RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/05/a-week-of-political-karma-for-the-democrats/

President Trump now stands acquitted. The Democrats must confront the debacle that is their presidential primary field and run on a nonexistent record of achievement as the 2020 campaign season kicks off. Karma, indeed, is a bitch.

Donald Trump couldn’t have scripted it better himself: The Democratic Party’s karma knocked them right on the head this week as their countrymen watched in disgust—some, admittedly, in delight.

After three years of deception, gaslighting, and public temper tantrums, these power-hungry partisans finally got their comeuppance. An assembly of agents provocateurs, motivated by an insatiable amount of contempt not just for the president but for Americans in general, who gambled on a farcical impeachment crusade rather than build a persuasive policy case to win over voters this year, are ranting and pouting and tearing up stuff because . . . well, because they are losing. If Nancy Pelosi could have thrown a pacifier from her Capitol high chair Tuesday night, she would have.

The past several days have been filled with delightful metaphors: The president gave a lengthy interview before kickoff on Super Bowl Sunday, touting his achievements and mocking his political foes. A team from a pro-Trump red state faced a team from a Trump-hating blue state, which was favored to win. The San Francisco 49ers, based in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hometown, had a 10-point lead going into the fourth quarter.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/trump-wins-again/

Trump broke Pelosi. Or maybe she just broke herself.

Trying to dislodge a president whose approval ratings have been stuck well below 50 percent for virtually his entire presidency, in an atmosphere of economic effervescence, Democrats would be smart to signal voters that they won’t bring about major policy shifts but will restore decorous behavior.

Instead, they’re doing the opposite.

George W. Bush inspired Charles Krauthammer to coin the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” President Obama likened his opposition to a “fever.” But no president has ever done what President Trump is doing to his ideological adversaries, which is to cause them to lunge uncontrollably around the political stage like so many kittens chasing the dot made by a laser pointer.

Behold: Nancy Pelosi, she of the tight self-control and the 32-year run in Congress, threw a hissy fit on live television and ripped up the State of the Union speech. The silky slalom schusser tumbled over her skis and planted her face in the side of the mountain. What she probably thought would look like a gesture of aggression and defiance instead looked more like petulance and frustration. Trump not only gave a great speech, he gave great television, which is far more important. “A master showman at his best,” declared Norah O’Donnell, the CBS Evening News anchor. The effectiveness of the SOTU made Pelosi mad. Trump’s discipline made Pelosi mad. His obliteration of the impeachment drama by not even dignifying it with a mention made Pelosi mad. #PelosiTantrum and #NancytheRipper were top trending topics on Twitter. Democrats think they’re going to rage their way into the White House. Maybe you can try that when the country’s on fire. It isn’t.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/trump-impeachment-what-acquittal-means-for-rule-of-law/

It will go on. Meanwhile, Congress ought to get back to its business.

I n Wednesday’s final impeachment vote in the Senate, only one Senate Republican, Mitt Romney, crossed party lines to vote to remove Donald Trump from office. No Senate Democrat bucked party-line discipline to vote for Trump’s acquittal. This followed last Friday’s 51–49 vote to conclude the trial on the basis of the evidence heard in the House, without live witness testimony. Only two Republicans (Romney and Susan Collins), and no Democrats, crossed party lines in that vote.

There has been a great deal of hand-wringing about what it means that Senate Republicans kept enough of a united front to dispose of the charges against Trump without even a full trial. In fact, acquittal is a reasonable political judgment by Republican senators that reflects the preexisting standards for presidential impeachments, rather than a change to them.

Impeachment for abuse of power is political. A great deal of the commentary and political argument on impeachment takes a wrong turn from the very start. The mistake is treating presidential impeachment as a purely legal question in which it is somehow inappropriate to consider politics. Taking this view, Democrats argue that if any impeachable “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are proven, there is a solemn duty to remove the president, and it is a violation of the senators’ oaths and an offense against the rule of law to acquit. The president’s defenders, for their part, argue that no impeachable “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are even alleged, and therefore the entire process amounts to an assault by the House on the rule of law and something like a coup. Both views are wrong.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/mitt_romney_gives_a_disgraceful_display_of_petty_vindictiveness_on_impeachment.html

Mitt Romney was a staunch, aggressive NeverTrumper, right up until he needed President Trump’s endorsement when he ran for Senator in Utah in 2018. Despite Mitt’s nastiness, Trump gracefully gave him that endorsement. Mitt responded like the scorpion he is, immediately turning around and stinging Trump during the impeachment process.

The first Article of Impeachment against Trump was for the hitherto unknown wrongdoing called “Abuse of Power.” It represents no legal standard and the proceedings in the House made it clear that “abuse of power” really meant that Trump was conducting foreign policy in a way that offended Democrats. Investigating criminal wrongdoing by a past Vice President is not an impeachable offense, even if it involves wrongdoing in a foreign country. Still, that wasn’t enough for Mitt.

Nor did it matter to Mitt that, just a week ago, he insisted that there was not enough evidence to convict Trump unless he was able to hear from additional witnesses, especially Mitt’s partner-in-spitefulness, John Bolton.

“I, of course, will make a final decision on witnesses after we’ve heard from not only the prosecution, but also the defense,” Romney told reporters. “But I think at this stage, it’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-expected-to-vote-to-acquit-trump-on-impeachment-11580908525

WASHINGTON—The Republican-led Senate acquitted President Trump of charges stemming from his efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him in this year’s election, concluding a four-month drama that has consumed Washington and intensified the nation’s sharp divide over his presidency.

On the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, all 47 Democrats and one Republican voted to convict the president, falling short of the 67 needed to remove the president from office. On the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, the vote also failed, with all Democrats and no Republicans finding the president guilty.

The presidential impeachment trial, the nation’s third in its history, grew out of a July 25 phone call in which Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s president to announce certain investigations just as he was holding up U.S. aid to the country. Mr. Trump has defended the call as “perfect” and has said he did nothing wrong regarding Ukraine. The aid was later released after bipartisan outcry from lawmakers.

“The American people, and frankly, people all over the world, know it’s a hoax,” he told supporters at a recent rally in Des Moines, Iowa.

Mr. Trump had hoped for vindication in the Senate trial after a House investigation that he had decried as politically motivated. What he got was something less: Amid strong support for his acquittal from his own party, several Republicans also said Democrats had proved that he acted improperly regarding Ukraine.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bolton-and-the-first-law-of-leaks/

I’d guess that the most common kind of news article out of Washington would be an article reporting something breathless that was leaked to the reporter by an anonymous source. This is usually gussied up with frills and flounces, like “a source close to the Administration” or “a source with knowledge of the situation”.

I’m not one to say that all leaks should be eliminated, even if they could be eliminated. Which they can’t. Leaks can serve a good purpose — there are a lot of times a leak makes public some real issue. But we always should keep in mind the First Law of Leaks:

Every leak is being leaked to promote the agenda of the leaker, and is being shaped to the leaker’s advantage.

So once you see something that’s been leaked, you should ask yourself five four questions:

How is it being reported?
Whose agenda does the leak serve?
How surprising is it?
So?

That last might be called the “Andrew Breitbart Answer.” Not too long before he died, Andrew made the point that often the right answer to the accusations of the left was “So?” or “So what?” Craig Biddle wrote excellently on Andrew’s question back in 2012. He has a lot more to say about it, but his central point is that “So?” directs the discussion to fundamental issues.

The recent leaks purported to be from John Bolton’s upcoming books — and, for that matter, Bolton’s book itself — have been just begging for someone to ask these questions, so let’s.

How is the leak being reported?

The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. While it has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address, Pelosi appeared intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces [texting, speaking, mouthing epithets, shuffling papers, nodding, then shaking her head as if she were conducting a speech, tilting her head up and down, moving her microphone, raising her papers high, rearranging and fluttering them repeatedly, and her signature lip-smacking] and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a [government property] copy of his address [in violation of Federal law].

Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.

What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply announced, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached.

No sooner had Nancy Pelosi disrespected both the office of the President and the American people, the spin doctor mainstream media allies of the Democrat Party began equating President Trump’s not accepting Speaker of the House Pelosi’s hand shake to Pelosi ripping up her copy of the State of the Union Address before numerous millions of people watching on television around the world

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-snubbed-her-handshake-she-tore-up-his-speech-trump-pelosi-drama-on-full-display-at-state-of-the-union/ar-BBZEF8L?li=BBnb7Kz .

While the American State Department and many other folks are famous for such alleged moral equivalency claims as well, it’s the media of various sorts which is of concern right now https://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/6/article38.htm.

Whatever the President’s real or alleged shortcomings may be, any reasonable observer cannot help but notice that the attempt to attack and get rid of Donald J. Trump began the day the Clinton team, whose Foundation has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars from often questionable and controversial sources (including Russian, Arab, and Ukrainian), lost the election in 2016. Besides Hillary, Slick Willy was chomping at the bit to be the First Dude back in the White House.

https://spectator.us/trump-state-union-address-touching-moments/

One of the many things that F. Scott Fitzgerald said that sound good but aren’t true is this: ‘There are no second acts in American lives.’ Consider the life of Donald Trump. Five years ago he was a dubious real estate developer and professional celebrity. Now he is not only president of the United States, but he is, three years into his first term, the most ostentatiously successful president in memory. Donald Trump is a walking refutation of what is perhaps Fitzgerald’s second most quoted line.

Possibly Fitzgerald’s first most quoted line is this: ‘The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.’ That isn’t true, either. On the contrary, espousing or embodying contradictory ideas is generally a mark of pedestrian intelligence, on the one hand, and defective character on the other. In this context, uncharitable people might be inclined to adduce people like Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell (remember him?). They spout certain platitudes about the importance of Constitution, the rule of law, etc., but then do things that utterly betray their fine sounding sentiments.

Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address tonight brought both of Fitzgerald’s sayings to mind. The announced theme of the evening was ‘the great American comeback’. And the president indulged in a litany of what that comeback has encompassed. But as in his 2018 and 2019 State of the Union addresses, a major theme of his remarks was unity: the importance of working across the aisle to achieve what is good for the whole country, not just one party. In 2018, in a column called ‘Trump restores the We‘, I wrote that a major theme of the evening was the call to put aside ‘the partisan passions that divide us in order to go forward as a people united in the goal of making a better America’.

In 2019, the president sounded a similar note. The choice before us, he said, was between the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, on the one hand, and cooperation, compromise, and the common good, on the other. ‘Victory,’ he said ‘is not winning for our party. Victory is winning for our country.’

https://pjmedia.com/trending/white-women-draped-in-white-sit-while-trump-announces-lowest-minority-unemployment-numbers-ever/

Well, this is weird. Not only are the Democrats sheathing themselves in their favorite historic color for intimidating folks at the State of the Union address, but they all refused to stand while President Trump announced the lowest unemployment numbers for black and Hispanic people in the history of the country.

You have to wonder what message they’re trying to send as they sit there completely unimpressed that more minority people are working than ever before. We know you hate the president, but don’t you like Americans who have jobs? It seems like one of those things that would be easy to cheer. But Trump Derangement Syndrome, so whatever. Minority jobs come second to that. I’m surprised they didn’t wear black for mourning the impeachment acquittal that is coming in the morning.

Dems claim they’re in white because something, something, suffragettes.