Sunday, March 31, 2019

The Best Dots Connect Themselves

     A good commentator needs to say as little as possible. Facts should always be allowed to speak for themselves. People trust the opinions they form from direct observation and factual reportage far more than those foisted upon them by others who probably have axes to grind.

     Today I have three citations at hand that dramatize the above rather nicely. First, courtesy of Mike Hendrix, comes this highly illustrative piece from NBC News:

     "The president is absolutely trying to reinforce the feeling among his allies and surrogates that the media went overboard in its coverage of the Russia investigation, that certain lawmakers were reckless in their claims, and that the investigation itself was flawed in its inception," said Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who specializes in national security issues.

     "The problem here is that even if the president has legitimate gripes on one or more of those things, his overly aggressive commentary is doing nothing but exacerbating the situation," Moss said in a text message. "There were real and legitimate red flags that justified the investigation. Lawmakers had real and legitimate bases for viewing the existing evidence as reflecting collusion."

     The contents of Mueller's full report remain a mystery not only to the public but to the lawmakers who oversee the Justice Department. Yet even Barr's brief summary acknowledged what Trump has been so unwilling to admit himself: that Russia tried to help him win the presidency.

     Please read it all, if you have the stomach for a cavalcade of blatant, demonstrable falsehoods written in the most egregiously self-righteous tone ever adopted by a “news agency.” Ask yourself: What is the purpose of such a piece of mendacity? What does NBC News hope to accomplish by posting it?

     Second, the indefatigable Sarah Noble provides some fresh scrofulosity from the ever more scrofulous Washington Post:

     The president has rarely seen much value in being magnanimous when he wins. Now that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation is finally done, with no further criminal charges forthcoming, Trump is following the same pattern he always has after a triumph: Through half a century in business and politics, his instinct is consistently to keep the battle going, even in victory.

     Since Mueller delivered his report to Attorney General William P. Barr, Trump has been crowing about his “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” even though Mueller specifically said that the report “does not exonerate him.” But he’s also already moving to take his pound of flesh from those who opposed him. Trump said that “there are people out there who have done very bad things, I would say treasonous things, against our country,” and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Democrats and media figures who accused Trump of working with Russia have made accusations “equal to treason, which is punishable by death in this country.” For Trump, there can never be enough winning.

     Once again, ask yourself: What is the purpose of such a piece of mealy-mouthed whining? Read it in combination with the NBC News piece. Does that suggest a motive to you?

     Rather than assemble ever more such clips, I’ll cut to the chase:

     Ragin’ Dave’s one-word title seems sufficient, wouldn’t you say?

     Could it possibly be clearer that the Democrats, the media, and their Deep State operatives, who’ve spent more than two years fabricating and promoting this baseless collage of formless accusations of wrongdoing against the duly elected President of the United States, want the attention on President Trump and not on their own marginally treasonous doings? Let’s see, now: Why would the Democrats and the media, a gaggle of persons and institutions that famously love the spotlight, suddenly want it to shine on someone else? Someone they detest?

     Don’t all answer at once, now.

3 comments:

NITZAKHON said...

The answer, as you suggest, is obvious. But IMHO there's more.

When Trump won, I remember a comment from some leftie to the effect that not only must Trump be destroyed, but that another such as him must never arise again.

And that's why the pressure will never, EVER relent. There could be angels on high descending a glowing staircase with a divine declaration engraved in diamond of Trump's innocence in all this, and it would not be enough. The precedent must be set: any "populist" who resists the one world Socialist Utopia they plan on making must be razed to the ground as an example to the others.

This is why the European populists are excoriated so. Why Trump is attacked ruthlessly. The message must be sent to any others who might try to go for the Presidential ring: this will happen to you - you, your family, your friends, your associates... anyone connected with you in any way will come under fire. Thus, any populist with ambitions will be pulled down not only through fear for themselves, but by the fear of those around them.

Selfish Dave said...

Words have fixed meanings, or should. Sarah Noble misused "exonerate." The abuse of terminology is now a hallmark of the left's disinformation.
In Western Law and Epistemology, all knowledge, and all assertions of knowledge, must be supported by evidence, i.e., the evidence of the senses or knowledge reducible to sense data. What constitutes evidence of crime is a vital part of forensic science.
. Mueller and his team found no evidence to support the charges of collusion or obstruction of justice. Mueller and friends know exactly what constitutes probative evidence. Half a dozen people were legally tortured or extorted for probative evidence, but nothing was forthcoming. Not a scintilla of probative evidence to support an indictment was uncovered.
. Why is the left saying that the Mueller report "does not exonerate" Trump? This statement is technically true, but very misleading. Check Wikipedia. “Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. .... The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.”
. There was no crime. There was no indictment, no conviction and no blame. Technically, there can be no exoneration because there is nothing of which to be exonerated. That's why the Mueller Probe doesn't exonerate anyone. That's a technical point. Trump is innocent, entirely innocent, until proven guilty of an actual crime with evidence.
.
Feel free to re-work this thought, and Thanks for your consistently intelligent articles. Christian David Sweeny.


Andrew Pryzant said...

Sundance is the best and most comprehensive sleuth behind these dastardly undertakings. Genesis rests with Brennen. Would not be surprised if Brennen initiated a pow wow with Obama and Jarret to cook up a plan (or vice versa).