The news this week is interesting in how it comes across in the various outlets and how the counter programming and social media depict the stories of interest. Let’s start with Paul Manafort.
Paul Manafort, the former Campaign Chairman for the Trump campaign, is either guilty of 8-counts, or innocent of 10-counts, depending on your point of view. He is either an outrageous crook or a sly businessman/lawyer/lobbyist who is only on trial because he is associated with President Trump. While I suspect if there wasn’t a special prosecutor Manafort might have skated on the fraud issues, the fact he was found guilty is bad for him, but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Russian interference of the 2016 election. An election I would point out Candidate Trump said was rigged and all the Dems poo-pooed as impossible (at least until they lost).
Michael Cohen, (I assume now former) lawyer/fixer for Donald Trump, has pled guilty of bank and tax fraud and campaign finance violations for paying off President Trump's paramours in an attempt to minimize the public outcries for his messing around on his wife (# 3 I think). The charges on the bank and tax fraud issues cover a period of 5-years and I believe are also irrelevant with regards to Russians hacking into the election to change the course of U.S. history. The money he paid the women constituted an illegal “in-kind” campaign contribution and was allegedly made with the knowledge and approval of the candidate.
The left would have us believe these are “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore are impeachable offenses. Looking rationally at it, if the Dems were in charge of the House they might make their case, but I’m hard-pressed to understand how a campaign violation by a candidate rises to an impeachable offense when impeachment has historically been used to attempt to remove a President for something he did while holding the office. (Cases on point. Andrew Johnson was accused of violating the “Tenure of Office Act” as President. In this case one of the cabinet members got the Congress to act because he was fired and had friends who could protect him. Richard Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment were approved but it would most likely have been related to the criminal activity of spying on the DNC in the 1972 election. Finally, Bill Clinton was impeached for his role in attempting to cover up his affair with Lewinsky and mislead the Kenneth Star investigation on Whitewater, both of which occurred while he was a sitting President.)
That said, in today’s world precedent has little to do with the seemingly irrational choices politicians make in an effort to impress their friends and supporters. Realistically, does anyone really think if his affairs had come out it would have made that much of a difference in the general election or that the Russians prevented the DNC from finding out about them and using them against Mr. Trump? As much as one side now claims marriage fidelity is important for a President, that ship sailed in the 1990s.
Of course, we have a number of politicians being indicted on a variety of criminal charges like fraud. I think there is probably an equal number of Rs and Ds but without a scorecard, it is hard to keep track. So, I fall back on an old truth (or joke) – when do you know a politician (or lawyer) is lying to you? When their lips are moving.
Next, we have the discovery of Molly Tibbets a young woman who went missing in mid-July whose body was discovered Tuesday and almost immediately someone was charged with her murder. The man charged is a 24-year old illegal (undocumented if you prefer) immigrant from Mexico. Those on the left have risen up to dismiss the nature of her killer and his illegal status as unimportant, with Dr. Christina Greer of Fordham University going so far as to dismiss it entirely since it didn’t fit the narrative she wanted to discuss. According to Dr. Greer, the news should focus entirely on how the Republican Party is not standing up to Donald Trump. The fact some “girl in Iowa” was killed just wasn’t that important. Of course, this was on MSNBC and she was being critical of FOX so it is really okay, isn’t it? Senator Warren had to weigh in and note that her death wasn’t nearly as important as separating mothers from the children at the border while still others point out the real problem is toxic masculinity. Of course, some suggested discussing this death and linking it to border security was just pure political theater and the President and his supporters were just crass for doing so. Not that the previous administration ever did such a thing.
So where is the conundrum? Each time the Republicans do something to suggest I really should consider dropping my affiliation with them (like having candidates who are indicted or horribly obnoxious) the Democratic party and their spokespeople show me the alternative party is far worse. Despite its warts and imperfections, at least the Republicans want to keep what appears to be at least a semi-viable government. The other side really seems to be approaching a level of insanity I can’t understand as they focus almost exclusively on the evil they call Trump and would have us just turn over government to the UN, at least until they figure out the UN only loves us for our cash. For the socialists among them, they propose the same unsupportable concepts that have made Cuba and Venezuela the economic juggernauts they are today. It is simply a matter of greed on the part of the haves, and if the government would just step in and make the haves give all their wealth to the have-nots then everything would be great. All we need to do is nationalize everything and let everyone work for the government.
With this logic, since fiscal policies are set by the Federal Reserve they are the real evil and we should nationalize it (remove its autonomy), along with all the banks and investment companies, and then everything would be perfect.
That is my conundrum… I don’t think bigger government is the answer and as imperfect as the RNC is, there still appears to be a sliver of sanity within it, while on the other side of the aisle – not so much (e.g. Antifa beating a fellow liberal protestor senseless because he had an American Flag).
No comments:
Post a Comment