Trying to Keep the Feeling Alive

Paula Bolyard at PJM:

Andy McCarthy on Fox just now: “The special council did not resolve the prosecutuoral decision on obstruction, so this is a decision for Barr to make.”

McCarthy added that Barr believed “they couldn’t conceivably make an obstruction case” against Trump that would reach a reasonable doubt standard.

Anything anything else that you here today is Democrats trying to keep the hopes alive because they know darn well they simply cannot sway voters without it.

As I said about a week ago,

I’m starting to think the timing of these things and the arrest yesterday morning of Julian Assange, are linked somehow to that Ukrainian investigation. I get the sense that this investigation has been ongoing for at least several weeks now, and what we’ve seen in the last 48 hours is preparatory to a larger scale investigation. There’s little I can point to yet, but my Gateway Pundit has been doing fabulous work for a long time now, and is IMV, more credible than the New York Times.heart tells me that’s where this is going.

For one thing, DOJ might not be able to get a conviction against Julian Assange, (indeed, as I suggested above they probably won’t, given the precedent… And that’s something that they would certainly know better than I…) but the charges would be useful in holding him and leveraging him as a witness for the prosecution in the Ukrainian case. Similarly, the charges against Greg Craig while somewhat more substantial, still only seem useful in an investigative sense.

It’s starting to look like I wasn’t far wrong. From the Washington Times this morning:

Julian Assange should be let off the hook for releasing stolen material through his WikiLeaks website if he agrees to testify in person before lawmakers investigating his publication of Democratic Party documents, Sen. Rand Paul said in an interview

published Wednesday.

“I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying,” said Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican.

“I think he’s been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear,” Mr. Paul told a writer for The Gateway Pundit site.

First of all, I must say the Gateway Pundit has been doing fabulous work for a long time now, and is IMV, more credible than the New York Times.

Obviously, I think Rand Paul is onto something here. He understands (as I did when I wrote the above) that Julian Assange being willing to testify openly about his source material would be the Democrats worst nightmare. Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Democrat party’s involvement with the Ukraine, Bradley Manning’s involvement, and why the Obama Administration granted clemency to him/her/it, and so much more.

No, I don’t think Julian Assange is innocent here. Far from it.  But as I said the other day,

I’m unsure how he’s going to be convicted of much of anything, particularly as I read the court rulings as regards the Pentagon papers and Daniel Ellsberg. As I understand those court rulings, and how they fit this scenario, the real crime was committed by Chelsea Manning or whatever his name is. In this, the arguments of Assange and his lawyers, is that what he was engaging in is journalism, does make some sense… At least in terms of releasing them to the public.

Charging Manning with anything at this point is problematic because of a pardon from Barack Hussein Obama.

So….

It seems to me that the only useful aspect of arresting Julian Assange in the first place, given the precedent set by the Pentagon papers is for information.  Watch for this line of investigation to gather increasing opposition from the Democrat Party.

One thing is clear. The hunters have now become The hunted.

Now if only we can convince the Republicans not to screw this up in the name of keeping the establishment in power…

If a rabid supporter of Bernie Sanders were to gun down a minority member of Congress, would the media be the least bit concerned? From Frontpage Mag:

The media’s pearl clutching is even more pathetic when it can hardly interrupt its own calls for the harassment of Republicans to pretend that any criticism of Rep. Omar is certain to lead to violence. After falsely claiming that President Trump was a Russian spy, that Justice Kavanaugh is a serial rapist, and that anyone who supports Trump is fair game for anything from harassment to execution, the media has as much moral authority on incitement to violence as Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

The only reason the media is emphasizing the death threats against Rep. Omar is because her rhetoric is too repulsive to defend by any conventional means. The media is trying to change the subject and smear Omar’s opponents because it’s too cowardly to make the case for anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

Does Speaker Pelosi mean to suggest that Secret Service protection should be extended to all member of the House? I suggest not. If not, does Speaker Pelosi mean to suggest that somehow Representative Omar Ilhan(D – Somalia) as some elevated risk not shared by say Representative Steve Scalise. It was Scalise who was wounded in an attempted assasination, by rabid supporter of the would be next president, Bernie Sanders.

It was old friend Billy Beck who attracted my attention to the situation going on in Paris.

After getting an initial feel for the situation, I told him:

This is going to seem out of place I suppose yeah, but here it is. I am hearing that the place was under renovation.

That brought me back to a number of years ago to an absolutely ancient merry-go-round in a place called Seabreeze north of Rochester. That place also was under renovation, and with the ancient wood in the structure once it got going there was no stopping it.

I had many reports from eyewitnesses including some volunteers in the district the firemen were literally crying as they tried to put the fire out. The frustration and the anguish on their faces told the tale or so I was told. I even wrote an extensive piece on the subject at the time. This would have been what, 1994 I’m thinking.

Obviously, I’m not equating the two situations completely.

But for me, there is enough of a similarity there to allow me to draw on my own experience as to what the loss in Paris must be to those people, yes, including those fighting the fire.

I expect eventually to hear from the French a lot of back and forth about what specifically started the fire and the renovation process is going to play large in that conversation.

It sounds, I suppose, like I’m trying to make light of France losing part of its heritage to fire. Far from it, the incident I mention was part of local history in Rochester for over a century. It was part of the area’s soul. Certainly, it doesn’t go back as far or nearly as deep perhaps as that of Notre Dame to the Parisians… but one tends to lean on one’s personal experience when trying to wrap their minds around somebody else’s problems.

I went on to say:

I’m actually going to have to dig that article that I wrote out because there’s another point to be made here.

The owners at seabreeze went ahead and rebuilt the round. They did a wonderful job and it was rightly done. But I found for all the good work that they did, I couldn’t bring myself to tell my two boys that I had ridden that round many times as a youngster myself. I don’t know specifically why that rubs me so but it does. I suppose it’s an intangible quality.

Assuming that they rebuild at Notre Dame, and knowing the French they probably will, I can’t help but wonder if the experience won’t be similarly lacking for future visitors after a rebuild.
😞

I have, whether fortunately or unfortunately, been blessed with a life where that kind of major loss in the local culture has been few and far between. So frankly, the memory of that day in 1994 is probably the closest thing I can come to, to wrap my arms around the depth of what’s happening in Paris right now. I can only begin to calculate and not much more, the psychological loss to France.

Certainly, there is also the specter of 9/11… a certain amount of soul was ripped away from New York City when the twin towers went down years ago. That event was cause for the very first article I wrote in this blog. And yes, at that point I hadn’t spent a great deal of time in New York City, and therefore my identification with the place was somewhat limited.

But the idea of 9/11 brings to mind another issue… the possibility that this was an act of terrorism, something I’ve seen several people already allude to.

Drudge just now is running reminder headlines from the attacks on Notre Dame in 2016… Attacks that were thwarted at the time.

I’m not quite ready to jump on the terrorism bandwagon yet, though frankly it wouldn’t su rprise me if they find that to be the cause of all this, particularly given there was a fire in another ancient Church in Paris just last week, according to some reports I’ve seen.

At this point, further speculation is useless, until the local authorities get involved.

Let’s play this out very quickly;

I see huge Democrat Party losses including the White House in 2020, and here’s why.

Numerically speaking the only people that are going to be voting in the Democratic primaries, are the social justice warriors and the extremists. As a result, nobody that makes it through that process is going to win in the general election.

Indeed, the moderates who have been considering a presidential run are seriously reconsidering that possibility because it is now obvious how far left the Democrat Party has tilted. Why do you suppose for example that Joe Biden hasn’t decided to run yet? Or at least, hasn’t announced? Michael Bloomberg similarly. (Yeah, okay, we know he’s a declared independent but we also know who he’s going to side with.)

Now, the seats that the Dems won in 2016, they won not by going hard left, but by offering up moderates. You know, the ones Pelosi has to threaten, to keep in line with the hard left. Thing is, it’s not the moderates creating headlines, it’s Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and AOC… And that’s causing serious damage amongst the electorate, which I have repeatedly demonstrated in these spaces, are far more conservative than anything that either party has offered up since Reagan. Yet, we still see this headlong rush to the left:

Then, there’s the fraudulent Russia hoax and what can only be considered a palace coup, both perpetrated, as we now know, by the Democrats. That story is increasingly coming out in detail, and will play a large in 2020.. to the point where even rank-and-file Democrats, and of course independent voters, are going to be unable to support a party that attempted to remove a sitting president.

The third part of this is Democrat Party policies which end up being flakier than the shoulders on Bernie Sanders’ rumpled suit jacket. That’s evident in areas of consumer confidence, employment data, wage data, and much more. There are very few citizens today who can claim that they are not that are off over the last two years that they were under the entire eight years of the Obama Administration. You got the Democrats are championing a return to the screaming disaster was Obama era policies. Yeah, that’s going to go over large, huh?

You will have noticed by now that I have not once mentioned Donald Trump. All the reasons for the Democrats loss that’s coming in 2020, are their own doing.

Why the journalist activist spy who came to diner lost his room and board, from Breitbart:

This week, [Ecuador President Lenin] Moreno cut yet another Correa-era alliance, this time with a controversial antagonist whose only use to Correa was to annoy the U.S. government and help him cover up for authoritarian acts against Ecuadorian journalists.

“Ecuador is a generous country and a nation with open arms. Ours is a government respectful of the principles of international law, and of the institution of the right of asylum,” Moreno stated in a video message distributed on social media explaining the reasoning behind allowing Assange’s arrest. “Granting or withdrawing asylum is a sovereign right of the Ecuadorian state, according to international law.”

Translation, whereas the former government of Ecuador found Julian Assange to be a useful idiot, the current government no longer does.

There is something going on in the background of this Julian Assange thing I couldn’t quite figure out. I’ve been holding off on extensive comment, except to speculate about his chances of surviving to get to a courtroom, and whether or not this thing was linked to the recent testimony of Attorney General Barr.

There’s a lot happened since I originally moved that post yesterday. For one thing, the United States has added some charges. But therein, you see, lies the tale.

First, they are charging Julian Assange with leaking however many documents of secret nature to the Public, via WikiLeaks, and with working with Chelsea Manning on hacking the government Network to obtain such documents.

I’m unsure how he’s going to be convicted of much of anything, particularly as I read the court rulings as regards the Pentagon papers and Daniel Ellsberg. As I understand those court rulings, and how they fit this scenario, the real crime was committed by Chelsea Manning or whatever his name is. In this, the arguments of Assange and his lawyers, is that what he was engaging in is journalism, does make some sense… At least in terms of releasing them to the public.

Charging Manning with anything at this point is problematic because of a pardon from Barack Hussein Obama.

But that’s where things start getting really strange. Remember that a goodly number of those documents that were released exposed the Democrats connections to political dealings in the Ukraine.

So now, we see former White House counsel Greg Craig being dragged up on charges incidental to his lying to the Mueller investigation, on that very subject.

And here’s the thing… It turns out the charges brought against Greg Craig involve lying to Mueller’s investigation, but it wasn’t Mueller, bringing the indictment.

I’m starting to think the timing of these things and the arrest yesterday morning of Julian Assange, are linked somehow to that Ukrainian investigation. I get the sense that this investigation has been ongoing for at least several weeks now, and what we’ve seen in the last 48 hours is preparatory to a larger scale investigation. There’s little I can point to yet, but my heart tells me that’s where this is going.

For one thing, DOJ might not be able to get a conviction against Julian Assange, (indeed, as I suggested above they probably won’t, given the precedent… And that’s something that they would certainly know better than I…) but the charges would be useful in holding him and leveraging him as a witness for the prosecution in the Ukrainian case. Similarly, the charges against Greg Craig while somewhat more substantial, still only seem useful in an investigative sense.

And finally, we have the comments of Attorney General Barr as regards spying on the Trump team, the Russia collusion hoax and so on.

I have long held that the Russia collusion hoax was generated specifically for the purpose of covering the Democrats tracks as regards the Ukraine. This is straight up Saul Alinsky… Charge your opponent with what you’ve been doing.

So the question becomes are we seeing in these events the beginnings of a full-scale investigation into the Misdeeds of the Obama Clinton cabal?

Well, here we go…

LONDON, April 11 (Reuters) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by British police on Thursday after they were invited into the Ecuadorean embassy where he has been holed up since 2012.

“Julian Assange, 47, has today, Thursday 11 April, been arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the Embassy of Ecuador,” police said.

At at issue at this point is whether or not Julian assange will end up in an American Court explaining what happened to all of those emails that Hillary Clinton thought she deleted.

With the line of bodies behind the Clinton crime family, don’t be surprised if Mr. Assange dies mysteriously before he ever gets to court.

(Update)

I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a direct response to the attorney general’s testimony yesterday.

At The Hill:

Attorney General William Bar has reportedly formed a team to review actions of Justice Department and FBI officials

Attorney General Barr

leading up to the launch of the federal probe into President Trump’s campaign and possible Russian collusion.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday evening that Barr has assembled a team to review certain counterintelligence decisions made by Justice Department and FBI officials including during the probe into Trump’s campaign during the election in the summer of 2016.

I would certainly regard this as wonderful news, if I could be reasonably assured that the principles involved haven’t been destroying evidence, as has happened so often before. (Can you say “hammer time”, Hillary?)

Now, either that’s a point that Rush Limbaugh hasn’t picked up on yet, or he’s not too worried about it. He does raise an interesting point though:

The Drive-Bys, by the way, are beside themselves because they were in on this. You ought to see the solemn faces at MSNBC, CNN today reporting this. Because what the Drive-Bys are gonna have to do now, as this investigation gets underway, they’re gonna have to portray themselves as duped. But they weren’t duped by anybody. They were active participants in this whole scam.

But you can see the solemn look on their faces this investigation will turn up. They’re gonna have to pretend and portray themselves as, “Hey, we trusted our sources. Our sources were telling us there was collusion.” And they know full well there wasn’t. They were active participants in this whole scam for this entire hoax.

The problem, of course, is going to be proving that, if as I suggest we’re going to see evidence being destroyed.

Still, the reaction of the Democrats is telling, as Limbaugh points out:

So this guy Brian Schatz, Democrat, Hawaii, told Barr that he wanted to give him another chance to rephrase what he had said earlier about spying. In other words, “Attorney General Barr, you didn’t really mean to say that you think there was spying on the Trump campaign, and I’m gonna give you a chance here to rephrase what you said.”

Schatz said that Barr’s comment was gonna make the cable news ecosystem go crazy. That’s what he’s thinking about? The cable news ecosystem’s gonna go crazy because Barr’s saying he thinks the Trump campaign was spied on? Barr simply replied that he meant surveillance.

He asked Schatz if that made him feel any better. (laughing) How about if I say surveillance instead of spying? That make you feel better, Senator, that make you feel better, Congressman? It was comedy gold and Schatz didn’t even realize it. These people are so stiff and they are so serious, they have no sense of humor whatsoever.

And Barr was saying, “Okay. You don’t like ‘spy’? How about they were ‘surveilling’ the Trump campaign? Does that make you feel better?” Let’s just start with 26. This is the most recent, relevant bite. Question from Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty. “Would it be odd, Attorney General Barr, that the candidate [meaning Trump] was never really briefed by the Department of Justice, that his campaign may have been targeted by a foreign entity?”

BARR: That is one of the questions I have is, I feel normally the campaign would have been advised of this. I’m interested in getting that answer. They had two former U.S. attorneys in Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani involved in the campaign, and I don’t understand why the campaign was not advised.

RUSH: Bingo! Big time key, because the Russians doing the targeting were FBI plants. That’s why. But he’s raising a logical question. Well, he knows what went on here. We all know what went on. Everybody knows now that everybody knows what went on, and I’m telling you there are quaking in the boots in the homes of Comey and Clapper and Brennan and McCabe and Priestap and Baker and Strzok and Page, because now it’s out.

There had blessed well better be because the claim from Brennan that he must have been misinformed isn’t going to cut it. it may work for the morons watching MSNBC and CNN, but it’s not going to work what he gets his backside hauled up before a investigative committee.

Assuming, once again, that the evidence doesn’t mysteriously disappear.

Another point that concerned me was that the initial reports I saw suggested the bar was limiting his investigation to the FBI. The Federalist points out otherwise:

“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Attorney General William Barr told a Senate committee on Wednesday morning. Barr’s comments came in the context of potential Justice Department reviews of the Trump-Russia investigation and how it began in 2016.

While it is important that the top law enforcement in the United States publicly acknowledged that the Obama administration and its intelligence agencies surveilled its domestic political opponents during the heat of a presidential election, it is what he said next that was most startling: that the CIA and other federal agencies in addition to the FBI may have been involved. “I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly,” he said.

Very interesting, indeed. and again, very good news if we can make the assumption that evidence isn’t being destroyed as we speak.

From Victor Porlier by way of Billy Beck…

RE McMaster observes:

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin’s 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the decline of 86 different cultures throughout history. Unwin found that no nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism.

Wrote Unwin, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.” Unwin found than nations that valued marriage and sexual abstinence were creative and flourished, maintaining what he called, “cultural energy”.

Likewise, sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin, in his 1956 book, The American Sex Revolution, essentially confirmed Unwin, and stated in the late 1960s that America was committing “voluntary suicide”.

Sorokin’s study of decadent cultures convinced him that a healthy society can only survive if strong families exist and sexual activities are restricted to within marriage. Sexual promiscuity leads inevitably to cultural decline and eventual collapse.

William J. Bennett, in a 2001 book, The Broken Hearth, wrote,

“My concern is that we are now embarked upon an experiment that violates a universal social law: In attempting to raise children without two parents [healthy +/- polarity], we are seeing, on a massive scale, the voluntary breakup of the minimal family unit. This is historically unprecedented, an authentic cultural revolution-and, I believe, socially calamitous. We may be under the illusion that we can cheerfully deconstruct marriage and then one day decide to pull back from the brink. But as a friend of mine puts it, once you shoot out the lights, can you shoot them back on again? As the long record of human experimentation attests, civilizations, even great civilizations, are more fragile and perishable than we think.”

Eminent historian, Dr. E. Michael Jones’ 2005 book, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control, discusses how the rhetoric of sexual freedom has been used to engineer a system of covert political and social control.

Additionally, sociologist Carl W. Wilson, in his 1979 book, Our Dance Has Turned To Death, found that decadent cultures display seven typical characteristics: Men reject spiritual and moral development as the leaders of families; men begin to neglect their families in search of material gain; men begin to engage in adulterous relationships or homosexual sex; women begin to devalue the role of motherhood and homemaker; husbands and wives begin to compete with each other and families disintegrate; selfish individualism fragments society into warring factions; and men and women lose faith in God and reject all authority over their lives. Soon, moral anarchy reigns. When the family collapses, the society soon follows.

Truth is truth wherever you find it. Truth by its very nature is not contradictory. The secular non-Christian, non-Western Chinese, one of the world’s oldest civilizations, harbor a proverb which to this day echoes the truth discussed above: “If there is light in the soul, there will be beauty in the person. If there is beauty in the person, there will be harmony in the house. If there is harmony in the house, there will be order in the nation. If there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.”

Billy looks at this and says:

There are very good sociobiological reasons for this:

No other species in the world spends as much time at rearing their young as humans do, in the explicit expectation that those young are going to master all the conceptual philosophy that will afford them life *as human beings*.

Before anyone is tempted to mention something like elephants, I will simply point out that they are never expected to (for instance) grasp all the principles of powered flight and build airplanes, or know to be outraged at slavery.

We are what we are, uniquely, and that is how we must conduct ourselves.

(Sigh)

I have written in the past and still hold that the collapse of our culture is largely being driven by the education of our young being turned over to the government and thereby the collapse of the traditional family, and the culture that comes from that abdication.

That change, over time, has led us to where we are as the cultural values of family are replaced with the governments “value-neutral.”

Argue if you will that the government must remain value-neutral but not if you’re going to turn the furtherance of our culture over to it as we have done. (Indeed, I have written that in its primary function government is supposed to be reinforcing and furthering the influence of the culture that gave it life and the government that sways from that purpose is self-destructive)

And let’s face it, we’re not just talking about sex here, we’re talking about every cultural value, every sense of right and wrong attached to the culture…. Everything that made it great, at its most basic. Metaphorically, we have forgotten the girl that came to the dance with us… And since government now controls our sense of right and wrong, we don’t understand what’s happening.

And don’t discount Bennett’s reference to the spiritual. It is from that that comes our cultural sense that there is something higher then government.

(Do we really expect government to be teaching us that there is something higher more powerful that has to be answered to, than government?)

The polling data:

Democrats on Capitol Hill are once again talking about taxpayer-funded reparations as a tangible way to apologize for slavery in this country, but most voters still aren’t buying.

Just 21% of Likely U.S. Voters think U.S. taxpayers should pay reparations to black Americans who can prove they are descended from slaves. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% are opposed to slavery reparations. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

Seems to me that several questions arise from this.

The first I think we should be looking directly at is, what’s happened in the past when we’ve thrown money at the black community in an attempt to buy votes. So far, the totals have amounted to something on the order of $22BUSD, since we started such payouts, commonly referred to as the “war on poverty. ”

And for those who weren’t alive at the time Johnson put that mess into place, there were several people who regarded that war on poverty to be reparations.

It didn’t work to the advantage of the black community then, and it isn’t going to now. (As a parallel, observe what happened to the native American community.)

Given the number of Presidential contenders, every blessed one of which has been coming out in support of reparations… ( kiss Al Sharpton’s ring, you idiots) …one wonders how they’re going to manage the rejection of the American voter when the time comes.

It’s not like this polling data is anything new. The American voter has always rejected reparations.

The other question that leads to mind is… Why the sudden push to buy black votes?

Because of movements like “walk away”. Democrats are getting desperate. They know very well that they can’t afford to lose any significant percentage of black votes, because they’re never going to win the elections that way.

Thing is, the black voter has come to understand in the first person, in a way that cannot be overcome by throwing money at it, that generation after generation of Democrat party rule has created nothing but more racism, more hardship, more economic depression, more joblessness, and more misery.

They have been living in the completely disastrous direct result of it… And increasingly have identified the problem correctly as being the Democrat Party.

Increasingly, that’s costing the Democrats at the ballot box.

Alex Newman over at The New American

The collective freak out over President Donald Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump’s plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.

There is that of course…

There is massive amounts of fraud in this. But even absent that… even if global warming is not a hoax which it is, it comes down to what I’ve been saying for many years now;

The worst thing you can do to a liberal is give them exactly what they wanted to because it removes their ability to demagogue whatever it is.

…and that’s really what this is all about. Any serious examination of this or anything else that the Democrats have been putting up the last 40 years, limits their power.

Adam Mill at American Greatness:

can imagine a future in which Democrats, reflecting on our present, are shouting to their past selves, “Walk away!”… the Democrat’s continued obsession with opening the pandora’s box of the Mueller report will only make things worse for the get-Trump crowd as the hoax chickens increasingly come home to roost….Mueller’s team has played dirty from the start. Contrary to the public narrative that the team was “leak-proof,” the opposite is actually true. As I recently wrote, “It has been three years of innuendo and leaks, leaks, leaks, leaks, and uncountable more examples of leaks dripping poison into the poison-addicted pens of the partisan media. The Mueller team has never had to prove anything involving Trump-Russian collusion to anyone because the special counsel needs no proof to function as a potent political weapon.”

Well, look… the first indication that the Democrats should have walked away was when Nancy Pelosi started walking away from the Mueller report days before it was released. As I wrote several days ago, that told us three things…

• The goal of the Democrats was to take out Trump for whatever excuse they could conjure up.
• The report was not going to do that. Pelosi knew it. That should have been a signal to the rest of the Democrats and to the news media. Amazingly, it’s a signal that got ignored.
• That Pelosi knew that there wasn’t going to be anything usable in the report and therefore started backing away was also a signal that the report’s content had already been leaked to her.

That a goodly number of Democrats are still not walking away from the Russia hoax, confirms the first point above, and also tells us that the Democrats know full well they don’t have anything else to go on.
As an example, Liz Sheld this morning:

These people are ridiculous. They all read Barr’s letter and they all know he is going to release as much of the report that he is legally able to. He provided the findings of the report so that people wouldn’t have to wait until the DOJ reviewed it and removed information that is legally prohibited from being released. And also he released the findings so that that weasels in the DOJ couldn’t drip out spun information to trash the president while the review was being completed. True story. Do these idiots think Barr lied about Mueller’s findings while Mueller stays quiet about it while helping Barr review the report? Come on now. This is such a political spectacle.Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), one the biggest fools in congress, will say this at the hearing today:“All we have is your four-page summary letter, which seems to cherry pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion possible for the president,” Lowey will say. “In many ways, your letter raises more questions than it answers. “I must say, it is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of pages of evidence, legal documents, and findings based on a 22-monthlong inquiry and make definitive legal conclusions in less than 48 hours. Even for someone who has done this job before, I would argue it is more suspicious than impressive.”Don’t forget that many of these grand-standers were in congress and opposed releasing the Starr report on Clinton way back when, and they changed the law so that these kinds of reports aren’t released to the public. But now, it doesn’t work in their political favor so we all have whiplash and the people have a “right to know” again.

Indeed so.
What we have here is a combination of bullheadedness and desperation on the part of the Democrats, at a level which hasn’t been seen since the Star report. and that, my friends, is a juxtaposition that I could probably get four or five posts out of if I wanted to.

However, leaving aside that glaring double standard, the “get Trump” mania among the Democrats is raising another question in the back of the minds of most American voters. That being, what else have the Democrats managed to do since taking over the lower house except alienating half the country?

That is a question that will certainly be playing larger as we get closer to November, 2020. That that is particularly true given the onrushing freight train of the Ukrainian/ Democrat investigation.