Rosa Brooks is worried about the election. In fact, she thinks it’ll spark violence and — cue the ominous music — a constitutional crisis.

And just who is Rosa Brooks? According to her Washington Post bio, she’s a law professor at Georgetown and a cofounder of the serious-sounding Transition Integrity Project, a Trump-hating hangout for the worst dregs of society — John Podesta, Jennifer Granholm, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Max Boot, and the like. The project claims to have been borne out of “concern about potential disruptions to the upcoming presidential election and transition by the RNC”.

Whoa, there. We certainly share their concern about potential disruptions, but aren’t they getting ahead of themselves with this talk of transition? And where were they in 2016, when the Obama-Biden administration was spying on the Trump campaign and doing violence to the peaceful transition of presidential power they claim to care so much about?

Having nothing better to do, Brooks and her fever-ridden colleagues have war-gamed four scenarios for the upcoming election. Here’s their grim vision for the future of our republic: “With the exception of the ‘big Biden win’ scenario, each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe, with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse. In two scenarios (‘Trump win’ and ‘extended uncertainty’) there was still no agreement on the winner by Inauguration Day, and no consensus on which candidate should be assumed to have the ability to issue binding commands to the military or receive the nuclear codes. In the ‘narrow Biden win’ scenario, Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents.”

Who are these people? And why are they ignoring the very real leftist violence in our streets today in order to navel-gaze about some as-yet imaginary Trump-induced violence ahead?

Answer: Because they desperately want Donald Trump to lose, and because they’ve repeatedly lied themselves into believing that political violence from the Left isn’t really violence at all. Rather, it’s just 93% peaceful protesting and “summer of love” shenanigans — as exemplified in this side-splitting show of Baghdad Bob-ism.

These are “fiery but mostly peaceful protests,” we’ll have you know. And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln really enjoyed the play.

“Why Aren’t You Calling These Riots?” screams the title of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal column by James Freeman. “Today’s headline is one of the questions readers of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have been asking the paper’s editors about recent violent events in Kenosha, Wis., and elsewhere,” Freeman writes. “No doubt citizens nationwide have the same question for many politicians and members of the press corps who have lately been extremely creative in conjuring euphemisms for destruction and lawlessness.”

Extremely creative, indeed. So creative, in fact, that Ian Haworth saw fit to compile dozens of such examples. He writes, “For months, violence has gripped our streets. Riots have been a regular reality for several cities across the country. Businesses have been destroyed. People have been assaulted. Stores have been looted. … There have been some independent journalists who have provided accurate reporting on the riots and violence; however, if you rely on the ‘objective’ mainstream media for your ‘news,’ you will have a completely different view of reality. The reason for this is that mainstream media outlets like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post have engaged in, arguably, the worst and most blatant act of journalistic gaslighting in modern American history.”

Lying about rioting. Journalistic gaslighting. That pretty much sums it up.