Don's Tuesday Column

          THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   1/28/2020

Impressions, observations and facts

Most folks have been putting the repetitive impeachment circus (pre-Saturday) in a cubbyhole. Judging by polls, discounting for the bias of pollsters and their samples—adults, registered voters or the highly predictive but rarely used “likely voter”—the electorate is divided on President Trump’s guilt as to trading foreign aid to Ukraine for an investigation of a political opponent, Joe Biden. Fair enough summary? However, it’s a factually wrong assertion, according to transcripts and testimony.

Being a retired armchair consumer of broadcast, radio and printed news, this columnist is informed by impressions, observations and facts, and won’t delve into the tall weeds of House prosecutors or the President’s defenders. However, it should behoove those ideologically committed to Trump’s removal by, if nothing else, electoral defeat to consider the arguments and evidence presented by his legal team to the U.S. Senate and the nation.

Nothing I’ve written so far has been subsequently proven wrong. In particular, my early call that the Dems had no interest in pursuing a 2/3ds vote to remove President Trump; they were determined to get a bare, 51-vote majority with the help of 4 Republican “moderates” that could be persuaded to show their independence from Trump (without actually removing him). That majority vote would then be used against not just Trump but every Republican candidate.

So, they now pursue a middle goal of “can’t you just agree to hear witnesses?” They are objectively unnecessary as the Trump team, in 2 hours on Saturday, refuted the entirety of the 20+ hours of repetitive House manager bloviation. The testimony on the record supports Trump—the whole record, not the bifurcated, edited, misrepresented portions used by Democrats.

If witnesses are approved for appearance, this writer predicts the Democrats will do a “Lucy and the football.” They will gladly agree to Republican requests for witnesses next week or next month (if ever) for immediate appearances by those on their laundry list; they will be coached, advised and their every word promoted in the most favorable (to Democrats) light by their media adjuncts.

The technological tool of “closed captions” is a means to keep up with what’s being said while “multi-tasking” by listening to something else; few things require full attention to every syllable of dialogue or dissertation. Hence, the words of someone like Adam Schiff or his fellow “House managers” hardly require rapt attention when they endlessly reiterate the same assertions (without evidence, as they say about Trump).

It makes it easy, but challenging—if you have two screens with separate tuners, and a Tivo recording device to playback other content—to watch a western, sci-fi or thriller, listen to Rush’s show, watch the captions and even write a column. If several networks are covering the same event, all can be recorded and played back; Sunday political talk shows can be quickly replayed while fast-forwarding over host propaganda and disingenuous, talking-point mouthpieces.

What’s jumped out has been how supposedly informed media panelists resolutely state complete falsehoods without the slightest doubt or correction. For example, between Terry Moran, Dan Abrams and Leslie Stahl (ABC?), I heard blithe assertions that “abuse of power is right there in the Constitution” as impeachable, and that “obstruction of Congress is a crime.” Any reader should know both are wrong: 1) the actual categories of “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors” are there in black and white; 2) there is literally no federal statute that makes “obstruction of Congress” a crime.

The endless pattern by network “analysts”: Reinforce the House Democrat talking points, give knee-jerk counter-points to any Republican assertion; they then shamelessly reverse course to dispute anything that the President’s defense team says (starting on Monday) and give verbal and nodded approval to, for instance, Chuck Schumer’s pronouncements. They allow no Trump defenders on the networks, just RINOs.

The greatest flip-flops since the last impeachment (of Bill Clinton), haven’t been Ken Starr or Alan Dershowitz, who argued and advocated in good faith for a position or client, but rather that the “Hypocritical ‘News’ Media Have Done a Complete Flip-Flop on Impeachment” (Bill D’Agostino, 1/20).

Youthful faces on news shows were just children, but their predecessors were old enough “when the President being impeached was a Democrat, the spin was completely reversed. In 1999, the broadcast networks were reluctant even to cover the Senate trial for any extended period of time…” cutting away after 90 minutes, ultimately railing against the reviled process. “Pundits during the Clinton impeachment scoffed that Congress was wasting everyone’s time even bothering with a Senate trial in the first place…”; a “bogus trial,” a “political sham” designed only to torment the President; a “coup,” “witch hunt.”

Now, “New York Times’ hard leftist Michelle Goldberg explained that impeachment offsets the tyranny of the Electoral College, giving losers their rightful victory…and tyranny over winners” (Bookwormroom.com). Rather than proving Trump a dictator, who ironically allows his opponents to walk freely about their lives, Democrats are seeking “The New Post-Trump Constitution” (Victor Davis Hanson), where “Partisan Impeachment & Endless Investigations” enable Congressional opponents to undo elections.

“Trump’s only crime is being Trump,” writes Howie Carr; yet, in the “ABC/WaPo poll: Trump climbs to highest job approval rating of his presidency amid impeachment trial,” (Allahpundit, Hotair.com).

In “The Rage of the Democrats,” Amil Imani asks “What underlies the rage of the Democrat Party and of the Leftist Democrat Establishment vis-à-vis President Donald Trump?” An Iranian who immigrated with his parents, and whose father admonished him against Democrats, he concluded over his decades as an American that “the current Democrat Party is no longer the party of Kennedy. It has become the greatest threat to our national security and our survival as a nation.” I agree!