It continues. Rep. Adam Schiff remains insistent that there was Trump/Russia collusion that needs further congressional investigation. He cites Trump campaign folks giving Russians confidential voter data, Trump family members taking a meeting in Trump Tower where they expected to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Robert Mueller’s failure to interview Trump. Democrats are also blasting Trump for seeking revenge on those involved in the probe.
The GOP calls for Schiff’s resignation, and the Democrats close ranks, claiming that Trump wants Schiff out because Schiff has the goods on him and blasting Trump for seeking revenge on those involved in the probe.
How petty. Can’t we just move on?
Moreover, the leaks are starting, claiming that there are ambiguities in both the obstruction and the collusion sections of the Mueller report that indicate Attorney General William Barr is engaging in a cover-up. Whether this will get old or provide a basis for more of the same from the usual suspects remains to be seen, but Democrats and the media are still at it on their anti-Trump theme.
Exhibit A is the latest from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on the Jusiie Smollett matter. While Emanuel moves to set the stage for suing Smollett to recover the costs of the hoax (Smollett’s folks are threatening their own lawsuit for what they claim is defamation of character by the Chicago Police Department), he also needed to shore up his Democrat identity politics/victimhood/anti-Trump bona fides. He actually blamed — you guessed it — Trump for the whole thing, because Trump “created the toxic atmosphere that played a role in the Smollett hoax.” No, I’m not making that up.
The last week or so have seen any number of media anti-Trump spins. Does anyone recall when Trump promised to eradicate ISIS, which the media portrayed as the all-powerful mutation of the radical Islamic terror movement that was destined to establish the next caliphate and controlled huge chunks of territory in Iraq and Syria? It was a truism that if the gloves were off, the U.S. military could defeat ISIS. But the idea of yet another war in the Middle East didn’t ring anyone’s chimes.
Still, what was needed was the political will to find a way to get rid of ISIS. Trump turned the military loose to organize a coalition and provide support. And what was thought to be an unachievable dream became the utter destruction of the ISIS caliphate in less than two years.
But when Trump portrayed the effort as a total defeat of ISIS and the recapture of all of the previously controlled ISIS territory, the media called him a liar because he used the words “total” and “all.” The media backed this up by showing video of a handful of ISIS fighters cornered in the only few square blocks left of the caliphate. There was also an interview with an ISIS woman, seen holding a small baby, who vowed never to surrender and raise her child to fight on.
This was supposed to be evidence that Trump exaggerates everything and that while he may have liberated some territory, ISIS remained a real ideological threat — as if Trump doesn’t know that. Makes you wonder if these guys would have denied a U.S. victory because six Japanese were still holed up in caves on Iwo Jima.
Late last year, a Florida man built and mailed 16 bombs to prominent Democrat targets like Hillary Clinton, George Soros, John Brennan, Joe Biden, and, for some inexplicable reason, Robert De Niro. The perpetrator was identified and arrested shortly therefore and charged with 30 counts of using weapons of mass destruction, illegal mailing of same, and other federal crimes.
Last week, he pleaded guilty to 65 felonies. While fair and balanced news outlets like The Wall Street Journal reported the fact that the “Mail Bomber Pleads Guilty,” the mainstream media in the form of The New York Times, Washington Post, and leftist cable television all included the modifier “Trump supporter” or “Trump fan” in their headlines.
As I’ve said before, if it were proven that without draconian measures the world would end from man-made climate change in 12 years, I would be at the front of the line demanding the worldwide elimination of fossil fuels and whatever else it took to survive. But contrary to what Beto O'Rourke assures us is the unanimous conclusion to that effect by “climate scientists,” no such evidence exists.
Nevertheless, every prominent Democrat embraced the Green New Deal, which is the ultimate socialist manifesto and government power grab disguised as a planet-saving roadmap. But when the GOP put the Green New Deal to a vote, not a single Democrat supported it. Almost all, including the 2020 wannabes, voted “present” and blasted the vote as a GOP scheme to embarrass them.
It’s baffling how going on the record to support the plan that every Democrat lauded as the way to save the world could embarrass anyone. Shouldn’t it be a badge of honor? It’s the height of Democrat hypocrisy, yet the media hopped on the GOP-dirty-trick bandwagon with both feet.
The economy continues to roar along, and if history is any guide, it will provide the single biggest boost to Trump in 2020. But the New York Times is doing its part to spin this in the opposite direction.
Using front-page real estate, the Times informed us that “experts” see an economic slowdown coming, and if it results in anything less than the 3% GDP Trump has promised, his reelection will be nuked by disappointed voters and unfulfilled expectations.
The point was repeated multiple times in the article that Trump is trying to take credit for the economy and so he must take the blame when growth drops below 3%, which apparently the Times now views as the new bar after eight years of less than 2% growth. Clear now?