Excellent piece by Paul Curry at Townhall.com, looking down the road at this week’s public “impeachment” hearings if the Democrats in the House are actually stupid enough to carry their public meltdown over the 2016 election all the way through by voting to impeach the President over whatever the latest ginned up “crime” is (Russian collusion? No, that collapsed…Obstruction? No, couldn’t find that either… Oh, right, now I remember: allegedly asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of their own presidential frontrunner. That’s it! Hillary established that investigating corrupt Democratic presidential frontrunners is illegal.)
Curry looks way down the road, at what would happen in a Republican-run Senate, the fact that it would happen during an election year, that six Democrat Senators who are running for President would have to go on record voting for or against it, and what voters might think about the Democrats having nothing but this farcical impeachment theater (and whatever lunacy AOC and her socialist Peanut Gallery have dispensed) as their entire legacy for a two-year House term as they beg Americans to put them in charge of EVERYTHING so they can run the entire country like the US House.
Curry notes that there are various possible outcomes, and none look good for the Democrats. Right now, all the “evidence” they’ve managed to compile, despite a blatantly biased hearing process, amounts to Deep State bureaucrats having their noses out of joint because they heard third- and fourth-hand rumors that Trump wasn’t making foreign policy the way they would if they actually got elected and had the power to make it, like he did. (This supports my theory that virtually of the “Resistance” movement is based on the left’s inability to accept that Trump is really the President. They keep getting outraged and running to judges to complain that he’s doing things only a President has the power to do, like rescinding the executive orders of the previous President. This President must think he’s the President or somethin’!)
You know the Democrats and the media (pardon my redundancy) know they’re in trouble when they act excited about the possibility that one female witness might cry during her testimony and sway voters’ emotions. I don’t know if that’s more insulting to women or to voters. Personally, I don’t care if Trump making foreign policy decisions instead of some entrenched, unelected Deep State bureaucrat makes the witness cry. The proper response to that is to offer the witness a Kleenex and press on to the next question.
Today’s cover of the New York Post is probably the best example I’ve ever seen of a media outlet accurately predicting a story that technically hasn’t happened yet.
And here’s another cartoonist giving Adam Schiff and his entire rancid “impeachment” process all the respect that both deserve.
A student at Gulf Coast High School in Florida claims she was told by an assistant principal that she couldn’t start a pro-life student club because it would be “too controversial and too political.” The school official also allegedly warned a staffer that she might lose her job if she agreed to be a faculty adviser to the pro-life club, a threat that scared away both that staffer and her potential replacement.
Fortunately, it appears the story will have a happy ending. The school claims this was all a big misunderstanding, that the club is welcome, they just have to have a faculty adviser first, and they haven’t found one yet (for some unexplainable reason.) This has always been their position and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Alliance Defending Freedom took up the club’s case and sent the school a letter threatening a big, fat lawsuit for violating the pro-life students’ Constitutional rights. What stuff and nonsense it is to think that might have had any effect!
“Blame The Gun” News: The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that some parents of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 can sue Remington Arms, maker of the rifle used by the shooter. Remington argued that it’s protected by a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from being sued over people’s misuse of their products. But the state court allowed the lawsuit, basing its ruling on the attitude expressed in Remington’s advertising.
So when this gets to the federal Supreme Court level, as it almost certainly will, the arguments might include a healthy dollop of reminding the court about the First Amendment as well as the Second.