Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bulwark Report: When All You Have Is an Anti-Trump Hammer…
I think Jonathan V. Last is a very funny fellow, in a dark and sardonic way. I enjoy him on the Sub-Beacon podcast and wherever else I hear him. He’s an amusing, irreverent, nebbish fellow, and I don’t like saying bad things about him.
But his latest piece at The Bulwark, entitled Donald and Jussie, Birds of a Feather, is trying too hard to fulfill The Bulwark’s mission, which is to spare no expense, grace, or integrity in its effort to besmirch the all-too-readily besmirchable President Trump.
JVL writes:
First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.
[ video clipped ]
And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.
[ video clipped ]
The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”
Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.
But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.
Do you see what he did there? It’s true that President Trump overstated the case with his “complete and total exoneration” comment. But is it true, as JVL claims, that the “symmetry here is perfect?”
On the one hand, we have a man who has just been definitively cleared of a charge that has hounded him for two years, who knew he was innocent the day the investigation started, who has professed his innocence all along, who could have stopped the investigation at any point but chose not to, and who almost certainly has not obstructed justice and, if he hasn’t, is fully aware that he hasn’t and that the justice department will now agree with him.
On the other hand, we have a man who has just been mysteriously absolved of responsibility for a crime he certainly committed, who has lied since the first moments of his case, and who continues to lie about his innocence now.
What Trump is saying, in essence, is “I didn’t collude with the Russians, and I didn’t obstruct justice in the investigation of a crime I know I didn’t commit. I allowed the investigation to run to its conclusion. I am exonerated.” His mistake was in his failure to add “… or I will be in a few days when the justice department acknowledges that I didn’t obstruct justice,” as it undoubtedly will.
What Smollett is saying is “I am innocent,” when in fact the little fraud is guilty as sin and everyone knows it.
That’s only “symmetric” if you’re tilted as far to one side as the good folks at The Bulwark appear to be.
Published in Politics
The Bulwark has 500 contributors like me who help fund the effort, and chipped in without being asked. Their daily traffic for the podcast and down of articles is increasing. As I have said, The Bulwark is second only to Ricochet.
There is another aspect that must be mentioned. My parents divorced when I was in college. And I love both of my parents. I love both Ricochet and The Bulwark. The folks at The Bulwark have never attacked Ricochet. But some folks at Ricochet will attack The Bulwark. This feels not unlike my sainted mother saying negative stuff about my father; I don’t like it. I want to be able to love both of my parents, and I want to be able to love both Ricochet and The Bulwark.
Just wait until it is published!
There is a huge difference in being found “not guilty” and innocent.
Time to go to bed.
Which is why is was a lazy, knuckleheaded analogy on the part of Last. Along with the fact that Foxx’s action started falling apart from the moment of the ruling.
I could not disagree more on the Obama DOJ/FBI/IC malfeasance.
It was the genesis of the entire debacle, without this corrupt activity we get none of the ensuing clusterschtoopery.
It was unprecedented in the abuse of our nations top law enforcement agencies for the political advantage of the incumbent party over the other party.
As far as the HRC, the issue was never about the Federal statutes we know she violated, but rather why would this woman, about to run for the highest office in government, risk it all by going to such extremes to destroy her e-mail communications and devices. Logic dictates whatever was in the e-mails was so damning that whatever the repercussions for destroying the e-mails was worth it.
The reason the focus was on her illegal server, the illegal dissemination of classified information, and destroying evidence was because these were all in fact violations of Federal statute which she in fact was guilty of having committed.
Well, you know, when you’re a rich celebrity I hear they just let you do it.
My point is Bulwark is free to say whatever they feel is the right thing to say.
But at some point as you try to start your parade you may want to take a look back and take notice that only a scant few are following along. From there Bulwark may want to do some introspection and alter their tactics.
As of now Bulwark has garnered a very niche market, which in politics will garner you irrelevance.
I was going to respond to some of the algorithmic delusion running around this thread, but screw that. Better to add to what Jack and Edison are saying.
I wouldn’t have been mad about any of this either – IF they had dropped it after the election. Things are said during campaigns and then we move on. Except they didn’t move on. As in the great scene from the Bronx Tale: “now you’s can’t leave”. Now it has to be hashed out. The HRC infractions I suspect this was all designed to cover up; the weaponization of the federal government against a political opponent; the fake news; and HRC’S known “matter of historical record” collusion with foreign agents including Russian ones in order to influence the election. Either this is treason for all or its not treason at all. I always said it’s not treason or even much of a big deal, but if a meeting where nothing happened and a funny campaign joke are amounting to treason then HRC is the h-bomb to Trump’s grenade and hers is a much bigger threat.
This is my take as well. Every time I see Yet Another Thread about the Bulwank, or Yet Another Link to a Bulwank article, I think that all we’ve done is given them free press.
The Bulwank features the worst of the Collusion-Truthers, and post-Mueller, they show no signs of coming to their senses.
Ironically, for a site that claimed it was going to call out the White House grifters, they have proven to be nothing but a collusion-grifter aggregator.
The Comparison fails pretty badly on any closer examination. Trump had years of investigation, documents, people indicted on process crimes in an effort to get information. It found nothing conclusive.
Smollett paid 2 guys by check to fake an attack. The 2 guys admitted to the crime. They figured out where the guys bought their disguises.
AG Barr says no charges. Muller, his team and the FBI are quite.
Illinois State Attorney says no charges for Smollett and the Chicago Police Department and Mayor loss there minds, leak documents and demand answers.
How the people who did the investigation have reacted to the lack of charges tells you something is different.
With all respect, JVL did not make the analogy between Mueller and Foxx, the Commentor did. Mueller did his job, Barr may or may not have done his, Foxx certainly did not do hers.
While the Weekly Standard never grew to the level of National Review, it was a strong and vital voice on the Right. Likewise, while The Bulwark may not be your cup of tea, it is growing too, and has established itself as a vital voice on the Right, and I am one of the 500+ contributors who, without being asked, spontaneously stated sending The Bulwark money.
My dad always said “Don’t throw good money after bad.”
This is not a game. Trump and his band of victimly populists have invaded the House of Reagan, and taken it over. Trump has ruled by tweet, silencing Senators like Corker or Flake and forcing politicians like Ryan and McConnell to submit to him.
Reagan led by good humor and an appeal to the best in us. Trump leads by force, attack and denigration. Reagan appreciated our support; Trump demands it.
Taking back the House of Reagan is the highest priority, even more important than the 2020 General Election.
Let me put it this way. Was it wrong for Reagan to challenge Ford in 1976? And was it wrong for Republicans to force Nixon to retire in 1974. I think the answer to both questions is “no.” Yes, we Had to put up with one term of Carter, after the 1976 election, but then we then had three glorious terms under Reagan and his Vice President in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Who are the “vivtimly populists”?
Trump did not silence Flake, Flake is the guy I heard the most from, it is just very few people were listening to Flake.
Trump could not force Ryan or McConnell to do anything. If they had strong problems with Trumps actions, they could have stood up to Trump at any time.
I didn’t file this Post, I only commented on it to set the record straight.
I didn’t behave in the suspicious manner outlined in Comment #7, Trump did.
If you don’t like The Bulwark, don’t read it or listen to its daily Podcast, whose speaker, Charlie Sykes, was featured at Ricochet for a long term. But if you are going to attack The Bulwark, expect a reaction.
You keep posting this, but nobody knows if Russia did it.
They definitely got the United States Secretary of State’s emails, though.
The uneven enforcement of profanity rules at this place is amusing.
I highly doubt that your political views overlap with his very much.
So this pretty much undermines your point that the comparison was “perfect”.
Gary, do you think Trump colluded with Russia?
IMO, they deserve to be discussed.
For what it’s worth, I think Jonah Goldberg’s website is going to be pretty constructive if the reporting reflects his libertarian sensibilities. Steven Hayes always made sense to me on the Fox report.
So 90% of GOP voters are wrong, and you are part of the 10% who are right.
And, that 10% is going to restore the party to greatness just as soon as Trump is gone? I cannot speak for anyone but me, but I can say that I will never vote for or support any party with the likes of you running it.
Why did that happen?
Your view of the state of the world is just so different from mine.
@garyrobbins, I am a little surprised with this comment. Now if you said that you are withholding judgement until more than the Barr summary is released that would be fine. But the Barr summary pointed out that not only was their no collusion but that attempts by the Russians to offer assistance were rebuffed. If Barr is lying or grossly mischaracterizing that is one thing, but if true, that statement underscores why there was a finding of no conspiracy, not just insufficient evidence. Be fair, @garyrobbins.
I think it is a good thing we live with the rule of law and not the rule of what people think.
Good grief, Regan is dead! The mention of his name is not some magical incantation that reinforces or proves your assertions. You worship Reagan and voted for him. I liked Reagan a great deal and voted for him, so therefore agree with what Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes assert?
Charlie Sykes was on Milwaukee radio for decades. He got smoked in the ratings here (from an electorate not warm to Trump’s style). Listeners simply stopped tuning in – hectoring is apparently poison for ratings You’d think after the Weekly Standard and the tanking of Sykes radio career, they’d figure it out or not double down on failure.
Will be amusing to see how long the MSM and their Leftist Masters let them lick their hand/maybe get a treat.
Fine, if you are going to quote or defend the Bulwark you should expect a reaction as well. Garbage insults to conservatives from the so-called right.
https://thebulwark.com/the-age-of-trumpshevism/
Today they have a fine post up discussing the Trumpshevic (a combination of Trump and Blushevic) co-religonists. With fun insulting comments like on immigration you are “dey tuk er jerbz” (translates to: they took our jobs) and “ayyymnasty” (amnesty).
If this is what the Party of Reagan supports then the Party of Reagan is dead. IF this is a principled argument, then these people never actually had any principles what so ever.
So yeah, I read things on The Bulwark. It is a useful reminder that a portion of the right hates me and claims they are the principled, responsible remenant of the Conservative movement. I do this for the same reason I read the MSM sites and leftist sites. It is useful to see what others are saying. When it is name calling like the above article, it does not convince, it proves I am on the right side.
An intelligent and skilled writer who really cared about his/her subject could have written this article without insults. Intelligent and skilled just does not describe a lot of what the Bullwark produces.
Reagan didn’t change the trajectory of the long march to socialism and fascism as much as people think. He did what he could. The other thing is stop using worn out templates to look at the world today. it’s not going to do you any good.