Posted by Curt on 6 October, 2019 at 9:16 am. 3 comments already!


Who will be the Michael Avenatti of this “scandal?

How stupid does the anti-Trump fraternity think the American people are? By “anti-Trump fraternity” I mean not only the increasingly frantic Democrats who, like Belshazzar at that memorable dinner party many years back, can see the writing ever more clearly on the wall for 2020, but also the NeverTrump sorority who just cannot get over the fact that someone was elected president of the United States without their permission, indeed, over their explicit objections. How dare they!

I ask how stupid they think the American people are because it has long seemed to me that they must have a very low opinion of our intelligence given the preposterous anti-Trump narrative they keep trying to foist off on us.

At the same time, it must be said that they have a touching trust in our patience. Fans of P.G. Wodehouse may recall that in the preface to Summer Lightning old Plum adduced the “nasty remark” of one critic who complained that a previous novel contained “all the old Wodehouse characters under different names.” Ever looking on the bright side, Wodehouse mused that that critic had probably by then been eaten by bears “like the children who made mock of the prophet Elisha.” But if, he noted, said scribe was still among us he would not have been able to make the same objection to Wodehouse’s new novel because this time he put in all the old Wodehouse characters “under the same names. Pretty silly it will make him feel, I rather fancy.”

So it is with the anti-Trump/NeverTrump confederation. Since the wee hours of November 9, 2016, we have repeatedly, over and over, unremittingly been assured that Donald Trump faced a tipping point, that “the walls were closing in,” that some new revelation was the “bombshell” that at last, finally, would force his resignation and possibly his arrest, incarceration, and (if the winds were just right) his summary execution. Really, take a look if you don’t believe it.

An Obvious Smear

A moderately intelligent six-year-old could see that the whole “Trump-colluded-with-Russia-to-steal-the-election” wheeze was just silly. It did, however, illustrate the power of inertia. For once that narrative was set in motion, once the bureaucracy got behind it and the resources of the federal government—lubricated by a complicit media—were mobilized, it just kept rolling along, getting bigger and bigger like some monstrous snowball thundering down an infernal snowclad mountain slope. It crashed into nothingness only because of the dogged work of a handful of public spirited sleuths, primus inter pares being Rep. Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.), whose work as head of the House Intelligence Committee first brought some of the scandalous details of the plot to rig an election and destroy a presidency to light.

The more we learn about that plot, the more difficult it is to believe that anyone ever could have taken it seriously. Remember when “the dossier” first surfaced? That was supposed to be one of those “bombshells” that was going to precipitate a tipping point and start the walls closing in. But then it turned out that the dossier was just lurid gossip without any foundation. It also turned out that it was opposition gossip (I won’t say “research”), commissioned and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. But we were still being asked to take it seriously, just as we were asked to take Peter Strzok and Lisa Page seriously as impartial investigators even though they entertained themselves by larding their love-texts to each other with wild anti-Trump imprecations and fantasies about an “insurance policy” that either would prevent his election or assure his removal in case the worst happened.

The thing to remember is that we were never meant to hear about Strzok or Page. Neither were we meant to know about the FISA warrants against Carter Page and others. The whole machinery of the government’s attempted coup was supposed to have proceeded invisibly and, like those tapes left for Jim Phelps at the beginning of episodes of “Mission Impossible,” self-destructed without leaving a trace. It would have, too, had only the inevitable happened and Hillary Clinton won the election.

But she didn’t, and bit by bit the curtain has been drawn back from the Greatest Show on Earth. It’s a dance of 7, or maybe 700, veils however, notwithstanding the fact that one is much like the next. For a couple of years it was collusion with Russia and the investigation by Robert Mueller, who started off like a Canadian Mountie (they always get their man) and ended up like Chauncey Gardiner in “Being There.”

A Sad Re-Run

They played essentially the same drama with Brett Kavanaugh—totally fabricated allegations, vicious, round-the-clock hysteria in an effort to destroy a target, and sudden and total deflation when the ploy was exposed. But note that exposure and refutation are never final. Just a few weeks ago, the wretched New York Times wheeled out essentially the same accusation against Kavanaugh, betting, or at least hoping, that no one would notice.

And so it goes on. The fabricated, make-believe scandal of Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky began unravelling before the ink was dry on the newspapers reporting it. But that didn’t stop the New York Times, reprising their gambit with Brett Kavanaugh, from shouting that a second anonymous “whistleblower” had been found who was just about to come forward and spew more malign anti-Trump gossip into the cloaca maxima of the effort to rid the world of Donald Trump.

“The official,” intoned our fishwrap of record, “has more direct information about the events than the first whistle-blower, whose complaint that Mr. Trump was using his power to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals touched off an impeachment inquiry.” And just in case the anti-Trump bias of that was not sufficiently patent, the Times helpfully provided this caption to a photo of the President: “President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. during a phone call.”

Oh really? In addition to assuming our stupidity and presuming on our patience, the Times apparently believes that we cannot read. That call in July between Donald Trump and the Ukrainian President was about efforts to influence the 2016 election, not the 2020 election. How do we know? President Trump said so in his call. Let me quote from the transcript. “I would like you to do us a favor,” the President said. Smoking gun? No.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x