No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral, disinterested party. - Granite Grok

No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral, disinterested party.

Some animals more equal Animal Farm

When Democrats run the House and Trump is in the Oval Office, Impeachment will always be in the air, which is not so bad. It has (so far) been a win for President Trump. The longer it drags on, the lower support for it gets. The higher his approval numbers climb. 

Which may have the folks at the Washington Post worried. Even they can’t avoid writing about how stupid House Democrats have been.

How Bad Could It Be?

Understand first that media uses every page (especially opinion) to advance preferred policy and narrative. It is rarely a place where ideas are allowed to roam freely. What is printed, by whom, and when if at all is an editorial exercise to create perception. This matters, this does not. The people who support this are idiots, look how badly this letter is we received. [Insert the Nelson Muntz Ha Ha!]

Second, there’s nothing wrong with that if you are honest about it. We are, but most media pretend to be the unbiased seekers of truth and defenders of the people from the injustices of the State and the world. Even on the opinion page. But in most cases, they are mouthpieces of the ruling class, advocates for State oppression (except for their own Press carve-out), and defenders (primarily) of the left-leaning establishment. 

I bring that all up because the Washington Post published this, which suggests that House Democrats are at least as arrogant, unhinged, and incompetent as we suspect, and probably more so.

The House’s articles have been analogized to an indictment, but indictments can only be brought if they are sanctioned by a neutral, disinterested party. A prosecutor must persuade either a judge or a grand jury that there is probable cause a defendant committed a crime to initiate a case. No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral, disinterested party.

Nor can a prosecutor obtain evidence under subpoena on their whim. Anyone with a subpoena to provide testimony or written evidence can challenge that in court, as many recipients of such subpoenas in investigations supervised by the office of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did. That is exactly what the president has tried to do in many instances with respect to subpoenas issued by committees controlled by House Democrats. But Schiff and his colleagues not only chose not to permit the judicial process to play out with respect to those subpoenas; they chose to call the president’s attempt to avail himself of his rights “obstruction of Congress” and an impeachable offense itself. How Orwellian.

Some animals are more equal than others. 

Then there is the entire argument for more witnesses that has scribblers on the left and right grunting under the weight of the contradictions. You said you made your case.

If it’s “overwhelming” as is, then there is no need for more witnesses. If it’s “uncontested,” which it most certainly is not, then there’s no need for a trial.

Much the same way your circus-like wholly partisan investigation (which only proved that some people hate Donald Trump despite no evidence of wrongdoing) demurred to a solemn and somber event, complete with gold-capped inscribed souvenir pens on silver platters.

Orwellian indeed. 

| AoSHQ