Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 11/12/2019
Salute veterans, Marine Corps birthday

It is rewarding to see the recognition and respect given to our military veterans throughout the weekend’s sporting events. It combines two areas of American life, sports and military, that give us venues for unrequited boosterism and fandom. Teams play to win; America’s military defends us by winning.

There were astounding revelations since the last column, which wouldn’t come to light from the mainstream media, aligned as it is with the campaign to facilitate President Trump’s removal, if only by defeat next year. A caption was added to a scene from a news business movie (maybe “Network”), where an angry man points his finger and yells: “The news used to tell you that something happened, then you had to decide what you thought about it. Now the news tells you how to think about something, and you have to decide if it even happened.” Says it all.

First, summer Daily News issues get read eventually, months after publication, thanks to the staff and delivery person. While the “news” is no longer new, some stories provide a backdrop to current events. A June 13 AP story by Elana Schor, “Lock him up? Democrats weigh what to do about Trump’s deeds,” started with a false comparison: Trump rally-goers chanting “Lock her (Hillary Clinton) up”—over crimes listed by James Comey but dismissed due to “lack of intent”—and Democrats’ apparent zeal to “lock him (Trump) up.” 

Their unacknowledged, hypocritical problem: There were no charges of criminal “obstruction” over non-crimes in Mueller’s 2-part report on nonexistent Trump/Russia collusion to steal the election. The article recounted an NPR interview with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)—whose presidential prospects never struck this writer as nomination-worthy—and her address to Iowa Democrats.

Democrats have tried to walk a fine, duplicitous line, even last June and before, over boldly stating their belief in Trump’s criminality—absent evidence or “without proof” as they routinely say about Trump’s assertions—and risk turning off moderate voters they’ll need next year. That leaves them vulnerable to a rabidly Trump-deranged base that will brook no compromise to imprisoning Trump after he departs the White House, whether impeached or defeated or termed out.

“San Fran” Nancy Pelosi flip-flopped since she said (in June) she opposed impeachment in favor of defeating Trump and then locking him up. I see plenty of evidence, in their own words and deeds, of the “banana republic” criminalization of political opponents, illustrated by their past legal warfare against Republicans Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Bush lawyers that provided legal support for harsh interrogations, Wisconsin supporters of Scott Walker, and on and on.

Even the reporter’s erroneous statement supports the Dem narrative: “Mueller has said he was unable to exonerate Trump…and pursue (obstruction) charges because of a Justice Department policy that bars the indictment of a sitting president.” Not true; that was refuted by Mueller himself on the same day he testified. Mueller’s partisan Hillary supporting lawyers wrote the report intentionally as a road map for impeachment.

Next to that story was “Trump says he’d ‘want to hear’ foreign dirt on 2020 rivals,” by Z. Miller and J. Colvin (AP). Writing that Trump wanted “foreign dirt”—Trump never literally said that in spite of the quote marks—was intended to reinforce the accusation of non-proved foreign collusion. Once again, the only ones actually guilty of “foreign collusion” and using “foreign dirt” were the Democrats in Clinton’s campaign through the DNC, Perkins Coie law firm, FusionGPS, and the Steele “dossier” with made up dirt on Trump—from actual Russians. The supposedly “objective” reporters said that Trump “wrongly insisted,” “insisted erroneously” and was guilty by implication of Mueller.

Then came the Sept. 7 AP article, “After Mueller, Dems now focus on Trump’s properties,” by M. C. Jalonick. This preceded the phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky by Trump, for which an anonymous “whistleblower” has asserted, “without proof,” that Trump traded deals for dirt. That 9/7 story shows that, in the slow news (of anything impeachable) lull between Mueller and Zelensky, desperate Dems saw nonexistent “violations of the U.S. Constitution that some think could bolster the case for his impeachment.”

So, there have been no actual findings of wrong by Trump et al over the use of Trump hotels by Veep Pence, or anyone else in the government; no “emoluments clause” violations; no impeachable articles stemming from the Mueller report. And there will be no justifiable, impeachable acts over Trump’s efforts, complying with a law signed by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1999, to assure that our aid to Ukraine is not siphoned into corrupt enterprises like the Burisma energy company, that made objectively evident bribery payments to then-V.P. Biden’s son Hunter. Read the call transcript.

A quick summary: The Democrat left insisted we were conspiracy nuts to believe there was a “deep state” “coup” to resist and remove President Trump. Now people like the lawyer for the “whistleblower”—who’s not a legal whistleblower due to not having first-hand knowledge, not authorized to “blow the whistle” on the President (who’s not in the Intelligence Community), with no legal right to anonymity under law—openly proclaims that a coup was under way from when Trump was sworn in. Others (former CIA acting head John McLaughlin) cheer on the existence of the “deep state” in the Intel Community, the State Dept.` and, we can assume, the Justice Dept. 

So says the anonymous “senior administration official” that deep state obstruction extended into the ranks of political appointees. They boldly accuse Trump of “subverting U.S. foreign policy,” oblivious to the fact that any President (not just Obama but including Trump) actually makes America’s foreign policy. The NSC staffer, Lt. Col. Vindman was forced to admit to possessing nothing more than opinions and feelings about the Trump phone call; no actual words from the transcript backed up what he said.