Democrats and their media allies spent the better part of two years falsely convincing much of the American public that Trump was guilty of criminal collusion with Russia and subsequently, obstruction of justice. You may recall how Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stated that he had seen the evidence among the documents that were provided to the Congress – although he was prohibited from sharing the details and the documents.
Democrats predicted – as fact – that Special Counsel would present the evidence. He did not – neither in his long-anticipated Report, his one and only press conference nor during his testimony before two committees of Congress.
Coming off the much hyped but ultimately disastrous congressional hearings with Mueller, Democrats are already looking for yet another bite at the apple. They are hoping to get former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. They are now claiming that he will provide the evidence that failed to surface in the Mueller Report, the press conference and the hearings. They simply cannot accept that there is no there, there – at least in terms of criminal culpability.
What can be added that has not already been reported in the media ad infinitum?
Of course, the answer is “not much.” Many Democrats have long ago lost all hope of finding some smoking gun that will have the public clamoring for impeachment. But they have made some progress. Various polls suggest that public sentiment has shifted from 60 percent against impeachment to approximately 53 percent.
Democrats seem to believe that the more they can stage political performances with the same old script and the same characters, there is a chance that the public will bite on their stale bait.
So, how does McGahn fit into that strategy? A bit of retrospective will help.
As counsel to President Trump, McGahn was privy to Trump’s legal issues – official and personal. His more important role, however, was selecting all those conservative judges that Trump has been putting on the federal courts in record numbers – including two Supreme Court justices. But that is another story.
In terms of the Mueller investigation, McGahn is the person who advised Trump not to fire Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the chef at the Trump Tower.
Now this is where the plot thickens. Democrats contend that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller– and they allege that such a command would constitute obstruction of justice. A more benign explanation is that Trump discussed such a possibility to gain McGahn’s legal advice. At any rate, despite every effort by Democrats to put words into Mueller’s mouth, the Special Counsel has refused — again, refused – to say that Trump is guilty of criminal obstruction. He left that decision to the Department of Justice.
The only thing that can be said for sure – factually – is that no one got fired. Mueller stated in his Report and subsequently testified that no one had hindered his investigation. In fact, Trump allowed McGahn to be interviewed by Mueller for more than 30 hours even though he could have claimed executive privilege to prevent such interrogation.
McGahn is mentioned 72 times in the Mueller Report – which in and of itself is not damning. To Democrats, that alone makes him an important witness. On the other hand, with so many references, it is unlikely that there is anything that McGahn can tell the Congress that has not already been summarized in the Report.
McGahn has shown no desire to testify and it is not certain that even a subpoena will get him before the committees of Congress. Even though McGahn is now a private citizen, Trump can exert executive privilege on information relating to McGahn’s days in the White House.
So far, McGahn is not responding to the congressional subpoena. Whether he will eventually be compelled to testify will have to be decided by the courts – and that could take months, even years to determine. But for now, McGahn appears to be the Democrats best chance to regurgitate the collusion and obstruction issues.
Maybe McGahn will testify before Congress. Maybe not. But in pursuing yet another staged event to put on the same production may be wearing thin with the public. It is starting to look like … excuse the expression … a witch-hunt.
So, there ’tis.
One of the central themes within the anti-Trump news media is the issue of Republicans – especially conservatives and evangelicals – who stick with President Trump. This issue is strategically designed to use Trump to wipe Republicans out of office across the board.
That is the proper mission of the Democratic Party. That is the nature of politics. You want your team to win. What has corrupted the process is the so-called news media becoming largely the communications wing of the increasingly left-wing Democratic Party. They have abrogated all devotion of journalism principles, ethics and traditions to serve as the propaganda vehicle of the progressive authoritarian class – a key component of the unprecedented effort to obstruct a duly-elected President of the United States under the banner of a #NeverTrump Resistance Movement.
That Movement, however, barely conceals its true purpose. It is to segue hatred for Trump into a broad-brush public enmity for Republicans in general – and conservatives more specifically. And yet the left agonizingly ponders why it is that so many Republicans – 90 percent according to recent polls – stick with Trump.
Folks appearing on left-wing media pretend to not know the reason, even though they do. It is just that the reason does not comport with their anti-Republican strategy to demonize literally half of America. Rather they utilize their self-righteous arrogance to discourage, intimidate and shame all those who do not accept their partisan views and mendacious narratives.
Many on the left pay lip service to “listening” to the American people – especially after their shock and dismay over the 2016 election that they – in all their self-proclaimed wisdom – never saw coming.
So, what is the reality of Trump’s hold on his voters that seems to elude the left at every turn? It deserves a detailed response even though there is a very simple overarching reason – that being, we like you on the left even less. We fear you and your policies more than Trump and his faults.
The left should ponder that for one moment. With all the criticism thrown at Trump – and some even deserved – we would still struggle through with Trump rather than have you and your kind in control of the government and our lives. It is the reason that the leaders on the other side of the aisle – and more specifically on the radical left – are actually less popular than Trump.
Of course, those polls do not get reported in the left-leaning media. Thanks to their one-sided reporting, trust in the American news media is at an all-time low. The ratings and circulation of the left-leaning press are tanking while more traditional and more balanced news outlets are either holding firm or growing.
One answer to your question of Republican loyalty to Trump is that we the people are NOT so easily fooled by your partisan reporting and biased interpretations of events. Your ginned up hyperbolic outrage at Trump and Republicans who do not pile on is itself, outrageous. Your credibility is no better than his.
Most Republicans stick with Trump – warts and all – because he better represents the direction we want for America. Yes, it is that old issue of personality versus policy. You might be surprised that many Republicans and conservatives do not like Trump as a person. You have made the case that he is petty, pugnacious, needlessly pugilistic, braggadocious and too often fact-challenged. Believe it or not, we get that part.
BUT – and that is a BIG BUTT – we see what he is DOING policy-wise – and even more important, what you on the extreme left WOULD DO if elected. In our view, policy will trump politics at every turn. Your devotion to the personality is petty politics – and downright hypocritical.
From day one, I have publicly expressed my wish that Trump was more like President Reagan. Just because I did not get my wish, however, does not mean that I will abandon life-long conservative beliefs to empower people with an ideology that I believe to be an existential danger to the Republic and to future generations.
Like many of my Republican and conservative friends, we see and lament Trump’s personality flaws, but they are not nearly as bad as your exaggerated interpretations of them. We also see through your consistently negative and highly dishonest spin. You doth complain too much – and thereby lose your own credibility.
And what we do despise about you on the left – and especially the Republican-hating cronies of the Fourth Estate – is how you so dishonestly demonizes us as racists, xenophobes, sexists, etc., etc., etc. It is character assassination of the worst kind – and when it comes to public figures who refuse to jump on your hate-the-right wagon, you engage in the unethical enterprise of the politics personal destruction.
Perhaps you on the strident left should be embarrassed to know that despite all of Trump’s faults, we dislike and distrust you even more. Ponder that for a moment. THAT is why so many good and decent Americans stick with Trump. It is YOUR fault.
So, there ‘tis.
Joe Biden remains the so-called front-runner in the various recent polls at 26 percent of the vote – and he has slipped from a 35 percent lead after the first Democratic Party debate. That is not necessarily good news for the former Vice President.
The significance of recent surveys is not just Biden’s numbers but the shift in numbers for other candidates – especially those in double digits. The relative upward improvement of both Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris has been widely reported but still underappreciated.
According to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Biden’s 26 percent lead is followed by Warren at 19% and Harris and Senator Bernie Sanders tied at 13 percent. Those four account for 71 percent of the responses. That is significant.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg garners 7 percent with former Congressman – and former superstar – Beto O’Rourke tied with businessman Andrew Yang at two percent. The remaining 16 or so candidates are at one percent or below – so low that none of them will be on the stage for the next debate at the end of July unless the Democratic National Committee changes the rules. This means that virtually all of them will be officially or effectively out of the race before Labor Day.
One thing we have not seen in polling is the voters second choice. In a multi-candidate race, that is an EXTREMELY important bit of information. Even with polling data, we can see a dark-hole effect in the race between Warren and Sanders. Most of Sanders probably terminal drop in the polls has been to the benefit of Warren. She was naturally Sanders supporters’ second choice – now first choice.
If you look at the three candidates giving Biden the greatest challenge – Warren, Harris and Sanders – they represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party AND they cumulatively have 45 percent of the vote – with another 11 percent held by progressives Buttigieg, Yang and O’Rourke. Concentrate that into one candidate, and that person easily overtakes Biden – and that does not count the distribution of the remaining 18 percent of the vote currently held by the hopeless wannabes.
Where does that vote go?
Since only two or three of them represent more moderate – more accurately, less left-wing – positions, it is safe to assume that the numbers would break in favor of a Biden challenger.
If that sole challenger is Harris, Biden is in even deeper trouble. He currently holds 46 percent of the black vote. If Harris is seen as a serious potential candidate – and potential President – Biden’s support from the black community will most certainly decline in the primaries. One needs to recall that Hillary Clinton was holding onto the black vote until Barack Obama won the Ohio primary – which resulted in a seismic shift in the black vote to the black candidate.
If the sole challenger to Biden winds up to be Warren, Biden could hold much of his black support. For a few reasons, Warren is drawing only 8 percent of the black vote – the lowest of any of the four leading candidates who have reached double digits. But unless Biden can remarkably improve his black vote, it is hard to see how he would hold on against a flow of progressive votes going to his yet-to-be-determined progressive competitor – Warren, in this case.
Biden currently has a perceived advantage, but that is only if you do not look below the surface. His situation is like a long-distance runner who starts out at top speed to get to the front – but is sure to run out of energy before the race is over.
So, there ‘tis.
Politics is the profession of hypocrisy – and it was on full display during this year’s Independence Day celebration.
As is the case every Fourth of July, most Americans took off from work to join their families, friends, and neighbors in millions of mini celebrations across the nation – from grand picnics to simple backyard barbecues. Parades moved down Main Street in virtually every community in America – with streets lined by a very diverse group of local citizens. They watch the high school band go by – also the local Miss Something or other, the Chamber of Commerce, the veterans, firetrucks, police cars and … yes … military vehicles.
Then in the evening, millions of us gathered in public places – or in front of the television – to listen to concerts with well-known patriotic songs. Millions sang along to “God Bless America,” “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “This land is my land.”
As darkness fell, we heard the first chords of the “1812 Overture” – the lead-in to the much-anticipated fireworks display. Some of us may have wondered why that particular musical work has become so much part of our Independence Day celebration. It was written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as a musical tribute to Russia’s defeat of Napoleon’s invading Grande Armée in 1812 – about the same time America was again engaged in another war with England. I think it must have to do with that powerful cannonade conclusion.
So, what does all this reminiscence and history have to do with the headline subject – the Democrats? Just setting the stage.
Democrats and their media allies have been speaking out against politicizing the Independence Day celebrations – claiming that is what Trump was planning to do. After all, Independence Day is like all holidays in which we set aside our differences and focus on the things we have in common. In the case of Independence Day, it is the time to focus on our civic history and our unifying culture – the things that make us all Americans, whether our lineage goes back to the colonists or we have just pledged our allegiance recently.
In the spirit of the holiday, one might expect even our politicians – especially those seeking the highest office in the land – to take a break from politics. We should find them in their hometowns celebrating alongside their friends and neighbors. They could be giving non-political patriotic speeches to remind we the people of our heritage and common bonds.
So, where DO we find our politicians running for President? Are they in their hometowns celebrating alongside their constituents? Are they giving those non-political patriotic speeches?
Nope! We find a gaggle of presidential wannabes in Iowa giving a political speech and political interviews as fast as they can arrange them. They are drawing polite distinctions between themselves and their Democratic contenders – and heaping President Trump, who is presiding over a non-political celebration in Washington, unrelenting harsh criticism.
Even the guy who likes to be known as “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg has abandoned his own South Bend, Indiana celebration for politicking in Iowa.
Okay, so they do not want to take a day off from the campaign trail to celebrate Independence Day among family, friends, and neighbors as part of … you know … e pluribus unum. But why do they have to be so damn hypocritical about it.
So, there ‘tis.
Virtually every person who follows current events even casually knows that the national news media has a left-wing tilt – actually more than a tilt. When it comes to putting the journalistic thumb on the partisan political scale, the elitist media is onboard with both feet. Even some of the most liberal observers admit to the media bias.
It has been firmly established by study-after-study. They show that approximately 80 percent of the so-called journalists are liberal Democrats. That figure goes even higher when you look at the east coast, bubble-encapsulated Big Seven – ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post. That is, by far, not a complete list of the biased media. You see others as regular panelists – including, but not limited to, The Atlantic, Associated Press, Politico, Axios, Huffington Post and on and on.
It is an empirical fact that FOX News — despite its conservative lean — provides the most balanced reporting than either of their chief competitors, CNN and MSNBC. Unlike MSNBC, FOX has anchors and permanent contributors who offer the more liberal viewpoint. It frequently provides a legitimate debate between representatives of opposing opinion.
The FOX News ratings swamp those of CNN and MSNBC – combined. The most hardline conservative hosts – such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham – draw a much larger audience than Rachel Maddow, Larry O’Donnell and the crew on Morning Joe.
Despite FOX’s relative objectivity and popularity, those panels of parroting pundits on CNN and MSNBC engage in classic projection by accusing FOX of being the captive of the political right – when, in fact, they are the promotional platform for Democrats and the political left – but I repeat myself.
Objective reporting is no longer the standard among the left-leaning press. What passes for news is opinion, conjecture, hypothecation and, as they say, spin. The once rare and unethical practice of single sources and unnamed sources has become standard operating procedure. They – with malice aforethought – refuse to report facts and opinions that are not supportive of preconceived narratives as news. Their analysis of events is uniform and consistent. It is anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative and contemptible of the millions of Americans who disagree with their port-side perspective. Major portions of the east coast news industry have succumbed to propaganda as their stock-in-trade.
While there is considerable discussion about the manifest biases of the elitist mainstream media, there seems to be less attention paid to the all-important outcome. Are those biases tipping the political scale? And as the headline question asks: Can Democrats win without a biased news media?
The extent of the advantage should be recognized. Many Americans are living with an old image of the news industry – with a bygone belief in its honesty, integrity and fairness. The most ill-informed voters in America are those who fixate on MSNBC. They never hear the other side of the story. They absorb propaganda in the belief that they are getting all the news.
Consider, for a moment, the huge advantage that provides to Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups. Whatever they say or claim will be given the highest credibility and most favorable spin. Arguably, it is one of the reasons that Democrats have become so outrageous in their comments.
Even after the Mueller Report put the lie to more than two years of claiming that President Trump criminally colluded with Russia – presented as a matter of fact – Democrats continue to press that claim and their allies in the media ignore the facts and continue to favorably report (spin) in favor of a political absurdity.
It is entirely possible – even likely – that the constant negative spin against Trump and the Republicans was a deciding factor that handed the House over to the Democrats. There can be no doubt that it is the strategic intent of the anti-Trump east coast media to hand the Senate and White House to the Democrats – an achievement that would seem far less likely in a political environment in which the Fourth Estate operated with the spirit, traditions and ethics of … journalism.
So, there ‘tis.
Every time I hear a Democrat politician refer to America’s rule-of-law I get a bit nauseous. They coddle violent demonstrators, say women accusers should be believed without proof, encourage … yes, encourage … illegal entry into the United States and generally ignore laws they do not like.
The latest manifestation of left-wing lawlessness is the response of many Democrat leaders and their media allies to the rounding up and deporting thousands of people in America illegally. A number of Democrat mayors – who hypocritically preside over institutional racism in their cities – are protecting criminals from the long arm of justice.
The latest mayor to defy both law and logic is Chicago’s new chief executive officer, Mayor Lori Lightfoot. In response to the increased enforcement of our immigration laws by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Lightfoot issues this statement.
“We are all aware of the threat from President Trump regarding raids by ICE, and in response, Chicago has taken concrete steps to support our immigrant communities. I have directed – and Superintendent Johnson has confirmed – that CPD has terminated ICE’s access to CPD’s databases related to federal immigration enforcement activities. I have also personally spoken with ICE leadership in Chicago and voiced my strong objection to any such raids. Further, I reiterated that CPD will not cooperate with or facilitate any ICE enforcement actions. Chicago will always be a welcoming city and a champion for the rights of our immigrant and refugee communities, and I encourage any resident in need of legal aid to contact the National Immigrant Justice Center.”
This is nothing short of defiance of the law of the land … the rule-of-law. This is what autocrats do to maintain power – develop an extra-legal constituency. And as a born and bred Chicagoan, I can assure you that it is a one-party autocratic system
What is particularly obnoxious and offensive about Lightfoot’s action – and the actions of all those other anti-law Democrat mayors – is that ICE is NOT … repeat NOT … undertaking a general sweep of those in America illegally. They are rounding up individuals who have gone through the legal system … who have had their day in court … and have been ORDERED by the courts to be deported.
These are people who have been determined to be unqualified for asylum – and a very large percentage have criminal issues. It you follow Lightfoot’s logic, no illegal alien – no matter of the criminal history or malicious intent – should ever be deported.
In an effort to build public sympathy, critics of the ICE efforts say these are also families. No doubt. But the real question is whether these families have one or more parents who are criminals. That could even apply to the so-called children since they refer to anyone under 18 as a “child” – again to give a false impression.
The left-wing media is complicit in this fraud on the public by echoing the false narratives with their false impressions. They rarely note that the people being sought have been judged and ordered to be deported. They play up the “family” reference without reporting why these folks have been found by our legal system to be unworthy of remaining in America.
Democrats say that some of these parents have children who are American citizens by virtue of birthright citizenship because they were born in the United States. While that may be true, it does not mean we should not follow the court order to deport.
Parents in that situation can take the kid with them or leave the child with legal relatives. Yes, it is a heart-rendering decision, but child separation is rather common when we send folks to jail. Having a child does not absolve a person for obeying the law.
Lightfoot’s states that her action is to protect Chicago’s “immigrant communities.” Sorry Mayor. The folks ordered out of our country are not “immigrants.” The are here illegally … period. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants – and that means, or should mean, legal immigrants. Just because Lightfoot calls them immigrants does not make them such.
It has always struck me strange that Democrats seem to be playing up to minority Americans or legal immigrants from Hispanic countries. As a person who has spent a fair amount of time in the Hispanic communities, I have found that the good people in those neighborhoods are not very fond of gangbangers and drug dealers who bring crime and violence to their doorstep – even if the criminals are of the same ethnic background. That is like saying our Italian communities love the Mafia or our Asian communities welcome Triad.
If you follow Lightfoot’s apparent thinking to its logical end, perhaps she should insulate the Latin Kings and MS13 because they might have families from which they would be separated if you toss them in the hoosegow. Oh! The Mayor is potentially insulating MS13 gangsters from law enforcement.
With this kind of selective law enforcement – or more correctly “non-enforcement” – it is no wonder that Chicago crime rates are so high, especially in the minority communities that Lightfoot claims to be protecting.
I am all for immigration reform that would normalize the presence of millions of people currently in America illegally – but we need both a legal and vetting system to accomplish that. My generosity of spirit does NOT apply to criminals and those the courts have ordered OUT. Sensible immigration reform is something congressional Democrats seem to be resisting like an invitation to spend two weeks in a motel in the Dominican Republic.
So, there ‘tis.
You really get a sense of the Democrats’ and the anti-Trump media’s dismay over the 2016 election results not only in their push for impeachment, but for their desire to take down the entire administration. It is not just about Trump. It is not just about his personality. What they really want to take down is the entire Republican conservative agenda.
It seems like very time the left gets their undies in a bunch, they are calling for someone in the administration to resign. It is really becoming a bit of a farce. They have called for the resignation of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carlson, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders (who did resign, but not in response to the Democrats) and just about anyone serving in the White House. Every time they disagree with a policy or can make a mountain out of some political molehill issue, the Democrats run to the cameras and demand a resignation.
I suspect that the Democratic National Committee must have a boilerplate news release that goes something like this: “Today, Democrats in Congress have called for the resignation of (add name here) for violating (his/her) oath of office. (Last name here) has proven (himself/herself) unfit for the office they hold because …” It would go on for about five paragraphs, but you get the idea.
The latest target of the resignation regiment is Counsellor to the President Kellyanne Conway. According to the White House Officer of Special Counsel (OSC), Conway is guilty of making negative comments about some of the 23 Democrats who have jumped into the presidential race. She is accused of violating the Hatch Act.
As an aside, I confess to being a more-or-less libertarian First Amendment extremist. I tend to dislike anything that inhibits free speech – even speech with which I disagree and even offensive speech that hurts people’s feelings. It’s the old “sticks and stones” thing, I guess. I stick with the Founders in their devotion to free speech and not the politically correct … uh … okay, I will say it … wimps.
Conway’s indiscretion, as we might call it, was to say unflattering things about Democrat presidential candidates fighting over the opportunity to run against President Trump. Her mistake, according to the OSC, was to say those things on White House grounds. That’s right! If she had said the very same thing on the street in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, things would have been hunky-dory. That is how ridiculous these restrictions have become.
It is also noteworthy that she was usually responding to questions or ugly things one of the Democrat presidential candidates said about Trump. As far as I am concerned, if someone criticizes the President, the President or a spokesperson has every right to respond.
Consider how many times Democrats in Congress say the most God-awful things about Trump – and they say them on the floor of the House, in the hallways and in their offices. Shouldn’t the Hatch Act apply to them? And remember, a lot of those democrat presidential candidates attacking Trump are members of the House or Senate. We have often seen them asked leading questions by the press – and they answer.
The OSC claims that Conway violated the Hatch Act by mixing personal and political statements on her PERSONAL Twitter account. That would mean her right of free speech is blocked even on her personal account.
Washington lawyer Debra Katz told National Public Radio that the Hatch Act is “not a law with great nuance” and “not a hard Act to adhere to.” In fact, it is all nuance. The law is applied arbitrarily because political activity and statements and government activity and statements are virtually inseparable.
What seems to have motivated the OSC to take such a harsh position has less to do with her statements and more to do that she has generally disregarded their conclusions.
Of course, the OSC can scream about Conway from the top of the Capitol Dome, but there is not much they can do about it. It is not a criminal violation. Whether Conway keeps her job or gets booted is totally up to … Trump. And we all know how the OSC’s little theatrical production will end.
In the letter to Trump, the OSC said that if Conway is not fired, it would undermine the Hatch Act, itself. We can only hope.
So, there ‘tis.
One of the main time and space fillers for the liberal media is the seemingly constant release and prejudicial analysis of polling numbers on President Trump. I suddenly realized that those updates have recently become conspicuous by their absence in the leading anti-Trump news(?) programs. It got me to thinking … and doing a little research.
Just as I suspected. Trump’s numbers have had a bit of an upswing in recent days.
According to the most recent Harvard-Harris Poll, Trump’s approval rating among registered voters has hit 48 percent – a two-year high. The recent Rasmussen Poll showed similar results. Contrary to what one might believe from news reporting, Trump gets a 50 percent approval rating among Hispanics in some of the polls. In terms of favorable versus unfavorable, Trump is on top. While there is a long way to November of 2020, these are the kinds of numbers that get incumbent presidents re-elected.
The fact that Trump’s numbers improve even as the Democrats and the anti-Trump news media are mounting increasing and unprecedented hostile attacks on a daily basis must be very disturbing to the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. It is reminiscent of the 2016 election, when the media allowed their biases and hatred to completely misreport the potential outcome of the election. Remember how they confidently stated and re-stated that Trump had “no path to the presidency?” And remember how they spent two-years reporting with certainty that Trump was guilty of criminally colluding with Russia? Well, they are doing it again.
The east coast bubble-encased news media has been proffering narratives of all sorts of criminality associated with Trump. It is the New York Southern District federal courts that are going to get him. Virtually every paid pundit on MSNBC has opined that Trump has committed all sorts of crime – and their proof is highly spun bits of information, outright disinformation and wishful thinking.
Even as the Democrats move closer and closer to impeachment and those panels of parroting pundits are clamoring for impeachment like political vigilantes, Trump’s numbers go up. There is a message in all that, but the Democrats and the press do not seem to be listening. Despite the failures in the past, they cling to the belief that their mendacious reporting will fool the American people.
It may just be that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the last Democrat with a grip on reality – and isn’t that a scary thought? She is talking tough to assuage her increasingly radical base, but she is not buying into impeachment. Maybe she read the polls and understand what they mean. It seems the more the radical left calls for impeachment, the more popular the President gets. We have seen this movie before.
In addition to the popularity polls, other recent polls show that more than half of Americans oppose impeachment or have no opinion. Only about one-third support impeaching Trump. Furthermore, 57 percent believe that all the investigations interfere with government business. That was the sentiment of half the Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans.
It is almost humorous to watch Democrat after Democrat appear on television saying that focusing on issues important to the voters is more important that obsessing on Trump – and then they proceed to obsess on Trump.
The media and the impeachment-istas are recreating 2016. They are offering the American people every certainty and every assurance that President Trump will be removed from office – either by impeachment or defeat in 2020. They claim that Trump will be indicted, convicted and imprisoned once he no longer is protected by the Justice Department rule preventing sitting presidents from being indicted.
They spin the Mueller Reports’ failure to reach a conclusion on Obstruction of Justice as hardcore evidence that Trump is guilty of obstructions. They even claim that despite Mueller’s vindication of Trump and his campaign of criminal collusion with Russia, Trump and his people are guilty of criminal collusion.
And still Trump’s favorable rating improves.
President Lincoln wisely noted, you cannot fool all the people all the time. It just may be that the radical extremist Democrats and their allies in the newsrooms have run out of “fooling time.”
So, there ‘tis.
As is my plight in life, I find it necessary to monitor ALL the news networks. It was my sad task to watch “Deadline: White House” anchored by Nicole Wallace on the day of the 75th D-Day anniversary celebration.
In all fairness I must confess that I respond to Wallace, as a person, much like I respond to the annoying sounds they use to interrupt television shows with severe weather warnings. She has an annoying habit of laughing whenever anyone says something ugly about Trump, Republicans or conservatives – even when she is the one saying it. I never met the woman – and hope to continue such avoidance – but I still take her mocking guffaws personally.
Oh yeah! The show.
Among Wallace’s panel of parroting pundits for this particular program were Princeton Professor and “Morning Joe” regular Eddie Glaude, former federal prosecutor Paul Butler, both Eugene Robinson (another “Morning Joe” regular) and Robert Costa of the Washington Post, Heide Przybyla, National Reporter for NBC and Nick Confessore of the New York Times. The one thing they have in common is that they are among the most strident Trump antagonists on the telly. If the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement were an army, these folks would be generals. Wallace does not let considerations of fairness, balance or even honesty interfere with her propaganda-based program.
As a sidebar, I was particularly interested in the appearance of Confessore since the New York Times recently let it be known that they did not intend to have their reporters appear on biased opinion shows because it would cast doubt on the newspaper’s objectivity. If the editors at the Times had been serious, the Wallace program would have been one of the first to be boycotted. I guess you just cannot believe what comes out of the Times.
Rather than praising Trump’s excellent D-Day speech – as even much of the liberal press did – the Wallace crew dismissed it out of hand as just a well-written speech that Trump delivered without any major blunders.
Rather, they focused on Trump’s earlier interview with Laura Ingraham of FOX News in which he said that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was “foolish” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was “Nervous Nancy.” In terms of Trump’s ability to insult, those are just short of compliments. But boy, did the Wallace gang pounce.
Wallace unfavorably compared Trump’s comments to those of Pelosi, who talked about bipartisanship when it comes to military and veteran matters. Wallace complimented Pelosi for not picking up on Trump’s remark. However, I had seen the Pelosi interview and the Wallace production team took one quote out of context and intentionally did not air Pelosi’s other comments about Trump. And as far as not picking up on Trump’s comments, the Pelosi interview preceded the Trump interviews. Nice going, Wallace.
Robert Costa analyzed Trump’s speech as undermining the NATO alliance. He said the President’s allusions to “nationalism” were not overt. Not only not overt, there were none. Trump was accused of “talking more about the nation” rather then Europe of “international institutions.”
I had two reactions. When is it wrong for a President to talk about what America did in World War II and why so many Americans are interred in France? And Costa is just wrong (lying?) because Trump gave a strong endorsement to the American alliance – calling it “stronger than ever.” Earlier in the day, Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” made that very point – saying that our allies should feel very reassured by Trump’s comments about the greater European alliance.
After bashing Trump from every conceivable angle, Robinson summed things up by saying that Trump only thinks about himself, not the men who suffered and died saving the civilized world from Adolph Hitler. Everything is always about Trump, opined Robinson.
Ironically, throughout the entire show, none of these panelists said much about D-Day, and the more than 100,000 brave men who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Some 9,833 now resting below that sea of crosses in Normandy, some 33,000 never to be found, and that shrinking number who are still around to tell their tales.
Wallace’s entire D-Day show was consumed with Trump bashing. It was all about Trump, but not the man, who on this day, gave a moving tribute to all those souls – living and dead – that Wallace ignored completely. You would think that Wallace & Co. could have had a timeout from their unrelenting criticism of the President to have paid homage to those to whom this day is dedicated. But no. Why can’t they give up the anti-Trump screeds? Because — as the MSNBC motto proclaims – “That’s who we are.”
So, there ‘tis.
It was recently announced that defrocked attorney John Dean has accepted an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on matters relating to … uh … Actually, it is not clear as to what relevant information Dean can provide other then his obvious disdain for President Trump – as evidenced in his frequent appearances on CNN and MSNBC.
Unless you are hooked on one of the anti-Trump cable news networks, you are likely to have no idea who this John Dean is or why his opinions matter. Even if you are familiar with his ubiquitious appearances, you may not know his history. I am aware of all of the above because I had a passing acquaintanceship with Dean when we were both working for the Nixon White House – little more than an occasional nod as we passed in the hallway.
Though Dean lacks substantive value to anything going on before Congress these days, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler sees political value in putting Dean in front of the cameras. That is what it is really about – the cameras. There is no information or insight that Dean can provide the Judiciary Committee that they do not already know – and even that is largely irrelevant to their legislative purpose. Nadler’s scheme is to essentially misuse the investigative process (no surprise there) to create a bit of an anti-Trump dog and pony show.
Dean staked his claim to fame more than 45 years ago when, as White House counsel, he testified against President Nixon in return for getting a lighter sentence for his role in the events surrounding the Watergate burglary by operatives of the President’s re-election campaign and then help orchestrate the cover-up that ultimately ended the Nixon presidency.
Dean had participated in meetings in which plans were made to break in and surveil the Democratic National Committee. When the “burglars” were arrested, Dean proceeded to gather and destroy evidence that tied the break-in to key individuals in the Nixon White House – including Attorney General John Mitchell. He paid hush money to those arrested in the break-in to obtain their silence.
Dean appeared several times before the grand jury – taking the Fifth Amendment for every question. He sought an immunity from prosecutions (a pardon) from Nixon for any crimes he may have (did) committed while serving as White House counsel. Nixon refused, and that is when Dean cut a deal with prosecutors.
Dean was originally sentenced to one to four years in prison in return for his cooperation. That was further reduced to time served in a safe house holding facility – which meant he officially served only four months.
Dean was really one of the bad guys in the entire scenario. He avoided his just desserts by taking a plea agreement and flipping on the President. In many ways, Dean was the sleazy Michael Cohen of his day. Prior to his White House job, Dean had worked for the then-powerful Washington law firm of Welch & Morgan. He was fired for conflict-of-interest when he attempted to negotiate a television broadcast license for himself when he was representing a client seeking the license.
Following his incarceration, Dean began a new career in the investment business and entered the world of political oblivion for decades. Thanks to his willingness to become an unabashed Trump critic, and his role in bringing down a President, the anti-Trump media brought Dean back into at least the edge of the public spotlight – where he could serve as one of the paid parroting panelists. That is where he appears to have attracted Nadler’s attention.
Nadler’s entire strategy with Dean appears to be designed to draw comparisons between the disgraced Richard Nixon and Trump – even though the comparisons are minuscule and largely irrelevant. This is such an obvious shabby political tactic that even some of those in the left-wing media are scratching their heads – wondering what value Dean brings to the table. The answer is little to none – only if you are looking at political value – and even then, the tactic is too obvious to have much impact.
In providing a platform for a guy who has nothing to say except what happened more than 45 years ago suggests that Nadler and the Democrats are getting desperate in their effort to swing public opinion in favor of impeachment.
So, there ‘tis.