A “GIGANTIC BLUNDER”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019
(Jul. 26, 2019) — Where to start…, where to start? For Democrats, there are, quite literally, few words other than “abysmal,” “catastrophic” and “excruciating” to accurately describe the recent testimony of former Special “Russiagate” Counsel Robert Mueller before the House Judiciary Committee and House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Jerrold (“No Neck”) Nadler, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Adam (“Bugeyes”) Schiff, Chair of the Select Intelligence Committee, presided, respectively, over these two kabuki theater productions. In so doing, they not only cemented the fate of the Democrats in the 2020 presidential general election, they set the stage for the return of the House to GOP control as well. In that regard, for Republicans it was a smashing success.
Your faithful servant will not attempt to “one-up” the analysis and observations by conservative pundits on Mueller’s performance or try to dissect the myriad “teachable moments” scattered throughout the proceedings. Others are doing a great job of that, as seen, for example, here, here, here and here. As for that last example, the very fact the Adam Schiff had to try to salvage – unsuccessfully – the steaming, smoldering wreckage of Mueller’s testimony simply underscores how disastrous to the Democrats’ “Russiagate” narrative it was. And, by the way, the surname “Schiff” juxtaposed with the word “intelligence” in the same sentence is prime oxymoron material.
In addition to the commentary from the right, the observations from those on the left are even more depressing to the Democrats. David Axelrod, former confidante and advisor to Barack Hussein Obama II, opined that watching and listening to Mueller’s performance was “very, very painful.” It is one thing to say it was “painful,” but the addition of two modifiers – “very” and “very” – serves to emphasize just how devastating Mueller’s performance was in the eyes of the Democrats.
Former Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill was more charitable, observing that Mueller was “a witness, and he frankly wasn’t a really good witness.” A former Obama regime official, Jeremy Bash, Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency chief of staff under Obama, correctly noted that Mueller “sucked the life out of the [Russiagate] report” and criticizing him as being simultaneously “boring,” “evasive,” and appearing to be “lost.” Even NBC’s Chuck Todd opined that “while Democrats got what they wanted on substance” – seriously, Chuck? – “on optics, this was a disaster.”
So why were Nadler and Schiff so adamantly invested in conducting these hearings in the first place, when even a blind Martian could have seen that it would end up being a catastrophe for them? There are several candidate theories for this gigantic blunder.
First, Nadler and Schiff did not care about subjecting Mueller to the ordeal, because it had as its ultimate objective the never-ending attack on President Trump and his allies. In effect, they expected Mueller to “take one for the team” by allowing Democrats on their committees to ask leading questions of him, hoping that his responses would fortify the crumbling basis – as if it ever existed before – for the proposition that “we’re going to impeach that *%>#@*&*^!%#.”
Second, they seemingly hoped that constantly repeating the statement from Mueller’s report that it “did not exonerate President Trump of conspiracy” would fire up the nation to demand impeachment. Really?
Memo #1 to Nadler and Schiff: after Mueller’s bumbling performance, it is crystal clear to everyone but you two gents – and as for you two, it should be simply “apparent” – that he had little if anything to do with constructing the report beyond lending his name and “reputation” to it. That task was most likely off-loaded by Mueller onto the “nonpartisan” cadre of Trump-hating, Clinton-donor lawyers populating his “independent” team. Your insistence that he be dragged before your committees to be humiliated in front of you and the cameras has succeeded in one thing: destroying the reputation of a senior citizen. Congratulations…, you must be very proud.
The inversion of this nation’s “presumption of innocence” standard into a phantom bludgeon by the Democrats is mendacious. And stupid. Nadler and Schiff, along with their intellectual storm-troopers, argue that because Mueller (or whoever was pulling his strings) did not “exonerate” Trump, therefor he must be guilty of… of… something. Memo #2 to Nadler and Schiff: pointed and sometimes firmly-worded “tweets” do not, despite your beliefs to the contrary, constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Grow up and get a grip.
Third, Nadler and Schiff, along with their Democrat troopers, are so fixated on hatred of President Trump that they did not care that the potential existed for Mueller – who will turn 75 next week – to stumble badly in the hearings. And he did. Stated otherwise, because resistance to and the impeachment of President Trump is the maniacal “end game” of the Democrats, the fact that an elder citizen – a former Marine (one is never an “ex-Marine”…) who was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam – would need to be sacrificed “for the greater good.”
If the Nadler/Schiff hearings confirm one thing, it is that the Democrats have, once again, proven that they have forever forfeited any claim of right or ability to govern a free people in a constitutional republic such as ours. Boom.
Memo #3 to the electorate: if you want open borders and the uncontrolled flooding of the nation with millions and millions of people from across the globe, with all of the attendant problems thereby engendered; if you want to rid the country of cows, airplanes and plastic straws; and if you want to saddle your children, their children and their children’s children with a debt burden that will turn them into tax slaves for the rest of their natural lives: vote Democrat in 2020, especially for members of the House.
For Democrats, it would be difficult for them to see how the country could survive with President Trump still in the White House and Nancy Pelosi back out walking along Market Street in San Francisco, dodging spent hypodermic needles and transient excrement.
On the other hand, if you don’t want all of that, vote GOP in 2020. Send Nancy Pelosi back to Market Street. You will feel better about yourself. I know I will.