Openly spouting sedition – will there be an accounting?

I & I Editorial Board: Now We Know Why The Media Won’t Expose Trump’s ‘Whistleblower’ – “This sounds like a whole lot more than an “indicia” or an “arguable” bias. In fact, it smacks of the very kind of Deep State that Trump has been talking about. … The press reaction to Sperry’s story? Complete and utter silence.”

“Even more bizarrely, Nelson claims to have found “at least one significant factual inaccuracy in the report,” but never reveals what it is. This is the sort of sloppy, biased journalism we expect from the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN.

That aside, there’s another reason the mainstream press won’t touch Sperry’s story. If it did, it would have to admit that it’s known the “whistleblower’s” identity all along. And that it knows his biases. And that it’s under no obligation to protect his identity. And, finally, that it covered up his identity to keep the impeachment train rolling. …

It’s no surprise to us that the mainstream press is carrying water for Democrats on the impeachment story. But even we are sometimes surprised and dismayed by its cravenness.

John Lucas: Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Completely Rested On His Personal Opinions – “Alex Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it.”

“I will close with one final observation: Vindman’s public volunteering of his personal opinions contrary to those of his commander-in-chief violates the fundamental rule that military officers should be publicly apolitical, in order to keep the armed forces out of political disputes. I respectfully submit that honoring that fundamental separation is more in line with an officer’s duty than what Vindman did in this case.

The fact that he elected to testify in uniform, thus attempting to add the imprimatur of the U.S. military to boost his credibility, makes it worse.

Erielle Davidson: House GOP Fed Up With Crooked Impeachment Inquiry: ‘It’s A Sham’ – “The House GOP delivered a much-needed, sharp rebuke of the increasingly partisan and opaque impeachment probe that has seized House Democrats.”

Thomas Lifson: A stunning confession from a Deep State member subverting the constitutional republic – “The arrogance and lack of self-awareness among the mandarins that inhabit the top levels of our government bureaucracies has led to a smoking gun-level confession.”

“Rather than respecting the will of the voters who elect a president, they proudly substitute their own policy preferences and think nothing of conspiring to drive from office the person who holds legitimate authority to make policy and conduct the affairs of government.

Steve Watson: “Thank God For The Deep State”: Intel Agents Admit They Want To “Take Out” Trump – “During an interview with Margaret Brennan of CSPAN, former CIA head John McLaughlin along with his successor John Brennan both basically admitted that there is a secretive cabal of people within US intelligence who are trying to ‘take Trump out’.” … “I mean I think everyone has seen this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their duty or responding to a higher call.” he added.

“There you have it. Two former CIA heads admitting that there is a plot to take out a duly-elected President.

Thomas Farnan: The Stupidest Impeachment Ever – “The deep state serves the president, and nobody cares if its unelected drones have different foreign policy objectives in Ukraine.”

Jonathon Moseley: Quid pro faux: Trump impeachment legally fails – “Impeaching President Donald Trump is legally flawed.”

There are two New York Post columns that are expressing dissonance. Rich Lowery thinks the only case to be made is that “nothing came of it.” He also thinks the House investigation resolution is a move towards “more regular proceedings.” John Podhoretz notes that “First, the foreign policy Trump chooses to advance shouldn’t be involved in any discussion of impeachment. He is the president. Executive-branch policy is his and his alone to decide, even if you think it’s just terrible — or if it contradicts decades of ideas on which both Republicans and Democrats have agreed.” But then spends most of his time equating the ‘witch hunt’ label with the ‘impeach no matter what’ ethos. Both sides equal, you see, even if the evidence predominately says otherwise.

Then there is Michael Goodwin: A tragedy for the nation – and democracy – “Either Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind or she really wants to dig America’s grave. … The vote to formalize the impeachment jihad is a great day for Trump haters and a tragedy for democracy and common sense.

“The only thing that could be worse for Dems would be impeaching Trump with no evidence of a crime or a serious abuse of office

That’s what they’re doing — and four more years just got more likely.

Yet there is something bigger at stake than the next election. The effort to overturn the 2016 results is such a radical event that it raises the question of whether polarization has become fatal to our republic.

If so, then elections will never settle anything again. Each loser will simply look for a way to erase the outcome as if it never happened.

Scott Johnson: The impeachment Schiff show – cites Goodwin, Strassel, and McCarthy and provides a copy of what they are all talking about. McCarthy does provide a good summary but his column is flawed by accepting a false premise (and being posted on a nagware site). The dance is around the idea that there can be any legitimate investigation without any solid basis of a predicate event. Searching for a crime not in evidence makes any inquiry illegitimate and ignoring this weakens McCarthy’s arguments.

David Catron: Impeachment Vote Will Cost These Dems Their Seats – “They ran as moderates in swing districts yet voted like radicals.” The question is that, if Catron’s case is sound, why did only 2 Democrats vote with the Republicans?

“All of this brings us back to Thursday’s hyper-partisan vote and the resolution that purports to lay out the framework for the next phase of the “impeachment inquiry” launched by fiat during a news conference last month. This resolution, departing from 150 years of historical precedent, endows the House Intelligence Committee with extraordinary power over the inquiry, codifies Adam Schiff’s closed-door hearings, severely limits the powers of the Republican minority, and violates the president’s right to due process. The Democrats whose districts were won by Trump in 2016 have signed their own political death warrants by voting for this tawdry resolution. Execution day will be November 3, 2020.

Wolf Street Report: What Will Stocks Do When “Consensual Hallucination” Ends? – “I call this phenomenon “consensual hallucination” – “consensual” because everyone eagerly smokes the same stuff in order to be able to get the same hallucinations everyone else is having, and to be part of the movement” … this is not only a stock market ‘get rich’ behavior, it is also evident in the assault on the election of 2016.

“At some point, people do come out from under this consensual hallucination. This can happen very gradually and unevenly, or suddenly and all at once. History is full of both events. And often it’s a combination, at first gradually and then suddenly, or vice versa.

What’s astonishing is just how long consensual hallucination lasts, and how shocked and appalled people are when it ends.

AWR Hawkins Andrew Pollack: Guns Don’t Create School Shootings, Leftist Policies Do – “He noted that people who call for more background checks either ignore or do not know that the Parkland attacker passed a background check to get the gun he used.

Monica Showalter: So now Peggy Noonan is offering tips to the Democrats? – “There’s a fine line between analyzing news and nakedly offering advice to one side and now Peggy Noonan has crossed it.” The question is why: Drudge has turned into a propaganda site; Wallace now channeling the other Chris (Matthews) with goose bumps and chills;

“Facts in fact are so damned, in fact, that these people are keeping their hearings secret, selectively leaking only the politically advantageous parts without context, silencing Republicans from calling witnesses, preventing Republicans from issuing subpoenas, or cripes, even allowing Republicans from attending, and for the ones who are attending, not allowing them to ask questions. As for the president’s rights to due process, he’s SOL. As Noonan argued earlier, it’s got to be fair to work, and this is still 6,000 miles from fair.

The idea of sedition is a limitation on free speech. That is why it is often ignored as a legal matter. When does criticizing the government rise to a level like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? Maybe you need a smoke bomb to go with the shout? Do libel and deceit matter? What is ‘just sayin’ and what is incitement against orderly government? But then, how do you hold people accountable for their ideas and suggestions expressed in public? For lessons in how this is done, look at the efforts behind gun laws. Consider what happened to Kavenaugh or the recent 9th circuit nominee who broke down in tears at a hearing due to the scurrilous assault on his character. How much of this is enough and what can an individual citizen do about it?

Comments are closed.