Snippets 9/25/18
>The new buzz words among today’s Democrats and “progressives” appear to be “credibly accused”. In fact so many “progressive” commentators have used that particular phrase, that many of us have come to suspect that someone or some group on the left is manipulating the response. Be that as it may, a rush to judgement is NOT the American way. Should we change our long standing tradition of presumed innocence, and replace it, at the behest of the “progressives” with the maxim that, in America, a person is innocent until they’ve been “credibly accused”???… I didn’t think so.
>A letter from Michael Bromwich, Attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, has recently surfaced (you really can’t count on ANYTHING staying secret anymore!) OBJECTING to Senate Judiciary plans to bring an expert in sex crime prosecutions to participate in the hearing. “How odd?”, you might say at first. Since Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of a sex crime, one would THINK she’d WANT an expert, that would, presumably, get to the bottom of the matter, forthwith… Apparently, however, Blasey Ford does NOT… Why?… Well, here’s the thing: once a sex crime investigator is brought in to the proceedings, that expert gets to question both Kavanaugh AND his accuser!… Ah, there’s the rub! If Blasey Ford’s “story” is as flimsy as it has come to appear (see my post from 9/25/18, The Circus) she might be worried that an expert might put the last nail in the coffin of her allegations. In fact, despite the enormous momentum that any contemporary American woman accuser could expect to glean from the #MeToo movement, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ms. Ford was a “no show” at tomorrow’s hearing… As, Mr. Trump is fond of saying…”We’ll see.”…
>I happen to agree with many commentators that removal of Rod Rosenstein as head of the Deputy Head of the DOJ will be an important part of the “swamp drainage” of “deep state” holdovers that DC so desperately needs. Although I don’t think he’s the worst denizen by any means, he has been an enabler for many of the worst. And, he’s allowed the Mueller investigation to continue long after it has exceeded its balliwick. There is one unfortunate thing about the dismissal, however, if indeed it does come. The defensible raison d’être for Rosenstein’s dismissal would be based upon revelations raised by an article last week in the New York Times. The article maintained that Rosenstein plotted to tape private conversations with the President and then move to try to have him removed from office. These revelations constitute the perfect rational for firing Rosenstein, and, as such, would be an opportunity that, for Mr. Trump, would be difficult to pass up. For his part, Rosenstein has vigorously denied the allegations (which, of course, would be expected, whether the Times allegations were or were not true), so if Trump fired him that would be a de facto indication that President Trump BELIEVED THE NEW YORK TIMES MORE THAN HE DID ROSENSTEIN; a shaky proposition, at best, and a vindication, of sorts, for the New York Times, thereby setting an unfortunate precedent.
>President Trump gave a wonderful speech today at the United States General Assembly. It was both hard edged and inspiring, and I plan to write an essay soon covering the speech in more detail. There is, however, one bit of delicious irony that I’d like to mention here. In numerous passages during the speech, Mr. Trump made it exceedingly clear that America would not manage its affairs in accordance with the wishes or dictates of other nations, coalitions of nations, or the various committees convened by an obstreperous United Nations. In brief, he strongly reasserted our sovereignty (and the sovereignty of all the nations of the world) as a basic right. The thing I found most ironic about this affirmation, is how much President Trump’s position is the antithesis of what is often called “globalism”. And, here’s the irony: Think back to the late 1990’s. Do you remember the “anti-globalization” movement? (Does anybody remember the anti globalization movement?) If you do remember, you’ll recall that there was a period of several years in which “anti globalization” protests “bloomed” in many countries around the globe. And, the anti globalists were fond of disrupting international economic meetings, culminating in big clashes with police during an international economic summit in Seattle in December of 1999. The anti globalist modus operandi was strikingly similar to the “antifa” demonstrations of today. What was being protested, back then, was nothing less than the anti sovereignty movements that Mr. Trump spoke against today. In fact, one could say that Mr. Trump is the APOTHEOSIS of the antiglobalization movement, realized some twenty years later. I wonder what those same “anti globalists” would say if we pointed this out to them now? It would be quite a stretch to imagine that such a group would give Mr. Trump thanks and credit for such, but they really OUGHT TO! His current positions are, literally, their dreams come true.