"Cotton Candy Socialists"

Daniel Henninger coined the term "Cotton Candy Socialists" in a wonderful article on the way the current crop of Democratic candidates for president demonize "corporations" in a play to mollify the socialist/communist philosophy of their rabid left-wing base. In thinking about it, the term is a near-perfect metaphor for the new socialist trend that has been embraced by far too many in the Democratic party, by (if polling can be believed) a majority of millenials, and by most of the Democrat's trained hamsters in the main stream media.

Let's spend a moment thinking about cotton candy—a pink, overly sweet, diaphanous confection that is the favorite of children. Its content is pure sugar, with coloring to disguise that fact, and when it's spun within a cotton candy machine, it looks to be solid on first glance. Upon further examination it has very little substance at all, collapsing into a gooey mess when it encounters the real word outside the machine. At its best, cotton candy provides a pretty appearance on its serving stick, but it becomes a sticky, unmanageable mess when you consume it. With all of the sugar, it's reasonable to argue that it's really not good for your health.

Of course, you can never convince children that cotton candy is anything but good for them. It looks pretty and its sweetness is addicting.

The same is true for "cotton candy socialists." In fact because the majority of them have acted like petulant children in recent years, it's not the least bit surprising that they love of a political philosophy that is the equivalent of cotton candy—a sweet, gooey mess that has no societal value and can do damage if consumed in any non-trivial quantity.

The next time you hear Bernie or Liz or AOC or any other Democrat tell you that 'corporations are evil' or 'the rich must pay their fair share'—think cotton candy. Cotton candy socialists demand that everyone must eat the pink goo, and if they don't ... well ... that makes them a bad person.

Comedian Demetri Martin is quoting as sayiing, "Cotton candy is the perfect snack for when I'm in the mood to eat dry, scratchy fabric." I can only hope that our country will never be in the mood for that kind of snack.

The Beria Rule

Last year, Michael Henry suggested that Robert Mueller's investigation of "Russian collusion" followed a model suggested by Lavrentiy Beria. Bet you never heard on him. Henry explains:

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).

Unlike Beria’s paradigm, U.S. prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Then there’s an investigation to find or confirm the identity of the perpetrator and collect evidence to prove his or her guilt.

The Democrats' behavior throughout the Trump presidency follows the 'Beria Rule.' They hate Donald Trump because they believe he stole the political power that was to be rightfully theirs. So they (and their allies in the media, the deep state, and even among a few Republicans) have targeted the man and run amuck looking for crimes. Their long list of phony accusations began on Trump's first day as president as did their calls for impeachment. They continue to this day—ever more dishonest, strident, and often hysterical in their accusations. All predicated on the Beria Rule.

As he watches this unfold, David P. Goldman (along with tens of millions of other Americans) is angry—very angry. The Dems dishonestly accuse Trump of doing what their candidate and party actually did—collude with the Russians to produce a paid disinformation campaign that was used by partisan FBI and CIA leadership to mount a soft coup attempt. Goldman writes:

That's the canonical definition of chutzpah -- shameless effrontery -- and it summarizes the Democratic position on the attempted impeachment of President Trump. The Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the Steele dossier, assembled out of bits handed to ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele from his Russian intelligence sources, and the FBI used this concoction to obtain FISA warrants to bug the Trump presidential campaign. Now, THAT'S foreign interference. And those facts aren't in dispute. When the Trump administration tries to get the truth out of foreign governments about their involvement in nefarious activities in the U.S., the Democrats scream, "Impeachment!"

The Wall Street Journal editors got this exactly right:

Democrats want to impeach Donald Trump for inviting Ukraine to investigate 2020 election rival Joe Biden. But then why are they opposed to investigating whether Democrats used Russian disinformation to get the FBI to investigate Donald Trump in 2016?

That’s the double standard now on gaudy public display over multiple news reports that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russian fiasco of 2016 has become a criminal probe. Attorney General William Barr this year appointed Mr. Durham, a highly regarded and veteran prosecutor, to examine this part of the Russia tale that special counsel Robert Mueller chose to ignore.

Nothing less than the American republic is at stake here. It's time for every American patriot to rally around the president. Some of my neo-conservative ex-friends are cheering for the wrong side. Shame on them.

For the record, I don't care whether there was quid pro quo with Ukraine or not. If President Trump used military aid as a bargaining chip to persuade the government of Ukraine to investigate foreign subversion of our political system, he was doing his job as commander-in-chief to protect this country from its external enemies. The parade of striped-pants cookie-pushers from the State Department feeding information to closed-door Democratic Party kangaroo courts in the House of Representatives is irrelevant. Trump is fighting a mutiny by the U.S. intelligence community. If the mutineers succeed, it will be the end of the republic. If a cabal of bureaucrats nestling in the bowls of our $80 billion a year intelligence bureaucracy can bring down an elected president of the United States, the republic is finished.

There is no reasonable argument that can justify what Clinton, the DNC, the FBI and the intelligence agencies did. They colluded with an adversary that is known to interfere in our elections, and did so to "fix" the 2016 election. When that failed, they regrouped and then attempted to destroy a presidency.

And there is certainly no reasonable argument that can justify the Beria Model, the approach that is being used by the likes Adam Schiff and his sidekick Jerald Nadler, who lie with impunity in the hope of destroying Trump and seizing power. Aided and abetted by their trained hamsters in the mainstream media, they are the enemy of anyone who believes that American voters—not the media, or the deep state, or the FBI or the CIA or even establishment Democrats or Republicans—should chose the president of the United States.

The Monster's Terms

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it's that the self-appointed establishment elites who populate the four constituencies believe that messaging and tone are paramount in government affairs and leadership. Whether it's a #NeverTrump Republican like Mitt Romney, media types like Chuck Todd, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, or a deep state denizen like John Brennan, they are appalled by a tone and style that doesn't dovetail with the tone and style that are their norms. I think that they hate Donald Trump more for his lack of tone and style than for any substantive policy differences they might have with him.

Trump's recent success in bringing down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the barbaric Islamic terror group, ISIS is a case in point. By all accounts Trump was decisive when he unleashed special ops against Baghdadi. This can be compared to the previous president, who by all accounts was much more hesitant to make risky decisions. Richard Fernandez writes:

"I still say Kayla should be here, and if Obama had been as decisive as President Trump, maybe she would have been," Marsha Mueller said, referring to the death of her daughter at the hands of ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. "After Kayla's death, the Muellers became outspoken critics of the American government's handling of its foreign hostages. They had been encouraged to keep her captivity secret, and discouraged from attempting to free her or pay a ransom."

Leaving aside the question of whether Obama ever had a good tactical option at rescuing Kayla Mueller, "decisive" is probably the wrong word to characterize the former president's style. Obama knew what he wanted and valued signaling and appearances in a sincere way. He was always signaling. If the Muellers were instructed not to speak it was so as not to jam his carefully crafted messages. By treating Bin Laden's corpse reverently; by an excruciating choice of words and many other ways he was signaling. Always signaling, which he saw as an important part of his job.

To be fair, Obama had a point. Messaging is certainly an important part of statesmanship. What he never quite accepted was that his signals never had the intended effect. Baghdadi was a thug and Obama's punctilio never made it past the brutal filter. Like Dr. Arthur Carrington from the movie "The Thing from Another World," he was always trying to reason with the monster, convinced that words would win the day, little realizing it would not work.

And therein lies the core question when Donald Trump's presidency is considered—Should actions and results matter more than words, style and tone when the success of a presidency is considered? Every president, including Donald Trump, reveres messaging and signaling, but Trump's style of messaging so upsets the four constituencies, along with tens of millions of other Americans, that they cannot or will not give calm consideration to the actions his administration takes or the results that it achieves.*

It's worth noting that Trump refuses to "reason with the monster." I think that's because he realizes, more than others, that the "monster" is far more likely to employ emotion and rely on belief, rather than reason, to guide its strategies and actions. Trump rarely, if ever, provides deep context for his words. His style is bombastic. His tone is pugnacious. He meets the "monster" on the monster's terms—and as a result, he often wins.

FOOTNOTE:
-----------------
* Mollie Hemingway provides a summary of some of the achievements that the four constituencies try very hard to ignore:

President Trump’s administration has been marked by success in the domestic and foreign spheres. The economy is humming, including job and wage growth the media had previously said was unlikely to impossible to achieve. This is due to tax cuts, tax reform, and unprecedented deregulation. No new wars have been launched, much less the apocalyptic nuclear wars the media predicted. A long overdue recalibration with China is taking place.

What is good news for the country is bad news for [the four constituencies].

The four constituencies were dead wrong in their predictions about how the Trump presidency would lead to economic and international disaster. They're equally dishonest in their assessment of Trump's achievements. And all of that makes them hate him even more.

Adieu, Abu

The Hollywood glitterati never cease to amaze with their abject stupidity, their total lack of self-awareness, and their delusional sense of self-importance. Since the election of Donald Trump the glitterati takes every opportunity—vacuous awards ceremonies, boring late night TV interviews, and fawning entertainment magazine pieces—to condemn Trump, often spewing "facts" that are blatantly incorrect and demonstrating a level of ignorance that is comical.

This weekend, U.S. special operators killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the barbaric Islamic terror group, ISIS. Baghdadi was a murderer, a rapist, and a brute who led an Islamist group that regularly beheaded its victims, burned people alive, raped its captives, and otherwise brutalized the civilian population inside its "caliphate." We should all celebrate his death and hope for the continuing termination of his barbaric followers.

The special ops raid that lead to Baghdadi's death was daring and dangerous. Far more important—it worked. Donald Trump authorized the raid, recognizing full-well that it could have gone sideways, with the resultant recriminations by members of the four constituencies that hate him with a vengeance. Members of the glitterati are so unimportant, they don't even warrant mention as members of the four constituencies, but like petulant children driven by anger, some feel compelled to speak out.

Has-been actress, Jamie Lee Curtis, is one of those petulant children. I'm sure she thinks she's "brave," speaking truth to power, but in reality, she demonstrates my argument about the Hollywood crew. Ben Kew notes Curtis' comments after Trump said that Baghdadi died a "coward" and "like a dog." He writes:

While most of the nation was celebrating, Lee-Curtis appeared less than impressed, pointing out the suffering endured by those in warfare that Trump has never experienced.

“He may have died a coward @realDonaldTrump but ALL living things suffer when they are blown up. Anyone who has experienced warfare, unlike yourself, would know that,” she wrote on Twitter. “War is brutal. Dogs are brave, bold, loyal, loving and healing.”

Gosh, Curtis achieved a trifecta—she demonstrated her hatred of Trump, achieved maximum virtue signaling, and condemned war, all in one tweet. Maybe she's not as stupid as she seems. How brave.

And then, a true member of the four constituencies, The Washington Post, decided that it was best to treat Baghdadi gently in its obit. Titling one obit headline, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48." (subsequently charged after heavy criticism), it took the WaPo trained hamsters 40 paragraphs to mention that Baghdadi was a murderer and rapist. Oh well, the first order of business is to treat violent Tslamists with deference to demonstrate how woke* we all are, isn't it?

With Abu's death, Trump had a major win. It's unfortunate that his opponents don't have the grace to congratulate him on it or lacking that, to remain silent.

FOOTNOTE:
--------------
* The best response to those who try to push a "woke" worldview on the rest of us is mockery. Whether it's the crazy stuff that goes on everyday in academia (e.g., "safe spaces") or attempts to erase history (e.g., removing civil war monuments and art) or WaPo's woke attempt to be 'evenhanded' in its treatment of an Islamist murderer, mockery is not only deserved—it's perfect.

WaPo's "woke" obit headline for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.

Here's a just a few of dozens of tweets mocking the WaPo headline:

Osama Bin Laden, spiritual leader and architect of lower Manhattan urban revitalization projects, dead at 54.

Adolf Hitler, Austrian vegan activist and landscape painter, dies at 56

John Wayne Gacy, children’s party clown, dead at age 52

Jeffrey Dahmer, amateur chef with a flair for exotic cuisine, dies at 34.

and one of my own:

"Pol Pot, Southeast Asian leader and social engineer, dead at 73"

WaPo had it right the first time when they called Baghdadi a "terrorist-in-chief." My guess is that some woke copywriter felt unsafe when he/she read that characterization (you know, Islamophobia and all that) and decided on the change it to "an austere religious scholar." Heh.

And it begins ...

Well actually, it began within the justice department during the latter stages of the Obama administration. We don't know whether Barack Obama was aware of it (although that's appearing more and more likely), but it's almost certainly the case that other senior members of his administration were.

I began writing about it (with posts like this, this, and this in early 2018)—an attempt by very senior officials in the FBI and intelligence community to undermine a presidential candidate (Donald Trump) that later morphed into soft coup attempt when candidate Trump was elected President. It is unquestionably the greatest political scandal of my lifetime, and it may very well be the greatest political scandal in U.S. history. But because it makes the Democrats and their sympathizers in the FBI and the intelligence community look bad—very, very bad—the Dems' trained hamsters in the main stream media have pooh-poohed the entire story. Little if any investigation, little, if any dogged coverage. No matter that it's a MAJOR scandal, the Dems are threatened, so it's just a "conspiracy theory."

Yesterday, it was announced that John Durham, the DoJ's chief investigator into the scandal, has asked for a criminal investigation. The Dems and their trained hamsters in the media have reacted as expected. This headline from The New York Times: "Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation" with the tag sentence: "The move is likely to open the attorney general to accusations that he is trying to deliver a political victory for President Trump."

Odd that inveterate liar, Rep. Adama Schiff (D-CA), said almost exactly the same thing. You'd think the Dems and their trained hamsters are coordinating their message. You'd think right.

The Dems are scared, and when they're scared their first reaction is to deny and obfuscate. They've been doing that for 18 months. Now, as the truth begins to come out, they'll claim that it all about political retribution. No there, there. Just politics. It's interesting that in pushing the Russian collusion hoax (a major part of all of this) the Dems actually did push a narrative in which there was no there, there.

Roger Simon comments:

Winter may be coming but it's already Springtime for Lawyers in Washington, D.C. The list of people lawyering up these days would probably fill this page and lap over onto the next. It's just been announced that the John Durham investigation into the provenance of the Russia probe has turned into a criminal investigation.

Subpoenas and grand juries are coming, real ones, not the Star Chamber counterfeits being orchestrated by the panicked Democrats and their junior league Southern California Torquemada.

To those of us who have been watching this spectacle from the beginning, this was inevitable. After all, where'd the Mueller/Russia probe come from in the first place? Since there was absolutely no there there, it makes no sense that it wasn't a fraud from the outset. Who started it? Who are the treasonous/seditious culprits who conspired to overthrow an election? Well, we should soon be finding out, although we can make some educated guesses.

Simon goes on to note that of all the people and organizations who are culpable in this travesty, the mainstream media may be the most guilty. Sure, others in the FBI, DoJ, and intelligence community got the ball rolling, but the trained hamsters knowingly promoted lie after lie, then gleefully published column after column of fake news, jettisoned their responsibility to investigate wrong doing, chased shadows (the Russian collusion hoax), and ignored a widespread conspiracy within our own government.

Simon continues

The names of these institutions we all know and they are some of the most important companies on our media landscape. This is time to name the biggest miscreants: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal (front pages), the infantile BuzzFeed, the risible CNN, ABC, CBS, and the multiple sexual molesters at NBC. These are the people who have informed us, actually assured us, from the outset that Donald Trump had done things that deserved impeachment when all they did was try to overthrow an American presidential election. All that time they were harboring the real targets of the investigation, the real criminals.

Now it is time to overthrow them. They no longer deserve their place in our society.

Even now, within minutes actually, The New York Times is desperately trying to spin the news as legally biased in some manner, insulting Durham with no knowledge. How pathetic. How reactionary and how conformist. They really are still the paper of Walter Duranty, even though some of their more jejune reporters may never have heard of him.

Someone should remind the editors of the Times that it's not the crime but the coverup. They have been the masters of the coverup. The WaPo's reputation is up for grabs as well, their vaunted Watergate fame seriously besmirched.

:
If the editors ate the aforementioned news orgainzation had any integrity (they.do. not.) they'd admit their error and do the job they're supposed to do. Instead, they've already begun to circle the wagons to protect the Democrats. Predictable.



UPDATE:
----------------
Sarah Hoyt writing at Instapundit is right on target when she states:

This is what the fauxpeachment was about all along. Now as their malfeasance is discovered and rightly brought to justice they can claim partisan revenge. Sure, it’s not true. but it's true enough for their media organs to sell it?

So maybe the past 30-plus months of Dem hysteria, false charges, lies, and hoaxes were really an insurance policy just in case somebody actually decides to indict one or more of their allies for attempting a soft coup of an elected president. That somebody is John Durham, and I truly hope he indicts them all. And following in precedent set for Flynn and Manafort, I hope they frog march every one of them in handcuffs before the TV cameras.

The Deep State

I have, for the better part of the Trump presidency, referred to parts of the federal bureaucracy as "the deep state." Originally, the implication was simply that the deep state is a collection unelected federal bureaucrats (and in some cases, senior members of the military) who are in many ways more powerful than elected members of Congress. They often define policy and regulations, spend copious amounts of tax money on things that are often designed to increase their organizational and bureaucratic power, and have cozy relationships with major corporations and sometimes do their bidding.

Today, however, far too many members of the deep state are much more, according to Stephen Miller, a senior policy advisor in the Trump administration. They are not heroes of the 'resistance,' but rather a "very grave threat" to our democracy. Miller's comments are reported by The Washington Examiner:

Anonymous efforts by anti-Trump federal bureaucrats to thwart the White House agenda through leaks and complaints to friendly reporters and congressional allies are a “mortal threat” to democracy and the 2016 election results, according to a top administration official.

“This is a mortal threat to the American system of government,” said Stephen Miller, the senior adviser for policy.

In 2016, President Trump ran against Washington’s “deep state” and “permanent bureaucracy,” said Miller, and they remain so angry that they are lying, leaking, and attacking the administration’s agenda.

The latest example is the planned book written by an anonymous inside critic and that follows efforts by bureaucrats to thwart Trump policies with leaks to liberal media and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

In an interview, Miller called inside attacks a “very grave threat,” and he explained it this way:

“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

“‘If you elect Hillary Clinton, then I’ll implement all of her policies very faithfully, and if I see massive evidence of corruption on Hillary Clinton’s part, then I’ll keep it all a secret. If you elect a candidate I disagree with, then I’ll lie, I’ll leak, I’ll cheat, I’ll smear, I’ll attack, I’ll persecute, and I will refuse to implement, and I will obstruct at every single step of the way.’”

We're seeing this right now as the Democrats, via the inveterate liar, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who heads their secret impeachment "investigation," trots members of the deep state through his committee in the hope that they will provide sound bites that he can then illegally leak to his trained hamsters in the media. It's a travesty, and like the Russian collusion narrative—a hoax. But some partisan members of the deep state are willing to help the Dems promote the hoax.

There's also a certain irony to the criticism levied by past and present members of the deep state on foreign policy decision's made by the Trump administration. Again from the same article:

The top aide [Miller], interviewed in his second-floor West Wing office, also mocked insider critics who have been responsible for failed policies, especially in the intelligence, foreign policy, and defense arenas.

“The same people who made wrong judgment calls in Iraq, with respect to strategy in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, too … the people who made all these decisions now are so utterly convinced that they alone know what the right policy is,” Miller said.

It would seem that when you're a member of the deep state and your foreign policy decisions have proven incorrect over multiple decades, your strategies have repeatedly failed, and your prevailing wisdom for hard problems is to kick the can down the road, you'd have the humility to embrace a different approach.

Heh. Not a chance.

Howling

In a recent editorial, the New York Times editorial board writes about "A Crisis for the Republican Party." As if the hard-Left editors of the NYT give a damn about the GOP or its future. In fact, based on its own editorial history, the NYT would prefer to silence any news that might reflect well on a Republican president or GOP policies themselves. It would much prefer to gin up hysteria over vacuous claims of impending disaster (economic, international, or political), the RUSSIANs (!!) or anything else that makes the Democrats look like adults instead of petulant children who have a vicious streak.

It was the NYT, you'll recall, that gleefully participated in the Democrats' McCarthyesque attempted destruction of Brett Kavanaugh. And now, its editors have the unmitigated gall to conjure images of McCarthy as they describe the GOP. Roger Kimball comments:

If you haven’t had your daily dose of petulant surreality, swivel over to read this astounding editorial at what used to be America’s paper of record. This curious effusion warns that “The G.O.P. will not be able to postpone a reckoning on Donald Trump’s presidency for much longer.”

Oh, dear. Are things as bad as that? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And you know that it is really serious because the cri de coeur not only appears in the leaky flagship of the legacy media (I won’t name it if you don’t mind) but also it appears under the solemn byline of “The Editorial Board.”

Silence, please! The important people are about to speak. Pay attention!

Kimball goers on the quote a small segment of the Times editorial:

The Republican Party is again confronting a crisis of conscience, one that has been gathering force ever since Donald Trump captured the party’s nomination in 2016. Afraid of his political influence, and delighted with his largely conservative agenda, party leaders have compromised again and again, swallowing their criticisms and tacitly if not openly endorsing presidential behavior they would have excoriated in a Democrat. Compromise by compromise, Donald Trump has hammered away at what Republicans once saw as foundational virtues: decency, honesty, responsibility. He has asked them to substitute loyalty to him for their patriotism itself.

His rejoinder:

Decency, forsooth! Honesty! Responsibility! How “decent” was it of this wretched newspaper to forgo even the appearance of impartiality in its reporting on Donald Trump, how “honest,” how “responsible”?

Such handwringing oration is merely the runway for a long bill of particulars. I love it when the Editorial Board ticks off its indictments, because they never do it without flying far, far above the plain truth. The idea, I suspect, is to substitute assertion for fact in a rushed and very loud voice, hoping that velocity and volume will distract from the tendentiousness of your assertions.

In fact, Kimball's last sentence describes not just the NYT editorial approach, but the overriding strategy that has been applied by the Democratic party throughout the Russian collusion hoax and now the Impeachment coup attempt, to wit: "... substitute assertion for fact in a rushed and very loud voice, hoping that velocity and volume will distract from the tendentiousness of your assertions."

It worth pointing out that this strategy could not succeed without the willing participation and complicity of the Dems' trained hamsters in the media.

Kimball concludes with this:

Soon, very soon, the reports of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the U.S. Attorney John Durham will be published. Attorney General William Barr will make good on his promise to get to the bottom of the biggest political scandal in our history. Then we’ll see the indictments and prosecutions and, probably, a spate of convictions.

The Editorial Board will howl. But it will be the impotent howl of one who has been exposed and humiliated. The evangelist Matthew spoke of fletus et stridor dentium: “wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Unpleasant, of course, but richly deserved.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Kimball's prediction of "howling" at the IG and DoJ reports will occur. I just hope that his prediction about the consequences comes to pass. I'm not so sure about that part.

Toxic

As a historian, Victor Davis Hansen has the ability to examine the broad scope of events and boil them down to their essential meaning. In a sweeping article on the virulent hatred of Donald Trump that has overtaken Democrats, their legions of media (and entertainment) allies, the #NeverTrump GOP, and far too many deep state operatives (the four constituencies), Hansen considers Trump's many foibles as well as his successes (read the whole thing). At the conclusion of the piece, he writes:

Trump senses that the more he offends them [the four constituencies], and the more so they pronounce him a dunce, a nut, a boor, a criminal, an ogre, then all the more they reveal what many had suspected about them but had no hard evidence to substantiate those suspicions. Trump believes his checkered social life is now transparent and serves as a sort of armor when he jousts with the sober and judicious whose pretense of civility is ripped away leaving them hypocritical when they foam, swear, and damn the current president.

Media bias? The hatred for Trump manifests itself in 90 percent negative coverage, according to reputable media watchdogs.

Trump’s war with the Colin Kaepernick take-a-knee fad and the NBA-China nexus reminds us that hypocritical multimillionaires who grow rich throwing, catching, and bouncing balls are not by that fact to be looked up to as either moral or wise, but mostly remain clueless and hypocritical.

The bipartisan Washington establishment? If an outsider Manhattan wheeler-dealer without military or political experience can at last call an appeased China to account, can avoid a Libyan fiasco, can acknowledge that America is tired of a 18-year slog in Afghanistan when others would not, or believes ISIS thrived as a result of prior arcane restrictive U.S. rules of engagement—and he is proven largely right—then what does that say about the credentialed experts who dreamed up the bipartisan conventional wisdom that with a few more concessions China would eventually become Palo Alto or that Libya would bloom at the heart of the Arab Spring?

The Left detests Trump for a lot of reasons besides winning the 2016 election and aborting the progressive project. But mostly they hate his guts because he is trying and often succeeding to restore a conservative America at a time when his opponents thought that the mere idea was not just impossible but unhinged.

And that is absolutely unforgivable.

For the past 40 years, the left has effectively controlled the narrative, even when the GOP has won elections and controlled one or both branches on congress. As a consequence, they have become more and more extreme, less and less open to negotiation or compromise, and increasingly strident in their view of those who have differing opinions. This has occurred because control of the narrative means that there are no checks and balances—crazy ideas reign supreme. Any one who questions them (e.g., the argument that our borders should be open to everyone, without restriction or controls) is demonized as a "racist" or worse.

Love him or hate him or anything in between, you have to admit that Donald Trump gleefully questions the Leftist narrative, often using language that is intended to infuriate his opponents. Unlike past presidents, he uses social media to circumvent the main stream media, frustrating their attempts to control his message and therefore continue to control the narrative.

At the end of the day, Trump's style is probably not good for America, but by unmasking the four constituencies and demonstrating that in their own way, they are really no better than he is, Donald Trump has demonstrated that their style is equally toxic.

Mifsud

Even though the Democrats spent 30 months telling us the now proven lie that Donald Trump was a Russian stooge (some Dems still insist that the lie is a their truth); even though Robert Mueller spent two years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and essentially exonerated Trump of wrongdoing, and even though the Democrat's trained hamsters in the main stream media provided us with a steady stream of proven fake news about the events surrounding the "Russia Investigation," it would be no surprise if you didn't know who Joseph Mifsud is.

Roger Simon thinks everyone should know Mifsud and provides some background:

Mifsud — for those who may have been on a long vacation on Alpha Centauri – is the man who supposedly told George Papadopoulos the Russians had Hillary's missing emails to share with the Trump campaign and therewith launched a thousand Russia probe ships. The Mueller report implies Mifsud was a Russian agent, but other indications are that he was one of ours, in which case the whole Russia probe was the most outrageous, indeed evil, misuse of U.S. intelligence in our history.

Recent news stories indicate that the Justice Department probe into election interference has finally uncovered Mifsud's cell phones. Oddly, the mainstream media has no interest in this whatsoever, indicating that it is a threat, somehow, to the Democrats or their lackeys within the deep state.

You could argue, I suppose that there's nothing to see there and that two cells phones are just a small thing, but Simon thinks it might be major. He writes:

It doesn't take the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out how these phones suddenly materialized. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham were in Italy recently, one of Mifsud's favorite bailiwicks — Link Campus University in Rome — and his last known whereabouts before he vanished. It's unclear who gave Mifsud these phones and why, but, unlike others that were hammered, these particular BlackBerrys appear to be intact, their data ready for inspection or already being inspected.

After the disappointment — to put it mildly — of Jeff Sessions, many were nervous that Barr would not really follow through with his investigation. Once bitten, as they say. But the appearance of what seems like genuine evidence is a strong indication the man is for real. And this evidence wouldn't even have to have been leaked covertly to Ms. Powell because, given what it is, there's reason to view the phones as "Brady material" (i. e. exculpatory evidence indicating possible prosecutorial misconduct).

Odd, isn't it, that Barr and Durham were able to get the phones relatively quickly, yet Mueller was unable to acquire them after two years of investigation. Also odd, that the would-be Woodwards and Bersteins of the main stream media were notoriously uninterested in anything that might topple their well-constructed narrative about 2016.

The content on the phones might just indicate that things were not what they seemed re: Joseph Mifsud and that his masters weren't the Russians at all, but rather elements of our intelligence community. You know, the same deep state elements who are currently being investigated for attempting a soft coup to remove Donald Trump from power.

I suspect that the Dems' fevered efforts to keep "impeachment" in the headlines has much to do with their desire to bury the efforts of Barr and Durham, who might finally get to the bottom of who really tried to interfere in the 2016 elections and why. Inveterate liars like Rep. Adam Schiff and political manipulators like Nancy Pelosi might see a storm coming. The feeder bands of that storm, we'll can call it "hurricane Barr-Durham," might destroy their party's chances in 2020. Therefore, news of the storm must be buried by any means necessary.

Extremist Thinking

It seems as if the Democrats are becoming increasingly extreme in their views. Driven by fear that hard-Left politics will not provide them with an electoral path to power, they have proposed eliminating the constitutionally mandated electoral college and replacing it with a popular vote. That would (because of heavy blue majorities in just two large states (NY and CA) of the 50 united states) guarantee election victories. Good luck with that. And to make sure that the courts would not stand in the way of unconstitutional power grabs, the Left is increasingly in favor of restructured SCOTUS. For years, a liberal majority presented the left with nothing to complain about, but now that the Supreme Court is leaning just a bit right of center, it's the end of the world.

James Freeman comments:

Yesterday this column noted that judicial radicalism is increasingly embraced by establishment Democrats. At last night’s Democratic debate, presidential candidates kicked around the idea of restructuring the Supreme Court by adding new Justices or perhaps forcing out current ones via term limits.

The general idea is to change the judiciary until it produces their desired political results. To his credit, former Vice President Joe Biden warned his fellow Democrats against attempting to pack the court with ideological allies, as it would surely reduce the public’s respect for legal decisions.

But unfortunately the idea probably isn’t going away ...

Freeman quotes from an opinion piece in the New York Times (where else?) arguing for a restructuring of the Supreme Court:

Four of the nine current Supreme Court justices have been named by presidents who took office despite losing the popular vote.

Two of those four justices were named by a president whose victory was clinched when the Supreme Court ordered a halt to vote counting.

Ahhh ... there it is. A GOP presidential candidate (in this case George W. Bush) "cheated" and "stole" the election. Sounds kinda familiar—does it not?

As a consequence, SCOTUS is illegitimate because ... popular vote!

No matter that the Dems knew the rules of the election before they conducted their campaigns. No matter that there are compelling reasons to allow every state to have some constitutionally mandated influence in a federal election, not only the largest (and coincidentally, bluest) ones. No matter that what's important to people in NY and CA just might be different than what matters to people in IA or AL or NH). No matter that we are a representative government. We pass laws via elected representatives, not via direct votes of a majority across the county. No matter that the constitution gives the states clear powers to govern, unencumbered by the federal government.

The Democrats now believe in the tyranny of the majority by endorsing the popular vote. By packing the courts or forcing judges to retire, they want to force the judiciary to bend to their will. As long as the Dems can grasp the power, anything goes. That. Is. Extremist. Thinking.

Into Motion

All presidents make mistakes and when they do, the consequences can be significant. It appears that Donald Trump made a serious mistake in Syria, not because his position that the United States cannot and should not fight endless wars in predominantly Muslim failed states is wrong, but because he failed to adequately consider the unintended and potentially serious consequences of his signal to withdraw.

Dov S. Zakheim provides reasonable criticism of Trump's action:

The Turkish invasion of Syria, prompted by President Trump’s sudden and stunning announcement that he would withdraw troops from the Syrian-Turkish border, spells only trouble for America’s position in the region. It has boosted Iranian and Russian — and even Chinese — standing in the Middle East. It has once again demonstrated American unreliability by betraying Kurdish allies. It has created new humanitarian pressures on a Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) that abuts Rojava, the Syrian Kurdish enclave, and that has tried mightily to maintain good relations with Washington and the West. And it could lead to an Israeli direct strike on Iran in response to any new provocation by Tehran.

It is certainly true that Iran and Russia would have preferred that Turkey not go more deeply into Syria than it already has done. Iranian spokesmen made that very clear. Nevertheless, Tehran and Moscow, as well as Beijing — an increasingly active player in the region — can only benefit from widespread regional perceptions of American unreliability. America has betrayed the Kurds before, beginning with the 1920 Treaty of Sevres that dismembered the Ottoman Empire but ignored the Kurds.

Trump has given the four constituencies ample reason to howl over his decision on Syria, but much of their hysteria is politically motivated. Recall for just a moment, that it was Barack Obama (think: "red lines") who set the stage for the Syrian civil war in which half a million people died. The Dems and their trained hamsters in the media seemed unperturbed about that casualty count, but are now counting every person killed by the Turks and blaming Trump for the death. Then again, hypocrisy is what the modern politics of the Left is all about.

But having said that, the four constituencies do have a point. The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

Mr. Trump now finds himself back in an economic and diplomatic brawl with Turkey that he said he wanted to avoid. Wouldn’t it have been easier simply to tell Mr. Erdogan, on that famous phone call two Sundays ago, that the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate a Turkish invasion against the Kurds and would use air power to stop it? Mr. Erdogan would have had to back down and continue negotiating a Syrian safe zone with the Kurds and the U.S.

At times Donald Trump seems naive about the thugs who operate in the Middle East. Erdogan, among many Middle Eastern leaders, is a thug and cannot be trusted. Trump's position on withdrawal (although well-intentioned) has put a series of deadly events into motion. The unintended consequences are yet to be revealed, but they will not be good.

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
---------------------------
John R. Bradley provides an alternative take that is well worth considering (read the who thing):

... almost all the pundits and politicians are of the absurd opinion that — amid the endless cycle of war, revolution and terrorism in that cursed part of the world — we should once again foolishly see this scenario (as in Iraq and Libya) as a simple, folkloric tale of good vs evil. This time around, on one side are the secular, heroic Kurdish freedom fighters, lovers of democracy and steadfast American allies. On the other there are the bloodthirsty foot-soldiers from Turkey, a country that wants to annihilate them. As usual when it comes to the Middle East, almost all the pundits and politicians are talking balderdash.

That the reality on the ground is far more complicated will not be news to those who live in the region, but whose opinions are rarely taken into account by western commentators ...

Another thing the neoconservatives and liberals have in common when it comes to the Middle East, apart from wanting to bomb everything in sight, is the racist belief that the locals are incapable of resolving their problems and therefore need the US military to lord it over them. Thankfully, Trump has a different, more compassionate view. Despite his endless flip-flopping, he is passionately opposed to the endless Middle Eastern wars and determined to allow the major players in the region to take responsibility for their actions. It is a policy that is paying dividends.

Trump’s decision to rule out a military response to a presumed Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields in September shook the Saudi royal court to its foundations. But as a result, the Saudis are open to negotiations with the Yemenis to bring that ghastly war to an end. And they have begun peace talks with Iran. In Syria, too, the most likely outcome of Trump stepping aside to allow for Turkey’s invasion is a Russian-brokered peace deal on the back of US sanctions against Turkey that reins in the Kurdish terrorists, protects the rest of the Kurdish population and restores Syria’s control over a region that contains almost all of its oil, farmland and water supplies. So by pulling US troops out of harm’s way, Trump, rather than betraying the Kurds, has saved their bacon.

In the case of Syria and Turkey, the only way to determine whether any decision is correct is to let that decision play out. It's a dangerous game to be sure, but recommendations to continue a never ending presence is a very broken,"cursed part of the world" also has dangers galore.

Thugs

Socialist contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, has returned to the campaign trail after a heart attack, and among his first public statements was an attack on the new Dem frontrunner, Liz Warren, He called her a ... wait for it ... "capitalist." (!!!!) Among the Democrat base, that epithet could sink Warren, even though she espouses pretty much every socialist policy that has been proposed by Sanders and many other Dem contenders. Anyway, the Dems have demonstrated that they are certainly good at name-calling, so we'll add "capitalist" to their long, long list of epithets.

I suspect that once a nominee is chosen, the Dems will make a weak attempt to tack to the center, telling the American people that labeling them as "socialists" is a "scare tactic," and they really aren't socialists at all. That's rich, given that every candidate proposes massive big government expansion, profligate spending, confiscatory taxation, erosion of free speech and other freedoms, and lots and lots of free stuff "for the most vulnerable" among us—paid for not by the rich (although the dems will tell you otherwise) but by working stiffs who don't have tax attorneys and financial advisors to help them avoid the Dem's taxes.

The Dems would very much like to make this election about Donald Trump, but I suspect it'll be more about the current economy and the Dem's attempt to wreck it with socialist programs dragged out of the 1930s. But socialism is more than just a wrecking ball for economic growth and individual prosperity. It's also a governance model that can lead to very bad things. In the extreme, history indicates that as socialism fails (and it always does fail), its leaders cling to power by enacting massive human right abuses. A case in point is Venezuela.

If you've been paying even a little attention, you know that socialist leaders Nichola Maduro and his mentor, Hugo Chavez, (both men were once lionized by many prominent Democrats and incredibly, are still defended by a few) have destroyed a once vibrant country. Shortages of everything, mass immigration fostered by economic despair and violence, a crippled health system, massive corruption, and human rights abuses.

And now, one of the Dems' favorite global organizations, the United Nations, is poised to name Venezuela to its U.N. Human Rights Council. Ex-UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, comments:

The Human Rights Council (HRC) is the United Nations’ greatest failure [and that is saying something]. Instead of protecting human rights, it has long protected the tyrants, dictators and strongmen who abuse them. That’s why the United States withdrew from the HRC last year.

China — which is building a surveillance state and conducting an ethnic cleansing campaign of Muslim minorities — is on the Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia and Cuba also are members in good standing.

And now, as if to confirm the United States’ decision to leave, Venezuela is poised to become a member on Oct. 16. Thankfully, Costa Rica has mounted a last-minute challenge. But unless other countries support its bid, the HRC will continue to make a mockery of human rights.

The Maduro regime in Venezuela is among the world’s worst human-rights abusers. It has crushed the independent media and legislature. It jails and tortures political opponents by the thousands.

The criminal, socialist, narco-state has ruined its economy and refuses to allow humanitarian aid into the country. The Venezuelan people dig through trash cans and slaughter zoo animals to feed their families.

I’ve watched Venezuelan mothers and children walk three hours in the blazing sun across the bridge to Colombia to get the only meal they will eat that day. The average Venezuelan adult has lost 24 pounds because of massive poverty and food shortages.

And this is a government that the United Nations is considering adding to its Human Rights Council.

Yep. Might be a good idea to ask the Democrat candidates about all of that at their next "debate." Using revisionist history, they've been prepped to tell us that both Maduro and Chavez are now to be considered "thugs," not socialists. Sorta like the 'thugs" that have grown out of other socialist regimes (e.g., Cuba, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, China) of years past. Somehow, socialist leaders tend to morph into "thugs" — over and over again. I wonder why that is.

Enemies of the People

If you read this blog, you understand what the phrase "trained hamsters" means. As a consequence, you understand that I have little respect for a media that purposely distorts the truth, ignores context, omits key facts, and otherwise shows a complete lack of interest in any information and facts that demonstrate just how dishonest and corrupt the Democrat crusade against Donald Trump has been. Kim Stassel comments:

I’ve never engaged much in media criticism, because it’s almost too obvious. Yes, the mainstream media is liberal and biased. But at least in the past, that bias was largely a function of insularity. Most reporters weren’t even fully aware they were prejudiced politically; everyone they worked and socialized with held the same left-of-center views.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

This media war is extraordinary, overt and increasingly damaging to the country.

The sad reality is that the hamsters simply don't care. They have abandoned journalistic ethics and adopted gutter reporting. They have rejected any effort to bring skepticism to Democrat claims of "white supremacy," or "Russian collusion," or "obstruction," or "quid pro quo" and instead, have been the cheerleaders for those lies. They spin even the most innocuous news (e.g., changes in administration personnel) into reports that indicate chaos within the White House. Yet, amid this supposed chaos, they never seem to be able to explain how the Trump administration has achieved its economic, trade, and other policy accomplishments. Sure, there are many legitimate reasons to criticize any president (except, in the hamsters' view, Barack Obama), but the media's treatment of Trump goes far beyond criticism, and crosses a dangerous line into hyper-partisan character assassination.

When Donald Trump suggested that the hamsters are "enemies of the people," he was more right than wrong. Here's why.

They media should inform without obvious and rabid bias—they have failed to do that. The media should report, without cherry-picking the stories that dovetail with their preferred narrative—they refuse to do that on a daily basis. The media should investigate dishonesty, corruption and government-wrongdoing, not just when the GOP does those things, but also when Democrats are culpable—the media refuses to even consider evidence when it might reflect badly on Dems. The media should NOT be an active advocate for one political ideology and exhibit skepticism when any ideology makes crazy claims—that just doesn't happen when Dems make crazy claims on a daily basis that are almost never vetted by the hamsters.

The media is not to be trusted, and that's a sad commentary on America in the 21st century.

Permanent Coup

The first time I used the term "coup" to describe the daily attempts by the four constituencies to destabilize the presidency of Donald Trump and remove him from office was about six months into his presidency—in June 2017. My reference to a "coup" occurred in a footnote to a post. Since that time, I've suggested that a soft coup, conducted by deep state operatives in the FBI and intelligence community has been ongoing and may have been aided and abetted by appointees/holdovers from the previous administration. I admit that this sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy theory stuff. After all, this kind of thing happens only in third world countries, not in the USA. Until Trump. Sometimes a conspiracy isn't a theory—it's an actual fact, spurring an ongoing investigation by serious people—AG William Barr and Special Prosecutor John Dunham—who will report to the nation in coming months.

The Democrats, along with other members of the four constituencies, are terrified of those reports and what they'll imply. Their terror amplifies their attacks on Trump and has taken the 'by any means necessary' meme to new heights. They hope that by delegitimizing Trump and his administration they'll blunt the impact of the Justice department and IG reports and as a consequence, escape censure, condemnation or worse, indictment.

Of course, the Dems' trained hamsters in the media have dismissed all of this, showing an amazing lack of journalistic curiosity about the people and events connected to an attemot to unseat an elected president. No real surprise there. But, in addition to many Right-leaning journalists, a few media types on the Left have shown surprising courage in speaking out. One of them, Matt Taibbi, is a journalist I mentioned in recent post. Today, Taibbi goes even further, suggesting like I have, that an ongoing coup attempt, he calls it a "permanent coup," is being conducted. He writes:

My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.

Indeed, "the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal" are [emphasis mine] are more dangerous than Trump. The irony is that the mainstream media suggests they are heroes, when in fact, they're anything but. Like all aspects of this travesty, the Democrats use projection when they refer to Trump as a threat to democracy. In reality, with their recent impeachment actions, the Dems represent a dangerous and considerably more significant threat.

Taibbi provides a little history:

The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.

The first big shot was fired in early January, 2017, via a CNN.com headline, “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” This tale, about the January 7th presentation of former British spy Christopher Steele’s report to then-President-elect Trump, began as follows:

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

Four intelligence chiefs in the FBI’s James Comey, the CIA’s John Brennan, the NSA’s Mike Rogers, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, presented an incoming president with a politically disastrous piece of information, in this case a piece of a private opposition research report.

Among other things because the news dropped at the same time Buzzfeed decided to publish the entire “bombshell” Steele dossier, reporters spent that week obsessing not about the mode of the story’s release, but about the “claims.” In particular, audiences were rapt by allegations that Russians were trying to blackmail Trump with evidence of a golden shower party commissioned on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama himself.

Twitter exploded. No other news story mattered. For the next two years, the “claims” of compromise and a “continuing” Trump-Russian “exchange” hung over the White House like a sword of Damocles.

Few were interested in the motives for making this story public. As it turned out, there were two explanations, one that was made public, and one that only came out later. The public justification as outlined in the CNN piece, was to “make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him [were] circulating among intelligence agencies.”

However, we know from Comey’s January 7, 2017 memo to deputy Andrew McCabe and FBI General Counsel James Baker there was another explanation. Comey wrote:

I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted [Trump] to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold.

Imagine if a similar situation had taken place in January of 2009, involving president-elect Barack Obama. Picture a meeting between Obama and the heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, along with the DIA, in which the newly-elected president is presented with a report complied by, say, Judicial Watch, accusing him of links to al-Qaeda. Imagine further that they tell Obama they are presenting him with this information to make him aware of a blackmail threat, and to reassure him they won’t give news agencies a “hook” to publish the news.

Now imagine if that news came out on Fox days later. Imagine further that within a year, one of the four officials became a paid Fox contributor. Democrats would lose their minds in this set of circumstances.

Every progressive and #NeverTrumper should reread Taibbi's last two paragraphs and provide an honest assessment of their reaction to a coup attempt against their beloved Barack Obama. If they're honest, they would admit that "losing their minds" would be the least of their reaction.

Unfortunately, the Democrats and their supporters within the four constituencies have already lost their minds. Hatred of the man, Trump, is threatening the very foundation of the office of the presidency. The Dems and their supported within the deep state justify their actions with moral posturing, but at its core, the soft coup that they now call "impeachment" is about the fear that their past actions will be exposed and will lead to their ruin. Their actions, as Taibbi correctly notes, have threatened the very foundation of our electoral process and the peaceful transition of power. Their actions have been and continue to be dishonest and repugnant. One can only hope that truth wins out.

Where's Hunter?

Where's Hunter? It's the wording on a comically ironic tee shirt, but at the same time, it's a question that CANNOT be asked, if you're one of the hundreds of the Democrats' trained hamsters in the main stream media. In fact, it is now verboten to discuss anything even smacking of influence peddling by Joe Biden (think: the Dem's favorite current allegation against Trump—quid pro quo) or inappropriate enrichment of family members (think: Hunter Biden's deals with the Ukraine and China while father Joe was the VP).

Jonathan Turley comments:

Hunter Biden: The mere mention of his name seemingly triggers the vapors among cable TV hosts and their guests.

When President Trump turned to the Bidens and Ukraine in a speech, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace cut off the coverage, declaring she had to protect the listeners: "We hate to do this, really, but the president isn't telling the truth." When Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) tried to answer a question about the Ukraine scandal by referencing the Bidens, "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd [my opinion of Chuck Todd is noted here] angrily told him not to "gaslight" the nation.

The Bidens, simply, are not what well-bred people discuss in polite company, apparently. Indeed, many journalists seem to be channeling not Edward R. Murrow, the fabled CBS newscaster, but Florence Hartley, the author of "The Ladies' Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness" in 1872. Hartley warned her readers to "avoid, at all times, mentioning subjects or incidents that can in any way disgust your hearers."

For news shows on MSNBC, CNN and other cable networks, nothing is more disgusting than the mention of what Hunter Biden actually was doing in Ukraine.

The trained hamsters have decided that no further discussion of Joe and Hunter is allowed, because ... well, never, ever mention corrupt Democrats who have been outed by the evil Trump.

With panic in their eyes and in their voices, the hamsters fall back on what Turley calls a "conclusory mantra that 'this has all been investigated.'" That is, in essence they're saying, there's nothing to see here, move along. It truly is amazing how incurious the hamsters are when they want to be. And in the case of the Bidens, they really, really, really want to look the other way.

As if somehow to counter-attack, the Dems and their hamsters try a pathetic strategy described by Marc Lotter:

Realizing the severity of the situation for the flagging front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, the left is currently in distraction mode. Democrats want to create a false equivalency between Biden being paid by entities in Ukraine and China while his father was vice president, and Ivanka Trump’s successful business enterprises. Anyone who dares to ask questions about Biden’s shady international business dealings is met with “But, but, but what about Ivanka?” The comparison is ludicrous.

Ivanka Trump spent years in business prior to her father’s leap into politics. As part of building and growing her business, she filed over 120 trademarks to protect her brand and name — all before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president. It would have been business malpractice for her not to secure legal protections, especially in countries like China where corporate theft is routine. Case in point, within days of President Trump taking office, more than 65 Chinese companies tried to trademark “Ivanka Trump” for different products. As a smart businesswoman, Ivanka fought to prevent companies from stealing and profiting from her name, especially since she was entering public service as an unpaid senior advisor to the president. So, while the media portrays her in a negative light, the truth is that she paid from her own pocket to protect her name while receiving nothing in return.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden had zero experience in Ukraine and zero experience in the international gas market, but while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, a Ukrainian gas company found it useful to pay Hunter $50,000 per month for work that is unknown. Hunter also flew to China on Air Force Two with his father, and his firm later received a $1.5 billion investment from China’s national bank. Both “jobs” occurred while Joe Biden was leading the Obama administration’s policy in those two countries. Coincidence?

Everyone knows Hunter Biden received these incredible business opportunities only because of his last name. He brought no other skills or expertise to the table — just look at his resume. This is a classic example of a political family profiteering from public service.

The big question is whether V.P. Joe Biden brought pressure on the Ukraine and China or made a less than subtle suggestion that led to "a political family profiteering from public service."

As I've written many times, the Dems suffer from two serious maladies. The first, Trump Derangement Syndrome is self evident and has led to the second, Projection. Virtually every case of Trump wrongdoing that they have falsely alleged (Collusion, Obstruction, and now Quid pro quo) was actually something that one or more prominent Democrats have done during the Obama years or shortly thereafter (and there's copious evidence to prove it).

Maybe that's why the Dems' trained hamsters have decided to stonewall for the Bidens.

Blizzard

For those of us who have been in blizzard conditions, there's a phenomenon called a "white out." This occurs when there's so much snow and so much wind that visibility goes to zero. The world looks white—you can't see a thing at any distance from your face.

Part of the Democrat strategy in their impeachment coup attempt is to create a white out. They introduce a snow storm of unrelated and often inaccurate or misleading information. They then have their trained hamsters in the media create blizzard with a never-ending high velocity verbal wind that whips this bad information into a blizzard. It's effective—until the wind dies for just a moment and you get enough visibility to understand that there's nothing of substance beyond the white out. It's a sham.

Kim Strassel has a way of looking through the snow that has distinguished her during these chaotic times. She writes:

In the two weeks since the White House released the transcript of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the debate has descended into the weeds of process and people. This is unsurprising given House Democrats’ decision to keep hidden the central doings of their impeachment inquiry, and the media’s need to fill a void.

The press has responded by seeking to weave dozens of obscure Ukrainian and U.S. names into a crazy quilt of corruption. Readers have no time to keep track of all the Vlads, envoys and meetings in Spain, and that’s the point. The goal is to cover the Trump administration in ugly ...

It alleged, for instance, that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine to “locate and turn over servers.” He didn’t. It claims Mr. Trump “praised” a prosecutor named Yuriy Lutsenko and suggested the Ukrainian president “keep him in his position.” That didn’t happen either. There’s more, and when the whistleblower can’t get the facts of the call right, it’s no surprise he got his conclusion wrong too.

There is simply no evidence of what House Democrats have made the central claim of their impeachment inquiry: that Mr. Trump engaged in a “quid pro quo” by withholding aid to Ukraine unless it “opened an investigation” into former Vice President Joe Biden.

We now have the transcript of the call, in which Mr. Trump never threatened to withhold aid as a condition of an investigation. He doesn’t even mention money. The press is trying to suggest the threat was “implicit”—which means he didn’t say it.

There’s also the belated and devastating fact that the Ukrainians say they had no knowledge the aid was being withheld until a month after the call. How can you demand a quo when the target is unaware of the quid? Further, the aid was released—despite no “investigation” or “dirt” from Ukraine. And Mr. Zelensky has twice said there was no “pressure” or “blackmail” from the U.S. with regard to an investigation.

We also now have the opening statement of Kurt Volker, the former special representative to Ukraine, from his testimony last week to the House Intelligence Committee. “As you will see from the extensive text messages I am providing,” Mr. Volker said, “Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion” during negotiations with Kyiv. He also testified he did not discuss the withholding of aid with his Ukrainian counterparts until “late August.” This is second confirmation of the Ukrainians’ statement that they had no clue during the July phone call there was any risk to aid.

Then there are the text messages. Democrats have highlighted several in which a State Department diplomat frets that aid is being withheld for political reasons. They neglect to point out that the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, shut down that claim in his own text: “You are incorrect. . . . The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

The wind from current impeachment "blizzard" warps facts and twists them into lies, creating drifts of unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. As a consequence, it closes any road that might lead to a government getting things done for the benefit of its citizens.

Rudy's Notes

The Dems and their trained hamsters in the media have made much of the fact that Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, conducted and investigation in the Ukraine related to foreign interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. Now, it's worth noting that it was the Dems who made a big deal about foreign interference in the election after Hillary Clinton lost; it was the Dems who promoted the canard that Trump colluded with the Russians during that time (disproven by their own Special Counsel), and it is the Dems who are now pushing impeachment based on a single phone call with the new president of the Ukraine. The Dems and their trained hamsters are hyperventilating that Guiliani—a past U.S. District Attorney—had the gall to investigate. It's fascinating that they seem uninterested in finding out what Giuliani learned. Worried, I suppose, that what Rudy found out might destroy their dishonest narrative.

Turns out that Rudy produced a set of contemporaneous notes (sorta like the ones developed by the Whistleblower that the Dems swear by) and those notes are pretty explosive. Real Clear Politics Investigations provides some background:

The notes, evidently from interviews Giuliani conducted in January, are likely to figure in any Trump impeachment proceedings, but have not been publicly released in the United States. They made it to the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General, which passed them on to the FBI. They have now been distributed to congressional committees, according to the inspector general in a cover letter to Capitol Hill leaders.

Giuliani has promised blockbuster revelations from his independent investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The five pages of typewritten, printed-out notes – not transcripts –together with the IG’s cover letter to lawmakers, were posted this week on a Ukrainian website, The Babel. They appear to memorialize two conversations: one on Jan. 23, when Giuliani spoke by phone with the former general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin; the other is from two days later, when Shokin’s successor, then-General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, met Giuliani in New York.

In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens’ interest, the notes say, the prosecutor also said he “was warned to stop” by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt.

The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Recounting Shokin’s version of events, the notes say he “was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.” Poroshenko later told Shokin that “he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden,” the Giuliani interview notes say.

Gosh, could it be that Trump wasn't lying, that Biden did, in fact, do something nefarious and that an investigation of wrong doing by the then Vice President of the United States is well-within the bounds of presidential inquiry? Or ... maybe this is all made up by Rudy?

Regardless of what you want to believe, you'd think the trained hamsters in the media, not to mention the intrepid Democrat investigators looking into impeachment, would be all over this. You'd think wrong.

One of the most comical things about the Dems in the era of Trump is their projection. It seems that they are hell-bent on accusing Trump of nasty things that they themselves have done. Russian collusion (think: the DNC/Clinton-sponsored dossier) and obstruction of justice (think: Hillary's destruction of 33,000 emails) come to mind. And now, quid pro quo. Suffering mightily from Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Dems open one Pandora's box after another. It looks increasingly likely that this latest "Ukrainian inquiry" is going to blow up in their faces. It couldn't happen to a more dishonest and deserving crew.

Chuck Todd

Poor Chuck Todd. He's a lightweight clown who was asked to fill the shoes of legendary journalist, Tim Russert. Russert was a liberal, but he rarely allowed his personal ideology to interfere with an objective view of political events or a fair interview. Not so with Chucky—a trained hamster who now hosts Meet the Press, a once respected Sunday morning political show. Todd has become a vocal advocate for the Democrats, no matter how extreme their positions and how preposterous their faux outrage over Donald Trump. I suppose that's because Chucky shares their outrage.

Over the past weekend, Todd got into a shouting match with Senator Ron Johnson (R-UT) because Johnson had the temerity to suggest that the Ukraine phone call be put into broader context. Johnson suggested—correctly—that the Ukraine was ground zero for the Democrats' efforts in 2016 to besmirch Trump the candidate, and therefore, an investigation of the goings-on during that period had as much or more to do with election interference in 2016 as it does with Joe Biden's candidacy. Unfortunately, Chucky and the Dems don't want to go there ... because, impeachment!!! It might also be because a hard look might uncover some really dirty dealings on the part of the Dems, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and yeah ... may even Joe Biden.

So Chucky got upset with Johnson, started yelling, and as a consequence he got criticized rather harshly by a few real journalists like Mollie Hemingway. She tweeted:

"The @chucktodd meltdown is instructional. It is clearly very frustrating for those in the media who are pushing impeachment (after the Russia hoax they pushed for years) that those outside of their bubble are not falling for this latest attempt to undo the 2016 election."

Mark Hemingway (spouse of Mollie) provides a more complete analysis of Todd's bias here.*

In response to the criticism, Todd tried to cover with this tweet:



With that, Sean Davis couldn't resist a snarky comment or two:

Chuck Todd, a reporter for NBC News and the host of NBC’s Meet The Press, appeared to imply on Twitter earlier today that reporters in politics are really no different than referees in sports. And that probably seems like a really great analogy if you’re someone who’s completely ignorant about reporters, politics, referees, and sports. If you happen to be an individual who knows a little something about any of those topics, then the inanity of Chuck Todd’s equivalence is readily apparent.

That declaration from Chuck Todd raises so many questions. Questions like, “You’re not really that dumb are you?” and “What brand of paint did you just huff off camera?”

The implication from Todd is that he and his reporter friends are just independent arbiters of the daily goings-on of politics. They have no skin in the game. They’re irrefutable experts on the rules. They’re highly qualified. They don’t care who wins or loses, just so long as the rules are followed.

The big problem is that the only people who believe these assumptions about Chuck Todd and his reporter friends are Chuck Todd and his reporter friends.

Chucky and his trained hamster pals in the mainstream media are anything but "independent arbiters." They don't like it one bit when they are called out for the biased hacks they are.

Todd and the army of trained hamsters who try to define what we think and more important, what we know, don't want to consider any facts that might threaten their preferred narrative, so they throw a hissy-fit when someone like Johnson defies the narrative. They shout "conspiracy theory" when faced with proven factually accurate assertions that they don't want to hear. They play defense for a politician, Joe Biden, who at the very least, allowed his son to use Biden's government position to enrich himself mightily. They obfuscate or ignore any independent investigation that begins to close in on political corruption on the part of the Dems (watch what happens when the long-awaited IG report is released).

Chuck Todd is an embarrassment to the legacy of Tim Russert, but worse than that, he's an embarrassment to a once respected profession that has now become a laughingstock.


FOOTNOTE:
-------------------
* In Mark Hemingway's commentary on Chuck Todd, he mentions that after Sen. Johnson correctly noted that an on-going coup attempt began before Trump's inauguration, Todd responded: “I have no idea why Fox News conspiracy propaganda stuff is popping up on here.”

Hemingway provides a few salient facts about Todd's "conspiracy theory" claim (something that is a go-to rejoinder by Democrats whenever facts get in the way of their narrative):

While Todd’s dismissal of Johnson was met with applause from fellow journalists, was this an appropriate stance from a newsman purportedly concerned with facts?

The Trump campaign and administration were investigated for several years both by an internal counterintelligence probe at the FBI and a powerful special counsel. Many apparent abuses of power at the FBI during that probe have been found and are being officially investigated.

In August, fired FBI Director James Comey was the subject of a criminal referral from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz for illegal leaks to the media meant to undermine Trump and further the Russia investigation. The DoJ declined to prosecute. Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe was fired after the inspector general found he lied under oath to investigators about his own leaks. Many other officials involved in surveillance of the Trump campaign were fired, transferred, or left under pressure. Peter Strzok, the nation’s former top counterintelligence officer, was having an extramarital affair with FBI colleague Lisa Page, and their text messages betrayed extreme bias and unprofessional attitudes. In one text exchange, Strzok suggested the probe of Trump was an “insurance policy” in case Trump won in 2016.

Attorney General William Barr is investigating how the theory of Trump collusion with Russia was used to launch a probe of the political campaign. Veteran prosecutor John Durham is also investigating the origins of the probe, which led to the use of wiretaps, human informants, overseas intelligence assets, national security letters, and other surveillance by the FBI. Barr has testified that he is also looking into the role agencies other than the FBI played in the surveillance.

Todd is either too stupid, too ideological, or too frightened of the consequences for Dems to fully grasp that Johnson's allegation of a conspiracy isn't a "theory." Rather it's a direct reference to proven actions on the part of Democrat partisans within the government who tried and failed to initiate a soft coup against a candidate and then election winner they didn't like.

Pump the Brakes

As Donald Trump announces a withdrawal from Syria, the usual suspects begin to gin up the usual rhetoric. In this case, the situation is complex and any decision vis a vis withdrawal is not easy. Here are some of the issues as I see them:

• The United States cannot and should not police a collection of failed Muslim countries in the Middle East, trying to moderate long-standing tribal hatreds between rival Islamic factions that have gone on for centuries. Our Military should not be a police force nor should it stay in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria indefinitely. The conflicts in those countries are never-ending and our chances of success, much less nation building, approach zero.
• The United States should not abandon allies in the Middle East who have fought as our proxy and helped to defeat Islamic terror groups, including ISIS. The Kurds have been a staunch ally who we have abandoned in the past.
• The United States should never allow an Islamist, autocratic thug, like Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to attack our allies with impunity.
• Threats of economic sanctions will do little to dissuade the Turkish military once it has established presence in northern Syria. Threats will also do little to stop a country that threatened the Kurds with annihilation.

Give these issues, my take is that Donald Trump is wrong in abandoning the Kurds and giving Erdoğan free rein in Northern Syria. There is no guarantee that ISIS will continue to be contained if the Kurds are decimated nor is there any guarantee that unintended consequence—all of them bad—will not result from this move.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

President Trump’s defeat of Islamic State as a territorial power was a major foreign-policy success, yet he may now undo it with a retreat from Syria that will also signal to U.S. allies that the White House can’t be trusted.

That’s the risk of Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision late Sunday to abandon northern Syria to Turkey. Washington and Ankara had been negotiating to create a buffer zone to avoid a conflict there, but on Sunday the White House announced that American forces will cede the area to Turkish troops. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is now free to wage war on Syria’s Kurds, who were America’s most important allies against ISIS.

It seems that the entirety of Washington is against Trump's decision. In the past, that should give any president pause, but in recent years, the entirety of Washington has been so wrong about so much that being a contrarian just might have its merits. A counterpoint is offered by Charles Hurt:

Why is it always foreigners who manage to unite all the politicians from both parties in Washington?

Illegal aliens — I mean “Dreamers.” Haitian boat people. Olde Europeans. Sudanese. And now the Kurds. It is never support for regular Americans that brings politicians from both parties together.

Even military veterans seem to offend half the politicians in Washington. Democrats in Congress would give illegal aliens free health care before they would give it to our wounded veterans.

And don’t get me wrong. I’ve got nothing against the Kurds. They seem like great people. Brave, hardworking — a considerable step up from your average American college student today. And they seem to be truly trying to shake off the yoke of tyranny, which at least half of Americans support.

But why do politicians drop everything they should be working on and come together to do something only for the “Dreamers,” who, again, are illegal aliens? Or for the Kurds?

This is a hard one, but on balance, I think we need to pump the brakes. Trump should reconsider his decision.

Blowing the Whistle

You have to give Democratic strategists and leadership credit—they learn from their own vicious and repugnant behavior and adapt accordingly. Take the Kavanaugh hearing. In an effort to destroy the reputation of a respected judge, Bret Kavanaugh, and at the same time injure the hated Donald Trump, the Dems "found" a "witness," Christine Blasey-Ford, whose background as a Dem partisan was suppressed, who lied about elements of her case (think: fear of flying), who lawyered up long before she testified, and whose fantastical story could not be substantiated in any way. That didn't stop the Dems or their trained hamsters in the media, but when everyday people using just a little common sense came to the conclusion that unproven allegations from 35 years past were just not enough, what did the Dems do? They trotted out witness #2 and then witness # 3 with stories that were even more outrageous and unbelievable. Their despicable crusade against Kavanaugh crashed and burned.

Fast forward to the Ukrainian phone call. Apparently, the Dems learned that the label "witness" didn't work (particularly when you're conducting a smear), so they rebranded with the label "Whistleblower." It has a more solid ring to it, don't you think? And when Whistleblower #1 doesn't quite do it, well, there's always Whistleblower #2, who was trotted out to much fanfare this weekend. Does any of this begin to sound familiar?

To his credit, left-leaning writer, Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone Magazine blows the whistle [pun intended] on the Dems' latest attempt to destroy Donald Trump:

Start with the initial headline, in the story the Washington Post “broke” on September 18th:

TRUMP’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH FOREIGN LEADER ARE PART OF WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT SPURRED STANDOFF BETWEEN SPY CHIEF AND CONGRESS, FORMER OFFICIALS SAY

The unnamed person at the center of this story sure didn’t sound like a whistleblower. Our intelligence community wouldn’t wipe its ass with a real whistleblower.

Americans who’ve blown the whistle over serious offenses by the federal government either spend the rest of their lives overseas, like Edward Snowden, end up in jail, like Chelsea Manning, get arrested and ruined financially, like former NSA official Thomas Drake, have their homes raided by FBI like disabled NSA vet William Binney, or get charged with espionage like ex-CIA exposer-of-torture John Kiriakou. It’s an insult to all of these people, and the suffering they’ve weathered, to frame the ballcarrier in the Beltway’s latest partisan power contest as a whistleblower.

I don't often agree with Taibbi, but in this case he's got it exactly right— the Dems' latest "whistleblower" is a partisan participant in an on-going coup attempt who is almost assuredly a "ballcarrier in the Beltway’s latest partisan power contest..."

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Remember Candy Crowley? She was a CNN political correspondent and a trained hamster for the Democrats who also happened to be named moderator of the 3rd 2012 presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Crowley protected her favorite candidate, Barack Obama, by using “fake information“ to “correct“ Mitt Romney during the debate. She inserted herself into the debate (an ethical no-no) and successfully made Romney look foolish even though her assertions were 100% incorrect. Romney, always a gentleman, said nothing and allowed her outrageous bias to stand. That single incident was part of the reason that Romney lost an election he should’ve won. He lost, but he was a gentleman. Woo hoo!

Now Mitt Romney, a well-known NeverTrumper, tweets the following:

By all appearances, the president's brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.

It appears that Romney is perfectly okay with the Democrats vicious and dishonest tactics in their attempt to complete a coup against an elected American president. After all, Mitt capitulated to Crowley (and lost), shouldn't Trump do the gentlemanly thing and capitulate to the Dems?

Here's a rather pithy Twitter exchange following up on Romney's tweet:



Romney is a member of the old-school GOP. He is a gentleman, and I suspect he honestly believes that a stiff upper lip in the face of vicious attacks is the thing that gentleman do. Unfortunately, American politics has devolved to such an extent that stiff upper lips no longer cut it.

Nothing has changed on one side of the political aisle, but there's a stir on the other. The Democrats continue their vicious ad hominem attacks against any conservative who threatens their narrative, they trade in continuous hyperbole and sanctimony, they lie because they are never called on their dishonesty by a sympathetic media—all in the name of never-ending #Resistance.

If it were just about Trump, that would be one thing, but it's been going on for decades (think Bush (chimp-Hitler) or McCain ("Unstable") or Romney ("giving a woman cancer"). The old-school GOP absorbed the body blows and pulled their counterpunches like gentleman. But Donald Trump—whether you like his style or not—has single-handedly changed the rules. J.R. Dunn writes:

This is not your grandfather's — or even your uncle's — GOP. For generations, the GOP has accepted the role of the battered wife of American politics, cheated, beaten, and manipulated repeatedly with no response whatsoever. In fact, party officials — along with conservative spokesmen — have gone so far as to claim this as a virtue, in that being constantly humiliated in public was somehow keeping traditional values alive.

This, along with much else, has ended with Donald Trump. Trump has clearly demonstrated that the only way to answer a belligerent, hostile Left is to go blow for blow with leftists. He has continued this round after round and shows no sign whatsoever of backing off. (His current campaign commercial states flat out: "No more Mr. Nice Guy.")

It appears that the younger GOP pols have been paying close attention. So along with his other accomplishments, President Trump has presented us with a clean new deck of cards at the political table. It's about time.

Yes. It. Is.

UPDATE (10/6/2019):
--------------------------------
The reason that the "No More Mister Nice Guy" meme will resonate, not only with Republicans, but with more than a few Independents, and yes, even a few Democrats, is the utter hypocrisy and dishonesty of this latest coup attempt by the Dems. Their candidate for President in 2016 didn't just make a phone call, she bought and paid for a phony dossier developed in collusion with Russian sources, but somehow, that was perfectly okay. She then worked with supporters inside the deep state to undermine Trump before he was elected and incredibly, after he was president, but somehow, the trained hamsters in the mainstream media (Democrat toady, and NBC "journalist," Chuck Todd, comes to mind) characterize it as 'tin foil hat' conspiracy stuff, despite hard evidence proving it's true (wait for the IG and Justice Department reports coming soon).

Jenna Ellis Rives writes:

The impeachment narrative pushed by House Democrats needs to be called exactly what it is, which is a political coup. Contrary to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Adam Schiff, and progressive left wingers would have you believe, the United States still does have an objective rule of law, and the Constitution is not merely a guideline subject to interpretation and application at the whim of power grabs.

Regardless of whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or anything else, it should concern all of us that the rule of law is being tossed out in favor of an open coup designed to undermine a free and fair election in the United States. Sheer partisan hatred toward an American president by the other party is not and has never been a sufficient legal or constitutional basis for impeachment. The Constitution specifically lays out “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Political leverage or the inability to win elections are not listed. Over the past few weeks, some commentators have suggested that the phrasing “high crimes and misdemeanors” is an intentionally vague term that has no specific articulable definition. Not only is that false, but a lack of brightline jurisprudence does not render a term in the Constitution so malleable that the Democrats can fashion a political weapon of it.

The only true crimes and misdemeanors that have occurred over the past 30-plus months have been perpetrated by the Democrats, who then project them onto a president they hate. This coup attempt is a travesty and is doing great harm to our country.