Word is that Sen. Lindsey Graham is thinking of dispensing with the House Democrats’ nonsensical “impeachment” articles against President Trump by having a speedy trial or a quick vote to toss them into the garbage where they belong and move on. The thinking is that this has become an embarrassing distraction and dragged on long enough in the House, so there’s no point in prolonging it in the Senate and letting it turn into a “spectacle.”
I can understand the reasoning (although if they want to avoid a spectacle, that ship has sailed), but I have to side more with Indiana Republican Rep. Jim Banks. He’s written a letter to Graham, urging him to reconsider. Excerpt:
“It is urgent we fight fire with fire and tell them enough is enough. House Republicans have done all they can to push back and expose their motives to the American people, soon it will be at your doorstep…We need to take our time and figure out exactly how Congress found itself in the current situation: poised to impeach a president on a completely partisan vote with no evidence and flimsy charges just before his re-election bid."
The Senate should also consider the fact with much of our current media having degenerated into a propaganda arm of the DNC, if the Senate doesn’t haul this out into the sunlight, many Americans will likely never learn the truth. Thanks to dishonest reporting and commentary, polls show that far too many Americans are still convinced that Trump did something so wrong it merits removal from the White House, but just like the House Democrats who wrote the “Articles of Impeachment,” they can’t put their finger on exactly what that was.
With a “news” media so desperate to preserve a false narrative that they’ll trumpet “vindication of the FBI” as the only takeaway of the blistering Horowitz report, then literally cut away at strategic moments of his Senate testimony to keep their viewers from learning that’s not true, somebody has to do their job for them (and hey, my staff and I are only a handful of people.)
Besides, think of President Trump’s position: he’s been accused of high crimes and misdemeanors warranting removal from office on literally zero hard evidence. He wants a trial to expose the real abusers of power and to clear his name. Besides, not exposing this for what it is and making the schemers face consequences will allow it to stand as precedent and be repeated again and again (some Democrats are already talking about impeaching Trump again if he's reelected.) And Senate Republicans think it’s enough just to dismiss the charges with no comment?
I can’t help thinking of Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, who was hit with larceny and fraud charges by a Bronx grand jury, and savaged by the media. After he and the other defendants were acquitted, he famously asked, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"
Besides, no matter how worthy of becoming trash can liner those “Articles of Impeachment” might be, if the Senate just tosses them without a thorough public airing of how they came to be, you know what the “news” narrative will be: “Trump saved by GOP Senate Cover-up!”
They’ll still try to spin and hide and lie about whatever comes out of a Senate trial with sworn testimony and cross-examination of people like Adam Schiff, but it will be much harder to bury it. If they’re going to be partisan shills instead of journalists, at least force them to work at it.
Correcting “fake news” has become a large part of my job over the past year years, but I have to hand it to the media: even with their unenviable track record for misinforming Americans, Wednesday was a red letter day for “fake news.”
I’ve written elsewhere about CNN and MSNBC cutting away from IG Michael Horowitz’s Senate hearing whenever Democrats stopped talking and their “Vindication!” false narrative started being exposed (at one point, CNN decided that it was more important to cover a New York Yankees contract.) But surprisingly, there was another example that ranked just as low on the journalistic integrity scale.
Wednesday, President Trump signed an executive order requiring colleges and universities to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic discrimination or lose federal funds. Somehow the New York Times misreported the story to suggest that Trump was not only being anti-Semitic, he was doing what Hitler did. Follow me on this…
Times reporter Erica Green set off a firestorm on Twitter by misreporting that Trump planned to redefine Judaism as a race or nationality. This sparked the usual Internet flurry of “Trump is Hitler” posts.
But that’s not what the order does. As George Mason University legal Prof. David Bernstein explains at the link below, it merely extends to Jews protection under “Title VI's prohibition on race and national-origin discrimination to the extent that such discrimination is based not on hostility to Jews as a religion, but to Jews as an ethnic group with perceived common characteristics.” This is also not a radical change, it’s just codifying a policy that was already a guidance point under both Bush II and Obama and that originated in a bill written by Democrats.
Even after being called out for their reprehensible misreporting, the Times still tried to push its “anti-Semitic Trump Administration” narrative with a hit piece on Ken Marcus, head of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, who helped write the order.
As Prof. Bernstein notes, “Either Ms. Green didn't bother to inquire about the history of the relevant Title VI controversy, which makes her incompetent, or she did, and it makes her dishonest.” I say, why argue over “either/or” when all reasonable people can agree that it’s both?
At this link, Jason Greenblatt, who describes himself as “an observant Jew who worked for Donald Trump for 23 years,” explains why he believes Trump is one of the greatest friends Israel and the Jewish people have ever had.
How could the alleged “paper of record” look at someone like that (who, not incidentally, has a Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren) as he signs an order in a moving and inspiring ceremony to strengthen protection of Jews against hate crimes, and somehow see “Hitler 2.0”? Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit probably put his finger on it when he said, “If you start from the axiom that Trump is Hitler, every fact becomes evidence that Trump is Hitler. Of course, only an idiot would start with that axiom, but idiots abound.”
Accidentally Self-Revealing Quote of the Day! From Rep. Jerrold Nadler, explaining why the Dems are plowing ahead with impeachment charges just months before an election: "We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the President threatens the very integrity of that election."
Translation: “Democracy is too important to be trusted to the stupid voters!”
More to follow later this evening as we unpack all of the news of the day...