want to call it that or not. They’ll try to hide under the Constitutional power of each state to determine their method of choosing electors. But, as in all things, a limiting principle applies: a state can, if they don’t violate the Constitution in the process.
Like this latest round of impeachment, the gambit is a sham. Who in their right mind would want to live under the dictates of the lunatic cultural left? Remember, these states have some of the loosest election laws since troglodytes had to choose a tribal chief. They’ll run up the score with their usual shenanigans and the rest of us will be saddled with the result. Is this any way to run a republic?
William Taylor, left, and George Kent prepare testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2019, during the first public impeachment hearing. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Photo via AP)
Has a mental smog descended on certain socio-political tribes in the American population? It’s a kind of groupthink, and each group with shared interests and much else in common is smothered by it. Is it present at National Review, both online and print? The editors and many of the contributing writers seems to have taken for granted that “impeachment is political”, as if it is “only” political. But is it? I think not.
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru (l) of The National Review join Judy Woodruff of PBS News Hour to discuss the week’s political news, Oct. 4, 2019
Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor, in his piece , “Rush from Judgment” in the October 28 issue, repeats the boilerplate. If we accept impeachment as being political, I recoil in horror for its vicious consequences.
Impeachment wasn’t always considered such. It mustn’t have been since there were so few, and only 3 presidential ones in 230 years. “Political” impeachments would have to be, by necessity, partisan in nature, especially since the onset of political parties nearly at the gitgo (Federalist, Democrat-Republican). Still, the fact is, we didn’t have our first presidential impeachment till 1868 and it was under freak circumstances. The 40th Congress in the wake of the Civil War was awash in Radical Republicans waving the bloody shirt (Republican campaign tactic to remind voters of Southern and Democrat perfidy). 45 of the 53 Senators were Republican. The R’s dominated the House 143 to 45.
“The Situation”, a Harper’s Weekly editorial cartoon shows Secretary of War Stanton aiming a cannon labeled “Congress” to defeat Johnson. The rammer is “Tenure of Office Bill” and cannonballs on the floor are “Justice”.
Yeah, the episode was political in a narrow sense but even the firebrands, chomping at the bit to get Andrew Johnson, had to pay heed to statutory violations, all emanating from the recently passed Tenure of Office Act, over Johnson’s veto. Certainly, the Act was an impeachment trap, but even they couldn’t rely on Johnson’s alleged drunkenness and overall instability in office to remove what they considered to be a huge political obstacle. There’s something about impeachment that Ponnuru and company miss. Our current chattering classes omit an earlier and widespread understanding that politics wasn’t nearly enough.
It can’t be boiled down to Ford’s specious dictum: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Ford was foolish, and so would we be to take it seriously.
Today, it’s become fashionable to reduce impeachment to politics, the easier for our social betters, deeply entrenched in our cultural centers and DC, to get Trump. If you think about it, the “politics” of impeachment stare at you in the face. The two political houses of the first branch get to pass judgment on the second political branch. They are political in nature, with their political parties and partisan fights, and are given the power to remove a president. The situation lends itself to political shenanigans; however, there’s more to the story.
Government cannot avoid “politics”, despite the progressives’ futile crusade to insulate as much of the state from the grubbiness of politics. As we learned recently, all they succeeded in doing is creating a political and unaccountable administrative state. Politics never disappeared; it just entered the bloodstream of the ever-expanding Leviathan.
Come to think of it, the third branch (judiciary) isn’t above the muck of the political sewer since many state and local judicial posts are elective posts and the federal judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court is caught up in the power of legislating. Speak “government” – any part of it – and you will be bellowing “politics”.
“Politics” is not all there is to government, though. We get a hint in our professed belief that we are a nation of laws, not men. Overhanging the messiness of the politics of law-making is the principle of equity (basic impartiality), and after the the law is produced, the law’s adjudication demands more equity in the form of due process. We’re not perfect in our legislation. Samuel Johnson exclaimed that sometimes the law is an ass. Nevertheless, bounds are placed on our penchant to enlist the state in service of our demands at the detriment of others.
Similarly, bounds are placed on the act of impeachment. The actors are political but the process isn’t. The thing shadows normal jurisprudence. The charging power (impeachment) is in the House and a trial is conducted in the Senate. The Constitution outlines the statutory violations of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. At the time of the Constitution’s writing, the new federal Congress didn’t exist and therefore it hadn’t produced a single word of statute. Thus, the list of transgressions had to be general in nature, but are still statutory nonetheless. As in a regular court hearing that it adumbrates, regular due process can’t be ignored. Congress can’t do whatever its little political heart desires.
Robert S. Bennett, a nonpartisan attorney, defended President Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings. (NICK UT/AP 1998)
Yet, Ponnuru tries to bolster his case for “political” impeachment by dredging up the 1804 impeachment and removal of Federal District Court Judge John Pickering. Ponnuru gets the incident wrong by distilling the case against Pickering to one of “low character”.
But what of Pickering’s “low character”? The “low character” was one of observable deterioration of mental capacity, instability while performing official duties, rulings glaringly discordant with standards of jurisprudence, drunkenness behind the bench, etc. The guy was a mess and didn’t live up to his oath of office. The problem was so noticeable to staff and the other judges in the federal circuit that they acted to suspend him by moving his caseload to Circuit Judge Jeremiah Smith. Pres. Jefferson sent the evidence to impeach to Congress and it quickly became embroiled in the partisan food fight between Federalists and Democrat-Republicans. Still, if impeachment can’t be applied here, it can’t be applied anywhere, regardless of the spit and fuming of the parties.
Judge John Pickering
The “low character” of Pickering is something far more than the bumbling and coarseness of Trump; something far more than a rambling phone call to the Ukrainian president.
I suspect that a residuum of animosity exists among the editors of the magazine against the “imperial presidency” (completely understandable) alongside Trump’s 2016 attack on the magazine. If so, I’m with you, but I can’t make my indignation a selective one. Essentially, all 20th and 21st century chief executives – with the exception of the 1920’s execs – abused their powers for over a hundred years, and so deserve the adjective “imperial”. Theodore Roosevelt saw himself as ringmaster of his own political Barnum and Bailey Circus. Woodrow Wilson gave us War Socialism, which was an extension of is own vastly expanded Leviathan. After a brief interlude in the 1920’s, the electorate foisted FDR upon itself for four terms.
FDR at one of his famous fireside chats.
And, ohhhh, there’s FDR. He presents a special case of defilement of the Article II powers. Not only was he given carte blanche to destroy something that was rationalized as farm “surpluses” (march livestock to the death pits, bribe people not to be productive) in the Agricultural Adjustment Act – thus giving “adjustment” a sinister ring – and to impose socialistic cartelization on nearly the entire American economy in the quasi-fascistic National Industrial Recovery Act, he was profligate in the application of his new-found powers for his personal political benefit. He was famous for lavishing taxpayer largesse on supporters and rejecting it for opponents. No wonder the guy got four terms.
We ought not to leave this very special political specimen without mentioning his persecution of Samuel Insull. Just like the Elizabeth Warrens of today, FDR wanted scalps for the Depression in a grotesque display of unrestrained reductionism and vicious class warfare. Insull was a successful businessman with his own holding company (the industrial equivalent of a broad-market mutual fund) that was responsible, by the way, for electrifying much of the country. It collapsed in the market crash, thousands lost their investments, and FDR was elected as the avenging demon. Insull fled. Our president-as-tsar went hither and yon to hunt him down, using his executive powers for a political vendetta in a manner that would make George III cringe.
Samuel Insull jailed after his extradition from Turkey in 1934.
Well, His Majesty’s imperial guard caught up with Insull in Turkey and brought him back in irons. Insull was soon marched off to 3 separate trials and before judge and jury was promptly acquitted of all charges. Is there a moral to the story? It might be that the innocently accused will win in the end (or, then again, maybe not), but not till after personal ruination. He died penniless in a Paris subway in 1938.
Do I need to mention LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton? Clinton had a hard time keeping his fly zipped, was caught in flagrante delicto with an intern, feebly tried to intimidate witnesses, and lied before a federal grand jury. He was allowed to finish his term, but a warning to minors was issued (probably unsuccessfully as per the Epstein case).
Going further down history lane and we arrive at Obama. Is it any surprise that a community activist would give us a community activist presidency? Let’s see, we had Fast and Furious, which was an attempt at entrapment of the Second Amendment. A border agent got killed in that one. Let’s see, there was the use of the IRS as an attack dog against Tea Party opponents. Let’s see, there was Obama’s discovery of his “phone and pen” to issue imperial decrees. And, finally, let’s see, we had the recruitment of the intelligence agencies and the FBI into his Praetorian Guard in a bid to defame Trump. A full accounting has yet to be written for that sordid tale.
And then there’s lowly Trump. He’s accused of soiling the office in a feeble and rambling conversation with the president of … Ukraine, of all paces. Trump comes off as a piker when compared to his predecessors.
Expect more excursions into impeachment-based political vengeance if impeachment is distilled to mere politics. Our penchant for divided government (different parties controlling different branches) would create a conga line down impeachment lane. Every two years could produce the precursors of impeachment lynch mobs. Is that what the Framers had in mind? Is it healthy for our system of governance to be constantly on the brink of volume 11? Once we become inured to the political cannabis high of impeachment, what’s next? The meth of civil war?
Nothing good can come of “political” impeachment. It’s not only wrong. It’s dangerous.
The transcript of the “infamous” call to Ukrainian president Zelensky by Pres. Trump, July 25, 2019.
Regarding Trump’s phone call to Zelensky, president of Ukraine, an oral message put on paper and then read isn’t the same as performance of the conversation in the manner in which it was delivered: person-to-person in conversational tones. Adam Schiff’s bastardized performance is a travesty. I’m talking about taking the original transcript and vocally delivering the actual words as they occur in a natural conversation. Once you do that, the air is taken out of the Democrat’s impeachment balloon. There’s no there there.
Duane Patterson (l), Hugh Hewitt (r).
Hugh Hewitt and his producer, Duane Patterson, conducted such a reading (Hour 2, Hugh Hewitt Show, 10/2/19). If performed as it was originally delivered, certain conclusions about the call stand out:
(1) Trump is right. There was no quid pro quo. There was no use of presidential power to advance his candidacy. There was no offer, implied or otherwise, to withhold aid for purely partisan advantage.
(2) Zelensky brought up Giuliani, not Trump. Trump was asking Ukraine for their assistance in our probe of Russia-gate. Of course, Giuliani, being the personal attorney of the president, is also gathering evidence to defend his client against the Democrats’ anti-Trump jihad. Remember, Clinton had an entire war room devoted to the defense of our priapic 42nd chief executive. In fact, the conversation mostly skirts the mention of Giuliani.
(3) The aid that the US has given the Ukraine was mentioned to remind Zelensky that allies operate in a reciprocal manner, and Europe provides little help to Ukraine. We need some international help to investigate a matter of international scope, not necessarily to go after “lunch pale” Joe. We have treaties with other nations to cover these eventualities.
(4) Biden is mentioned by Trump in a brief, offhanded manner. It was mentioned to highlight the possibility of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. The Crowdstrike reference is brought up in the beginning by Trump to make the point. That’s the context.
I could say more. It is very strange for Congressional firebrands like Schiff to rush to impeachment over this frail thread. Is this an attempt to head off Barr and Durham as they draw close to the origins of Russia-gate? If so, indeed, we have a coup underway.
In this April 25, 2006, file photo, John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn. (AP Photo/Bob Child, File) (Washington Examiner)
Kyle Smith’s review of Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time … In Hollywood compared Tarantino’s film with Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America. Tarantino adopted Leone’s technique of a singular story thread set in a panoramic and historical scene. If some future filmmaker wanted to channel Watergate’s All the President’s Men and Leone, the current unraveling of the Russia-collusion-Mueller-Comey-et al saga would provide excellent grist for the mill.
The Setting
All the elements are present. The grand backdrop is present-day DC with 364,000 federal government workers, many at the top of the federal pyramid scheming and plotting for partisan and personal advantage, and a mass of hanger-ons populating K Street and other nodes in the metropolitan area. The administrator water cooler talk must be impregnated with the expectations born of a peculiar universe’s lifestyle and norms that are divorced from the real world’s preoccupation with producing the necessities and wants of life. It’s a world unto its own, all put on steroids by the 44th president’s ideological penchant for big government as a cure-all. It is great for those seeking highly remunerative and secure employment in a highly unproductive sector, coupled with fantastic opportunities for the city’s real estate agents.
Enter stage left, Donald Trump (protagonist or antagonist depending on one’s point of view): crass, boorish, sometimes vulgar, and a champion of the pitchfork brigade. He wasn’t supposed to win. And when he did, the curtain was thrown open as in the The Wizard of Oz.
Woodrow Wilson’s government of “experts” is exposed as a charade. I can only speculate about the extent of the conniving, scheming, and plotting for personal and partisan advantage as a normal facet of life particularly in the administrative suites of the nation’s capital. Regardless, the now-bogus collusion story ripped the smiley face off the Leviathan.
Act One: Pride Before the Fall
Like many scandals, this one has at least two acts or phases: the first one peddled by the left-oriented and self-styled cultural “betters” in the media, academia, and the Democratic Party in our cosmopolitan centers, and the later, more sinister one as the initial story began to unravel.
Phase one seemed implausible from the get-go for anyone with a scintilla of adult skepticism, but it was overwhelmed by volume, both in quantity and decibel levels in our left-dominated media channels. That story is now familiar. A litany of banalities consumed the airwaves: “Russia attacked our democracy”; “Trump is a Putin stooge”; “The Russians elected Trump”; “Trump conspired with the Russians”; etc., etc., etc. You’ve heard the carnival barking.
The party of more government and big government – the Democratic Party – needs government power, and they failed to get it. Their loss necessitates an explanation, and it can’t be that their vision of the better world isn’t popular enough. The default excuse is malevolence by some unseen and nefarious forces attached to the winner. It just so happens that an expedient was readily available from their own skulduggery in the 2016 campaign. Democrat trolling for dirt – often called “oppo research” – led to the Hillary campaign > Fusion GPS > Christopher Steele > the Steele dossier > FBI/DNI/CIA spying on Trump > leaks to a salivating press. The stage is set for its continuation after Trump’s shocking victory.
A common reaction after shock is rage. Sure, Trump’s bombastic rhetoric acted as an accelerant, but that matters little. George W bent over backwards in a contortionist’s pretzel to accommodate and still earned the rant, “Bush lied and people died”, alongside efforts at his impeachment. Rage is a powerful motivator to do some really bad things, even using falsehoods to repeal an election. Remember, power is far more important to a progressive than to those more conservative since it is needed to overwhelm parents’ concerns about such things as their little daughters sharing a bathroom with boys who believe – or simply make the claim – that they can think themselves into being girls.
The ploy required a predicate. It was found in the jingle, “Russia attacked our democracy.” We don’t have a democracy; we have a constitutional republic … but I digress. How did Putin attack our so-called democracy and purportedly steal the election from her highness? A few trolling farms and $100,000 in Facebook ads, half of which were pro-Hillary and half were after the election?
In fact, the presiding judge in the trial of one of the defendants (Concord Management and Consulting LLC) indicted by Mueller chastised Jeannie Rhee, a former Obama Deputy Attorney General and part of Mueller’s team, and Mueller (and by extension Atty. Gen. Barr) for prejudicing a potential jury by reaching conclusions in the publicly released Mueller report not supported in the indictment, thereby raising doubts about the strength of the evidence linking the firm to the Russian government. Could the mantra “Russia stole the election” be a bait-and-switch maneuver with the mantra being loudly proclaimed by a partisan mob in the media and Congress as the Mueller gang switches to the thin gruel of a far lesser claim in court? Are we, the public, being scammed?
Jeannie Rhee, former Deputy Attorney General under Obama and Special Counsel prosecutor under Mueller.
How could 1/100th ($50,000) of a 30-second Super Bowl ad bend a 63 million-vote election spread over 274, 252 precincts and 113,754 polling paces? Hillary alone was awash in $700 million. Trump fell $300 million short. The charge is preposterous given the minuscule effort, and ignores the history of this kind of thing. Almost every Israeli election results in American campaign operatives tramping over to Tel Aviv to help Labor or Likud. One of Obama’s chief campaign advisers, Jeremy Bird, showed up in the country in 2015 to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu. We’ve left our fingerprints in other countries as well. The PRC helped bankroll Bill Clinton’s reelection. Soviet disinformation money seeded street protests in America and Europe throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, a godsend to Teddy Kennedy’s efforts to frustrate Reagan. Soviet efforts didn’t stop there. The Venona disclosures in 1995 and the brief opening of Soviet Communist Party archives in 1991 showed evidence of Soviet espionage and the presence of agents of influence occupying powerful positions under FDR and Truman. And today’s Democrats and their fellow travelers are carping about a few bots and Facebook ads?
Venona Project. Meredith Gardner, at far left, working with cryptanalysts, mid-1940’s.
The predicate is a farce. It’s in the DNA of international relations for nations to influence strategically important countries. In another time it was called statecraft. We would be well-served if we remembered the concept when observing the vicious mullahs in Tehran.
Oh, they squeal that the Russsians “hacked our democracy” when they were alleged to have purloined Hillary’s and the DNC’s emails and began to disseminate them through Wikileaks. Wikileaks is most certainly a pipeline for Russian (and any other nation’s) chicanery. After all, they came out of the same anti-western and anti-US breeding ground that gave us CISPES (advanced the interests of the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua), the nuclear freeze movement (supported by Soviet disinformation measures), Code Pink, today’s Antifa, and the perpetual peace-at-literally-any-price crowd. The mission statement of being the guardians of government transparency is a facade for useful idiots. They’ll take information from any source so long as it further their end, which is the embarrassment of only western governments.
What’s missing from the hacked-our-democracy charge is any semblance of context. Of course, in our intensely techie world, cyber crime is as big a thing as mail fraud was in the days before Intel. No doubt, the bumbling Hillary made it easy by concocting her own digital communication system in her basement, bathroom, closet, or what have you. She would be an easy mark for any government with nearly unlimited resources (since all governments skim off as much as they want from their citizens’ private economic activity) to play this game. The 2015 Chinese (PRC) hacking of the federal OPM data base, getting personal information on 20 million persons in the process, is illustrative.
Any system is vulnerable, including Hillary’s garage setup, the DNC, RNC, and anyone else thought to be important. The Iranians remember Stuxnet in 2010, the joint US-Israeli worm to crash the regime’s nuclear program computers. Whether through phishing or incredibly easy passwords in the case of the DNC, cyber warfare is part of statecraft. Make the best safeguards as possible, but it will remain a staple of modern life.
Was it as vice-president Cheney called it, “an act of war”? Hardly. The behavior is so common that we would be in a constant state of war with almost any nation with access to a keyboard. Cheney’s declaration is ludicrous.
But is it even relevant to Hillary’s 2016 loss? Both candidates were held in low esteem going into the election. Hillary’s negatives were 24 points higher than her positives and Trump’s were even worse (41 points). It wasn’t hacked emails that dragged Hillary down. Hillary has left a well-known slimy trail from Arkansas to DC. She’s a known quantity, and it smells. As for Trump, he was stinking up the works with his boorish rhetoric, past sexual escapades, and Access Hollywood. Could it be that a easily dislikeable candidate, 8 years of Obama malaise, a horrible campaign strategy, poor campaign management, and Trump being a fresh face had more to do with the result than Wikileaks and $100,000 in Facebook ads?
However, giving the story heft was our FBI in DC, something euphemistically called the “intel community”, and who knows how many big cheeses in the Obama administration. More than putting a thumb on the scale, they were sitting on it.
First, Comey’s gang “exonerated” Hillary after her clear violations of 18 U.S. Code § 798 et al. Furthermore, and amazingly, Comey and his courtiers somehow reached the conclusion that bleach-bitting her hard drives and servers and smashing devices to smithereens didn’t qualify as obstruction of justice. And to think that Trump had to fight through hell for two and a half over the now-dubious charges of conspiring with Russia and interfering (obstruction) with Mueller’s inquisition into a non-crime.
Go figure. Now that’s the stuff of movies.
As Comey was clearing Hillary, he was conducting a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign since at least summer 2016. A piece of Democrat oppo research – the Steele Dossier – was funneled to the FBI, Obama’s Justice and State Departments, and Obama’s intel chiefs, Clapper and Brennan. The Democrat oppo research was filled with vile falsehoods but was peddled to FISA courts to entrap people connected to Trump, no matter how loose their affiliation. Ironically, the Dossier would turn out to be the only proven instance of collusion: the cooperative arrangement between the Russians, Steele, and the Hillary campaign/DNC.
With sycophants in the media, leaks would keep the pot boiling in an attempt to delegitimize Trump’s victory up to the point when drips and drabs of FBI/Obama mischievousness start to dribble into view, and the release of Mueller’s incoherent report in April of 2019 raised new concerns about the fable.
Anyway, the 2018 midterms gave the House to the Democrats and off into impeachment land we go.
By the time of the release of Mueller’s unintelligible tome, enough was known of the gross misbehavior of Obama’s people and his holdovers in the executive branch. The rogues gallery includes Strok, Page, McCabe, Comey, the Ohrs, Clapper, Brennan, maybe Lynch, and anybody else in the Obama claque now looking to lawyer-up. Include the minor interstellar bodies who are in the orbit of Obama’s intel glob like Halper and Misfud. Also, friendly foreign intel services were more than happy to participate in the scam.
The plot thickens. With one house of our bicameral legislature in hunger pangs for impeachment, getting Trump becomes more than partisan mudslinging. It becomes institutional, partisan mudslinging on the federal dime. Subpoenas fly and the Bolsheviks took over committee chairs. Who’d have thunk it?
Jerry Nadler, chrmn. House Judiciary Comm., and Adam Schiff, chrmn. of the House Intelligence Comm.
Impeachment was juiced up. The Democrats’ electoral success in 2018, though, could possibly end up breeding their own fall. In Sophocles’s tragedy, Ajax, Ajax proudly asserts that he doesn’t need Zeus’s help. Oedipus in Oedipus Rex boastfully claims the genius to solve a murder mystery. It didn’t end well. From the Book of Proverbs, 16:18: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Warnings abounded, but the Dems insisted on pushing the issue.
The April release of the much-anticipated Mueller Report made matters murkier. Trump collusion was put to bed but he was “not exonerated” (?) of obstruction, something Hilary did blatantly. Now that’s an extremely odd concept in a prosecutor’s brief, “not exonerated”. It’s such a loose concept that anybody not charged can be labeled “not exonerated”. That’s not how our system works. Innocence is presumed, not “not exonerated”. Well, it’s enough of a kernel for Democrats blinded with rage for losing in 2016.
Then Mueller reluctantly testified after the Dems threatened him with subpoenas. Mueller’s testimony proved to be the emperor with no clothes. Bumbling, stumbling, incoherent, and ignorant of his own report made the show an embarrassment for both him and the Dems.
The spectacle raises questions about who was running the show in the Office of Special Counsel. Was Mueller merely the man running interference for the likes of Andrew Weissman and Jeannie Rhee, both leftovers from Obama’s DOJ?
The Special Counsel and his team.
Mueller’s awkward performance and his lack of familiarity with the report that bears his name would seem to indicate that the partisan inmates were running the partisan asylum. 13 of the 17 prosecutors working under Mueller were registered Democrats – and prominent Democrat apparatchiks in DC – with the remaining four unknown or unaffiliated.
Mark July 24, 2019 on your calendar, the day of Mueller’s testimony. It’s the day for all-things-Russia to exit stage left. Another angle to the story, frothing beneath the surface, is about to spill over the top.
The curtain comes down on Act One.
Act Two: The Fall
The script for Act II has not been written. Yet, key elements are present for a second generation Watergate.
The full story of the lefty nexus of the mainstream media, the Obama holdovers in the executive branch, and the Democratic Party has yet to be written. This place has the potential for a real conspiracy. Attorney General Barr, US Attorney Durham, US Attorney Huber, and IG Horowitz will have something to say in due course, though the general outlines are already present. The investigation of the investigators has just begun, the start of Act Two.
Yes, the rogue’s gallery mentioned earlier should lawyer-up. It’s a great time to be a criminal defense lawyer in DC.
Here’s a possible scenario. The story begins with the effort to remove Trump from the political scene. Comey’s in the middle of it. Comey and his claque in the FBI were eager to use the fraudulent dossier to undermine the Trump campaign and presidency as early as summer 2016, after which they would end up with 4 FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The applications for the warrants to begin the effort were deceptions to the FISA judges. The operation (“Crossfire Hurricane”) continued well into 2017.
The media played along to perpetuate the story. They acted like a megaphone for wild and lurid claims for gross partisan advantage. It was a cooperative venture among a triad of actors: (1) big name/legacy media, (2) the DNC/Hillary campaign, and (3) an executive branch that acted like its namesake, a community organizer – which is nothing but a rabble-rousing community activist.
But surprise, surprise: Trump won. And ….. Stay tuned for the rest of the story.
I didn’t watch the Democrat debate last night. It’d be too painful. Anyway, the general script for the primary has already been written. The parade of the ambitious are functioning like the old March of Dimes telethon … in reverse. Instead of calling in to donate money, the candidates act like the volunteers in the phone bank announcing the latest request for more of other people’s money. It’s a marathon about how much to give away, not contribute.
Cartoon #1
In the first cartoon – “Bernie Panders” – Bernie Sanders proclaims he’ll call and raise the bids of the faux indigenous candidate (Elizabeth Warren) and our giddy sophomore class president (AOC) in their demands to write off the student loan debt of people who voluntarily stoked up their debt in their halcyon days on campus, much of it accumulated in grad school. Now they have to pay it back with a payback schedule bent-over-backwards to make it easy.
Who’ll pay for the giveaway? It won’t be the young scions of the upper income and upper middle income families who mostly ran up the debt. The favorite target of our politically ambitious rabble-rousers is the rich, out of which they won’t get anywhere close to retiring the $1.4 trillion price tag. All the while, the targets hide their money or flee the country, and the millstone around the neck of toddlers and the yet-to-be-born – called the national debt – will only get heftier. Too bad. Toddlers and the yet-to-be-born don’t vote. Not yet anyway.
Cartoon #2
Cartoon #2 brings up another antic of the spendthrifts. Here, the presidential wannabes magically transform an economic good/service into a “right”, resurrecting FDR’s old ploy. FDR, great guy, but occasionally he spouted nonsense. How do you turn something produced with limited resources into a “right”? Answer: you can’t. It’d be like reducing obesity by legislatively repealing gravity. Economic behavior is as natural to us as our teeth. The behavior can’t be repealed.
You make it a “right”, and therefore “free” to the user, and the demand floodgates are thrown open. The concept of a checking account with limited funds has no relevance. You want it; it’s a “right”; you get it. The only real limit is politics, and that is based on how much the people will tolerate the declining quality, the delays, and the denial of services. It plays out whether in the Soviet Union or the British Health Service.
It’s silly beyond belief to equate a “right” to an economic good/service to the right to free speech. Free speech has guard rails (Schenck v. United States, 1919), like a highway, but there is no set limit to the number cars taking the route in the course of its life. Healthcare is limited to the number of people who are capable of providing it and other resources not committed to other necessities. Healthcare isn’t geared to be a “right”.
Don’t tell that to the politically ambitious panderers. Also don’t tell them that “payer” in single payer means “taxpayer”, not “government”.
Cartoon #3
I heard that there was much Spanish speaking at the pander-fest in Miami. Spanish is a beautiful language, but I suspect the display was identity pandering. If it’s a “dog whistle” (using woke language), it’s one tuned to the ears of the multicultural barkers. Their agenda includes the practical erasure of the border. Thus cartoon #3.
Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I is about to be read out of The Constitution. Once you eliminate border enforcement by dismantling ICE and turning the rest into a construction battalion to build bridges across the Rio Grande, any person living in a dirt floor hut is a soon-to-be-an-American. Would you ever again be able to connect the word “manage” to the word “immigration”? Would there be relevance of “rule of law” to the subject of “immigration”? Hardly. Where’s the law since you trampled it into the ground?
Cartoon #4
Cartoon #4 gives a clue about the state of mind of the Democratic Party. Gargantuan offerings of free government stuff is a certain path to ruin. It’s a race to emulate Argentina, or maybe Venezuela, or maybe the Soviet Union. Ruination can be a democratic choice.
President Obama: “We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime — but also to other players on the ground — that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
“That would change my calculus; that would change my equation.”
* Barack Obama from Aug. 20, 2012 press conference as reported by CNN.
******
Here we go again down the same road paved by Obama. On Thursday Iran shoots down one of our drones. Trump threatens action, speculates that the action might have been that of a lone wolf officer, issues the threat of retaliation, then couples the threat with a request for talks, and finally announces that he’ll do … nothing. What does this sound like to you? It’s worse than an unenforced red line. It’s open season on American surveillance of the Persian Gulf.
What accounts for the spastic reply to an Iranian provocation? I may be way off base but I think that he has a kitchen cabinet of a couple of Fox News celebrities: Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. Both make noises that they would like the U.S. to return to being a regional power. In broadcasts after the shootdown, Carlson and Ingraham rhetorically questioned the vital U.S. interest at stake in the Middle East. Call them the Rand Paul wing of cable news. The result is that the rest of Trump’s foreign policy team is left to compete with flashy cable TV personalities for influence.
Tonight, Tucker was at it again. A fire hose of hyperbole ensued about the evil influence of “neocons”, meaning John Bolton, who in Tucker’s mind, along with Bill Kristol, “planned” the Iraq invasion. Leaving aside the insult to fact and logic, Tucker appears to be channeling Charles Lindbergh and his America First Committee of 1940-1. Lindbergh fit into the overall climate of revulsion after World War I just like Tucker and a few others in the neo-isolationist right were repulsed by Bush’s messy Iraq adventure. Lindbergh and his group lasted until Japanese bombs starting dropping on our servicemen in Hawaii. What’ll happen to Tucker and Laura if American blood is shed because we failed to act when it was a drone?
Oh, I forgot. These types always have an easy out. They will claim that we should have never been there in the first place. Of course, the same logic would hold true wherever in the world that we happen to plant the flag. Soon our navy will be relegated to coastal patrol duty. Only in those places will neo-isolationists accept our interests to be “vital”.
Is this any way to run a foreign policy? You’ve got to wonder. At times, Trump’s foreign policy path resembles a user of LSD.
First, Trump thought he could charm the leader of a brutal thugocracy – North Korea – and came away with __?__ . He probably thought that he was engaging the equivalent of a city planning commission. The Kim clan, like many littering the world since the dawn of hominids, has so much blood on their hands that you’d mistake their fiefdom for the old Union Stockyards in Chicago. Underlings who fail Kim die, which was the fate of the unlucky chap who was Kim’s main functionary at the Hanoi soiree. Apparently, there’s no such thing as severance pay in North Korea.
And Trump actually thought that he was going to charm this guy?
Trump came out of both meetings talking up North Korea’s prospects as something like the next Atlantic City. Come to think of it, the current reality of Atlantic City comes close to matching the current reality of North Korea.
Trump campaigned as the anti-Bush and the anti-Obama. Trump personalizes issues such that policies and actions taken by these two bogeymen must be bad because … Bush and Obama did them. It’s not due to some grand strategic vision. Vision shmavision. His comes close to the hallucinations of the aforementioned LSD user. It took TV images of children being gassed to force Trump into his anti-Obama personality and enforce Obama’s rhetorical red line. TV works for Trump when “peace through strength” doesn’t. Absent a TV image for Trump, “peace through strength” has all the wallop of wet toilet paper.
Now we’re back to TV taking center stage with “sage” advice on dealing with Iran offered up by the Tucker and Laura gang. For them, so what if Iran’s proxies are tramping all over the Middle East firing rockets into Israel, propping up thugs, threatening our alliances, and turning the Persian Gulf into a minefield. For them, so what if the Middle East is a crescent of terror that’ll make another part of the world off limits to the United States, and a staging base for crazies with box cutters and pressure-cooker bombs. For them, so what if our regional allies feel abandoned and look elsewhere. China and Russia are waiting in the wings. For Tucker and Laura, so what.
For the rest of us, it smells like Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy of the 1970’s, or maybe Lindbergh’s of 1940-1, or the fallout of Obama’s apology tour. Are you sure we didn’t elect Barack Hussein Trump in 2016?
Senator Kamala Harris in Houston on Saturday, March 23, where she unveiled early portions of her first policy rollout, a federal investment in teacher pay. (Larry W Smith/EPA, via Shutterstock)
It’s a good thing that the Democrats have hung their hat on Abortion Unlimited. At least they’ll be consistent. If you want to abort an economy, vote Democratic. There is a difference between the two abortifacients, though. Aborting a baby is intentional. Aborting an economy is a minor matter to Democrats in the quest for power, instill economic vengeance, and funnel bennies at public expense to their political allies.
Take Kamala Harris’s latest bribe to the biggest gorilla of campaign deep pockets: the teacher unions. Sorry, it ain’t Big Oil or the NRA (#262 and #500 respectively in the rankings). The deepest of deep pockets belongs to Fahr, Inc. (read Tom Steyer) and NEA/AFT, teammates in bankrolling Democrats. To cement the incestuous relationship, she wants a nationwide 23% increase in teacher pay (according to a CNN analysis). What teacher wouldn’t be willing to punch her ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? But forget about paying for it.
Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren wants to bribe millennials – the most “educated” (?) generation in history (meaning the possession of paper, mostly empty, credentials) – with free college and forgiveness of college debt. The whole bribe is to be financed by a wealth tax. Recall, the excise is an old and failed one. 12 European countries had it, and dumped the silliness due to capital flight. Little revenue and a stagnating economy resulted. In her zeal to out-bribe Harris, she could care less.
The rest of the Dem herd will either outbid or bellow “me too”, as in the Green New Deal Stalinism. Like the greenie idiocy, a few party kooks announce the insanities and the ambitious adults jump on board. Amazing! Their bribes and the government takeover of most of life will do nothing but import Stalin’s economy. A vote for a Dem is a vote for Gosplan.
The old Gosplan Building in Moscow; today, the home of the State Duma. It was from this building that the Bolshevik “best and brightest” attempted to manage the entire economic life of the country.
I know. I know. The title engages a noun that has entered cliché territory. Still, it applies to Mueller’s tome after an expedition of the likes of Alexander the Great’s invasion of Persia to the ends of the world. In the end, after $40 million and almost 2 years, all Mueller got was indictments of a bunch of foreigners who’ll never face an American judge and questionable actions against bit players for after-the-fact infractions/crimes. The whole rectal exam was about “collusion” – even the “obstruction” barking – and, in the end, there’s no there, there.
The brouhaha proved an old axiom that if you intensely look long enough, you’ll find something – even if that something amounts to … nothing. Turn a building inspector loose on my property for 2 years and he’ll find “something”. How many violations of law did you commit after waking up (maybe before), knowingly or unknowingly? We live in a world of a straightjacket of laws and regulations.
Bottom line: no collusion, and the charge of “obstruction” is silly – so says both Barr AND Rosenstein. The point raised by Barr before his elevation to AG is dispositive. If there’s no crime, for what reason could Trump be obstructing? Key to obstruction is evil intent, something deep within a person’s mind. If there’s no outward sign of it, and if there’s no reason for doing it, why put credence in it?
The reason for the Dem death grip on “obstruction” is politics. The Dems want Trump’s scalp at any price. They’ll pour over the encyclopedia-length full report to stitch together an impeachment indictment. They’ll hang onto any language in the report to keep the issue alive. “Do not exonerate” (in the Mueller summary) is an example. “Exonerate” is a measly word when an investigator does not exonerate. Either they recommend charges or they don’t. To pass the buck to Barr as if there’s a hint of a case, in spite of the lack of evidence and sound Constitutional reasons to reject it, will stoke the Dems’ impeachment fire.
Adam Schiff and Andy Kaufman. Any similarities?
In the end, we went to the Mueller café and got … nothing. It’s the equivalent of an air-burger on an empty plate.
Elections have consequences. Yep, they do. So, thanks go to the suburban voters in suburban districts (and a few elsewhere) for handing the House majority to a party intent on raining totalitarian environmentalism (the Green New Deal), various versions of socialism (#1 and #2 are synonymous), and impeachment on the country for the next 2 years. Regardless of what D-candidates said while campaigning, the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Jerry Nadler were swept into power. Again, thanks for the next couple of years of social/political/economic poison. Assisted suicide appears to be in vogue.
The doctors ready to administer the poison pill: Maxine Waters (D. Ca.) and Jerry Nadler (D, MY).
A public, said to be deeply concerned about “dysfunction” in DC, curiously voted for more of it. The slide into governing incontinence could be accelerated by a much-heralded romp through impeachment land, in addition to the profusion of “investigations” into matters as worrisome as the president’s dental care habits.
I’ve refrained from commenting on Mueller, choosing to wait for his report. Right now, of greater concern is the public’s perceptions about impeachment. There’s a good chance that no matter what Mueller writes it will be culled for articles of impeachment. The Mueller report and their own inquisitions will be the vehicle to hang Trump for his style and policies. Since its coming down, it would be nice to know what the public and even our own politicos know of the subject.
I don’t think that I would be too far off when I say, Not much. It’s a product of poor schooling and pop media. First, impeachment – the indictment phase of the process for removal – is a political act and the grounds for it hinge on “high crimes and misdemeanors” (HCM). What does HCM mean? It doesn’t for the most part refer to statutory crimes, even though they might be included if serious enough. It centers on what Andrew C. McCarthy (and Cass Sunstein) calls “truly egregious instances of maladministration”.
The unease about maladministration goes back to British and colonial experience. Legislatures wanted to control their royally appointed governors and judges. It’s not likely that Trump’s habit of name-calling qualifies (“low IQ Maxine Waters”, even though “foolish” would be more accurate). It’s more probable that the Dems will hang their hat on business/financial dealings and the Trump’s campaign efforts to do what Hillary’s succeeded at doing: namely, get the Russians to give them dirt on their opponent. The Steele dossier anyone?
All the bellowing about “they stole our elections in collusion with Trump” is simply carnival barking. The Dems will use whatever they and Mueller dig up to essentially go after Trump for his coarse style, a tactic which they patented years back – remember, “Bush lied, people died”.
Also, he’s a miscreant for not being politically correct. The Dems would like to censor all immigration policy options outside open borders.
Whether any charges are merited is beside the point. The sole goal is to get Trump. For the Dem caucus, “maladministration” really means to disagree with them.
So, suburban voters who voted to flip actually chose “maladministration” in order to maladministrate – i.e., we’ll be embroiled in impeachment wars for about 700 days. And be prepared for Ocasio-Cortez to be a euphemism for the Dems’ policy preferences coming out of the House.
