Washington Post Drops the Mask as It Wonders How the Media Can Fool More People Into Taking Impeachment Seriously

 RedState

"We are well into the third month of the Trump impeachment extravaganza and it is not only not gaining traction, it is losing ground. If one looks at “persuadable” voters, one finds that most of them see impeachment as it is, a political act. This, one would think, would be the controlling narrative in the media. It would have the virtue of truthfully describing the situation. But that isn’t how Washington Post columnist and former “public editor” Margaret Sullivan sees it.

The diplomats have been inspiring, the legal scholars knowledgeable, the politicians predictable.

After endless on-air analysis and written reporting, pundit panels and emergency podcasts, not much has changed.

If anything, weeks into the House of Representatives’ public impeachment hearings, Americans’ positions seem to have hardened on whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

So, is the media coverage pointless? Are journalists merely shouting into the void?

Columnist Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times offered a name Wednesday for one aspect of what’s happening before our eyes.

Responding to the absurd statement of Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) — “there are no set facts here” — she said it summed up the long-term Republican strategy: “epistemological nihilism.”

In other words, there can be no knowledge and no meaning, so don’t even bother.

It brings to mind Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway’s coinage of the infamous term “alternative facts” early in the administration. Or Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes’s on-air comment in 2016: “There is no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts.”

That strategy runs in direct opposition to what journalism is supposed to be all about: establishing facts and knowledge so that citizens can make decisions, armed with what Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.”

How should journalists respond to the stalemate, other than to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing?

"While we can agree, in principle, that journalists should be trying to inform the citizenry, that is not what the media is doing and it is not what Sullivan recommends." . . .

President Trump Gives Nancy Pelosi a Foretaste of the Utter Hell an Impeachment Trial Will Be for the Democrats

If this goes to the Senate, neither McConnell or Trump has any interest in not discrediting the Democrats and the process. And it is difficult to see them passing up this opportunity.

A Tyrannical Minority and Silent Majority

National Review

Transgender activists are enabled by those of us who know better.

"As I noted Monday on the Corner, British journalist James Kirkup has done a great public service in sharing a document that helps explain how the transgender movement, which many privately admit has overreached and is unconvincing, has been so successful so quickly.
"The document was produced by a major international law firm and is a “lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children,” Kirkup explains.
"The manual’s authors advise activists across the world to use “certain techniques,” including attempts to “get ahead of the government agenda.” For instance, using gay marriage (for which there is broad public support) as a “veil of protection,” as well as ensuring “the limitation of press coverage and exposure” related to transgender issues.
"Is it surprising that activists rely on the ignorance of the media and general public to push their agenda? Not really, when you consider how obviously dangerous and wrong that agenda is. But there’s more to it. As is most often the case, the success of a tyrannical minority depends on the cowardice of the majority. Not on their action, but on our inaction.
"Conversations with doctors, teachers, policymakers, and legislators can be discouraging, as some admit that they know what is going on and that they find it deeply troubling, but they vow to “stay out of it.” After all, it doesn’t affect them or their families. (Yet.) When I ask them to help with a story, even on background, they often say things such as, “This is not my fight,” or, “It’ll blow over eventually,” or, “I have my reputation to think about.' ” . . .

So much for "keeping our republic"

Much of the below presupposes a knowledge of America's Constitution and history, but I fail to see citizens of that sort coming out of many US schools. TD

Is America heading towards a second Civil War?  "A violent outbreak of civil war usually arises as the final stage of a constantly escalating series of rhetorical accusations between two polarized and irreconcilable sides. We are seeing this today in the confrontation between Republicans and Democrats.

"In a nutshell, the Democrats consider the Republicans to be “Nazis”. And because the Republicans are “Nazis”, the Democrats refuse to listen to anything they say. Instead, the Democrats only listen to themselves, and those Democrats who are loudest and most aggressive in their leftist agenda keep pushing all the Democrats farther and farther leftwards, in a repeating cycle of positive feedback (self-reinforcement).
"The Democrats consider traditional white conservative Christian Republicans to be a dangerous enemy who are preventing the spread of liberal “progressivism” throughout America. But the Democrats still do not dare to call the Republicans “Nazis” outright. Instead, they use the politically correct terms “racists”, “fascists” and “nationalists”." . . .

Democrats Are Pushing America Into Civil War  . . . "They are coming for those who will not acquiesce to the left’s plans for America.  All that remains is how the people will react. Normal Americans have had enough -- they are going to fight.

"Trump can only do so much with the media and the Democrats in their entirety opposing him -- so far, it’s miraculous how successful he has been against such odds.  The left’s tactics have changed, as we’ve seen in the recent actions in Virginia.  With the Democrats taking over the state government, the first legislation they have proposed for the next state legislative session is nothing more than gun confiscation.

"Make no mistake, Virginia is a test.  Unable to depose the president, they will proceed on a state-by-state basis to create the nation they long for.  And disarming Americans is crucial for the Democrats as a first and necessary step, because an armed populace can say, “No!' ” . . .

Congressman warns US heading towards civil war – 31% of Americans agree
. . . "But pundits aren’t the only ones raising the alarm: Provocative statements about the rise of “fascism” and the need for “revolution” have become commonplace among American actors, musicians and activists."

Clinton, flag-stomper Rapinoe

The Democrats Face the Bayonets  . . . "Count us among those who don’t buy the ‘savvy Pelosi’ narrative.  She has threatened a step too far, based on a grotesque misunderstanding and miscalculation of the American spirit and soul. 

"There isn’t going to be a grand bargain with President Trump; American patriots know that what is at stake is far bigger than President Trump and his deplorable supporters.  It’s about whether the all-out leftist war against America is going to be defeated.

"No, we’re not advocating or wishing for violence; but Nancy Pelosi’s miscalculation is seeding and inciting it." . . .

How's this for a symptom? Impeachment Witness Turley Claims Home, Professorship Threatened during Testimony  "In an opinion article penned Thursday, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that his home and office were flooded with “threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University” over opposing President Trump’s impeachment in congressional testimony Wednesday.
“ 'I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides,” Turley, who was called by Republicans as a witness in the House Judiciary Committee’s Wednesday impeachment hearing, wrote in The Hill. “ . . . My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee.' ” . . .

Buy a five-year subscription to CNN's Impeachment Channel

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Wall-to-wall impeachment coverage is not changing any minds. Here’s how journalists can reach the undecided.  . . . "Similarly, most people (especially the less convinced or more persuadable) will never watch seven hours in a row of congressional testimony, but, as he notes, “many of them would be open to a targeted, well-informed ‘trailer’ approach that is cogently told.'” . . .

Democrats Plot Impeaching Trump Multiple Times, Including If He Wins Re-Election: ‘No Limit To The Number Of Times The House Can Vote To Impeach’
. . . "Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who has long pushed for impeaching the president, told C-SPAN that there was “no limit” to the number of times that Democrats could impeach the president." . . .
. . . "Katyal tweeted: “[Important] note on future: If the Senate doesn’t vote to convict Trump, or tries to monkey w his trial, he could of course be retried in the new Senate should he win re-election. Double jeopardy protections do not apply. And Senators voting on impeachment in the next months know this.' ” . . .

Look out! Here comes the irony!  Hillary Clinton On Impeachment: ‘No One Is Above The Law’

Nancy Pelosi will have a hard time going forward  . . . "Well, that's where we are now that the Democrats have decided to proceed with articles of impeachment.  In other words, they will need a lot more than partisan hacks pretending to be scholars to persuade the American people.

"President Trump is already calling their bluff:   "Trump Challenges ‘Do Nothing Democrats’: ‘If You Are Going to Impeach Me, Do it Now, Fast’" . . .

Being a pessimist I keep recalling Hillary's victory fireworks display that had to come down.

Why the Democrats are so crazy to impeach  . . . "The Dems knew that Hillary would pack the federal judicial system with leftwing lawyers who would remove all legal obstructions from the path of their socialist ambitions. The stymying of this leftist project of remaking of the federal judiciary had been a major frustration for the Democrats during the Obama administration due to the Republican-controlled Senate delaying or blocking Obama’s liberal appointees." . . .

Those who would rule over us:

Obamas buy Martha’s Vineyard estate from Celtics owner for $11.75M

Now you are on Elizabeth Warren's most hated list and she's coming after you.

MSN

"The Obamas are said to have purchased a Martha’s Vineyard estate from Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck for a cool $11.75 million, saving multiples of million from what the estate was originally listed for.

“ 'The 29-acre Edgartown property on Turkeyland Cove Road was purchased by Turkeyland Cove Nominee Trust for $11.75 million, according to Dukes County Registry of Deeds records,” the MV Times noted. “The property had been on the market for $14.8 million, and was assessed at $15.1 million.”

"The sprawling 7,000 square-foot house includes seven bedrooms and eight full bathrooms with multiple separate wings for guests the former first couple will welcome.

"Without much net worth to speak of when he entered office in January of 2009, Obama is said to be worth a cool $70 million.

"As for Grousbeck, this sale is just a drop in the bucket. He is said to be worth over $400 million."

The UK Daily Mail calls the house a Pad fit for a president!

Good for anyone who comes by a fortune honestly (assuming that was the case) and good for those they employ. He should, however tell his political kin to stop hating on the rich; My last job in construction before entering the aerospace industry was working on a mansion in Santa Ynez, CA. for a man who had his own airstrip and racehorses. The house had sixteen fireplaces and kept me employed for months, feeding my family well. I'm fortunate to have had the job before the Warrens and the Sanders of this world got control of this nation. The Tunnel Dweller.

Jonathan Bartlett, NY Times

Dem star witness' obsession with impeachment exposed

"If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president," Turley said.

WND

Falsely claimed being 'skeptic' toward charging Trump before Ukraine allegations

"In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman declared under oath that he was an "impeachment skeptic" until the July 25 call between President Trump and the Ukraine president at the center of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry.
'However, in a Vice magazine article in May 2017, noted Charlie Kirk in a tweet, Feldman said that Trump had committed impeachable acts.
"And the professor wrote a piece for Bloomberg in March 2017 in which he claimed Trump risked impeachment over tweets he posted accusing President Obama of tapping his phones.
"On Wednesday, Feldman confirmed to the Democrats' counsel, Norm Eisen, that he had been "somewhat of an impeachment skeptic" at the time of the release of the special counsel report by Robert Mueller in April.
""What's changed for you, sir?" the attorney asked.
"Feldman replied that it was the July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to "look into" possible corruption in Hunter Biden's receipt of more than $3 million from a Ukrainian gas firm while his father spearheaded Ukraine policy.
"In a Q&A in the 2017 Vice article, Feldman was asked if the president committed a crime in his White House conversation with then-FBI Director Jim Comey.
" 'What the president did is an outrage. It's impeachable, and obstruction of justice in the sense of being a 'high crime and misdemeanor,'" he said.
"During the hearing Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., challenged Feldman's description of himself as an "impeachment skeptic" prior to the Ukraine phone call." . . .

Let that sink in: [Pamela] Karlan's hatred for the president is so deep-seated that she refused to even walk by a hotel that shares his name.  . . . "Don't be fooled like many Democrats were; this "expert witness," along with the three others who joined her Wednesday in front of the House Judiciary Committee, didn't have a single firsthand fact about the investigation." . . .

Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us

Amazon  A sample of Donald Trump, Jr's text here.

"This is the book that the leftist elites don't want you to read -- Donald Trump, Jr., exposes all the tricks that the left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online "shadow banning" to rampant "political correctness."
"In Triggered, Donald Trump, Jr. will expose all the tricks that the left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online "shadow banning" to fake accusations of "hate speech." No topic is spared from political correctness. This is the book that the leftist elites don't want you to read!
"Trump, Jr. will write about the importance of fighting back and standing up for what you believe in. From his childhood summers in Communist Czechoslovakia that began his political thought process, to working on construction sites with his father, to the major achievements of President Trump's administration, Donald Trump, Jr. spares no details and delivers a book that focuses on success and perseverance, and proves offense is the best defense.

Male Transjacking Will Ultimately End Women’s Sports

The Federalist

Transgender males are increasingly entering and dominating women's sports at all levels, taking away opportunities that women have fought years to win.

"This Friday, the top four NCAA Division III women’s soccer teams face off in the national semifinals. One of the final four teams’ goalkeepers, Isa Berardo, is a male transgender playing as a female for Pomona-Pitzer Colleges.
"Not surprisingly, the male goalie has dominated the field against opposing female players, giving his own a chance to win the national championship thanks to his physical advantages in a key position. This is increasingly happening throughout women’s sports, at all levels from elementary school through professional competitions. It’s creating not equality, but inequality.  
"In 2016, Therese Johaug, a Norwegian three-time Olympic cross-country skiing champion, received an 18-month suspension from the sport she loved after it was discovered that the team-approved lip balm she was using to treat her badly sunburned lips contained a performance-enhancing steroid.
"A devastated Johaug lamented, “I feel I did everything right. I went to an expert who gave me the ointment, and I asked him if the cream was on a doping list. The answer I got was ‘no.’”
"But the powers that be were undeterred from their well-established hard line of fairness, and Johaug was forced to watch the 2018 winter Olympics from the sidelines.
"It’s an unfortunate set of circumstances that raises the question: If chemicals from a necessary, medicated lip balm can be construed as such an unjust physical advantage, how on Earth can athletic authorities continue to turn a blind eye to the litany of physical advantages the transgender men increasingly competing in women’s sports so obviously possess in their male bodies?
"The ‘Standards’ for Trans Athletes Are Ludicrous" . . .

After the Obama disappointment, black voters want more than empty symbolism

The Guardian

Obama made me feel hopeful … until he didn’t. That’s why when Kamala Harris announced her race, I had to look carefully at what she represented

. . . "At a campus watch party – among the generation that would later be identified as hapless, capitalism-killing millennials – we felt unadulterated joy. Media outlets circled around what they considered the epicenter of black life on 125th Street in Harlem, capturing the thousands of people who descended on to the streets to dance. We blocked traffic and exchanged high-fives with strangers, ignoring the mist that was industry operatives. We saw a bailout for banks and big business that dwarfed the stimulus of American households. Despite middle-class trappings, economic insecurity hit me and much of our generation hard. Back home, my mother and I struggled to pay for a home that mortgage lenders targeted with a subprime mortgage. We saw Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Michael Brown and Rekia Boyd shot and killed. We saw the beer summit and respectability politics. Despite doing many things “right”, it wasn’t enough. Homes in our mostly black neighborhood outside of Atlanta still have not recovered. Justice for most of the families of police and vigilante violence has still been unserved. Banks are still being bailed out.swelling our straightened hair. The hope Obama promised was omnipresent and lasted for days. Then 2009 happened.

"We graduated into the worst job market in a generation, threatening our ability to pay back our college and post-graduate debts. Obama filled his cabinet with financial industry operatives." . . .

"So when the California senator Kamala Harris announced her bid for the presidency, women at the intersections of a marginalized race and class had to consider what this meant for us." . . . 

Trump’s Commonsensical Food-Stamp Rule

National Review

"Our food-stamp program has some bizarre loopholes in it, and the Trump administration is trying to close them. A new rule finalized today attacks one in particular.

"In theory, the program has a strict time limit for “ABAWDs,” or able-bodied adults without dependents: If they don’t meet their work requirement or receive a case-by-case exemption from their state, they may receive food stamps for at most three months in any 36-month period. But in practice, the executive branch has broad discretion to waive the limit for large geographic areas with weak labor markets — and previous administrations used that discretion promiscuously. As of 2017, about a third of the U.S. population lived in waived areas.

"Under the old rule, any place with an unemployment rate one-fifth above the national average was eligible for a waiver. (Places could — and still can — also establish eligibility by having an absolute rate over 10 percent.) This meant that when unemployment was low throughout the country, areas with good labor markets could still receive waivers, simply because unemployment wasn’t quite as low there as it was elsewhere.

"The old rule also allowed states to effectively gerrymander their waiver requests, combining high- and low-unemployment counties to maximize the number of people exempted. All told, states such as Illinois and California were able to obtain waivers for all but a few of their counties.

"In short, the system was unfair and arbitrary, imposing time limits on some recipients but not others based on where they happened to live, failing to target the waivers toward truly needy areas, and allowing states to abuse the rules to draw in more federally funded benefits." . . .

Pelosi-Schiff-Nadler hearings are a classroom on the quality of law schools.

 People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense.  Nadler did us all a favor, actually: He exposed for all to see just how far gone the American left is.  Not one of those three extreme partisans has any knowledge of the actual Constitution nor do they have any respect for it. Patricia McCarthy

 William Buckley: “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Pamela Karlan lays an egg  "The impeachment hearings are on, with a spotlight on the three anti-Trump law professors who ranted before Rep. Jerry Nadler's House Judiciary committee on Wednesday.  

"Their testimonies were a disaster for the Democrats.  They proved they were anything but constitutionalists. It took the fourth "witness," the eloquent Jonathan Turley, to drive that home.  These other three were quite the opposite, fans of abrogating most of our founding document.  

"What will be remembered forever is the condescending arrogance of the professors -- Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt.  If there were ever an expose of the kind of people who inhabit the ivory towers of academia, this was it.  These three law professors were a flashing neon warning:  Do not send your kids to prestigious law schools.  People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense.  Nadler did us all a favor, actually: He exposed for all to see just how far gone the American left is.  Not one of those three extreme partisans has any knowledge of the actual Constitution nor do they have any respect for it. " . . .

[Karlan] was on a short list of Hillary's picks for SCOTUS so it is a safe bet that she is angry that HRC lost. 

Nadler blew his big chance in the Judiciary Committee yesterday
. . . "Nadler’s first mistake was to start with law professors lecturing us on their hatred and contempt for Donald Trump." . . .

From Breitbart: "Gaetz also got Feldman to admit that he once wrote an article entitled, “It’s Hard to Take Impeachment Seriously Now' ”

Rep. Gaetz Leaves Dem Witnesses SPEECHLESS at Impeachment Hearing

Kellyanne Conway slams Pamela Karlan: 'Who the hell are you lady'

Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing

. . . "With Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, there was no real chance that President Trump would be treated equitably. After all, Nadler’s confederate and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had already obliterated any semblance of due process in impeachment hearings before his committee." . . .

FYI From Hillary: I Am Not A Lesbian

Hot Air

"A little something to cleanse the palate. She said this in an interview today with Howard Stern, which makes it slightly less weird since chatter about lesbians is like 40 percent of the content on that show. Or at least it was when I was a regular listener a million years ago. (In fairness to Stern, she’s the one who brings it up.)
"He went easy on her by not asking the obvious follow-up: What were you doing at Epstein’s ranch, then?
. . . 
"All she needs to do is flip a few hundred thousand votes in the right states. If the economy tanks or Trump behaves even Trumpier than usual, he might hand those votes to her without her needing to lift a finger to earn them.
"Good lord, what if she does jump in? What is she even doing showing up on the Howard Stern show anyway? Is Hillary 3.0 happening?
"Exit question: She could win a national election with the entirety of progressive America staying home next November to protest her nomination, right?"