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 DNC hack? I have never heard that they proved this in any way. It was a simple phishing scam.
No. I’ll never side people like you. Never.
You keep algorithmically quoting this but you never engage with objections. Sykes and Frum are not source materials – the things you quote are biased and tortured opinion. So tortured that they might qualify as violations of the Geneva Convention.
They did not prove it. That is what the DNC said. Has not been independently verified.
I think that after Trump is defeated in 2020, and we lose a half-dozen Senators and hundreds more legislators, there will be a huge reassessment of the Trump experience.
I don’t think that there are any Rockefeller Republicans left. That is a shame to the degree that we would need them to win in the Northeast to be able to have a majority in the House, just as the Democrats relied on moderate Democrats like Conor Lamb to regain the majority in the House.
I don’t think you should put as much stock in some of this stuff as you are. In Iowa 81% of Republicans approved of Trump, 67% of Republicans would definitely vote for Trump, while at the same time 63% would welcome a Primary Challenger.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2018/12/17/trump-iowa-republicans-2020-election-white-house-democrats-campaign-romney-sasse-rubio-kasich-flake/2312476002/
This mixed result could just as well show that Republicans in Iowa will vote Trump in a Primary but like the fun of a competitive process in the first state in the nation.
So you want the Democrats to rule? Trump is deeply under water in Michigan and Wisconsin. If the Dems don’t nominate a crazy, Arizona will likely vote for the Democrats, along with Florida and Pennsylvania.
The Conservative Movement and the Republican Party are so much more than Trump. We need to return to first principles. See Reagan, Ike and Coolidge.
And if that does not happen, Gary? You have been wrong about so much thus far. What happens if Trump wins in 2020? What then?
I don’t know. We shall see.
However, I wasn’t wrong about my prediction that we would lose the House in 2018. I have a pretty good record so far.
It’s a bit late. Gee, why is that?
Every one of Barrak Obama’s ‘intelligence agencies’. “17 Intelligence Agencies…” it’s like the “98 percent of scientists believe in global warming”.
There was a majority of pundits and journalists that believe he was guilty too-so what? Two years, nearly unlimited investigatory powers and resources and nothing.
How about J.V. Last contrast the actual evidence that Mueller compiled in two-plus years with what the Chicago PD collected in one month. Not even close.
Yes I want the Democrats to rule if it means I don’t have to be aligned with you.
After all, you wanted the Democrats to rule if it meant hurting Trump.
I’d say we are on the same page, exactly.
Congratulations! You predicted we would lose the House in the first year of the term of a new President.
I predicted it would not be statistically significant, and I was right. Did a whole chart going back to FDR. Trump’s losses were perfectly normal for the House. They were comparable to your avatar’s. So, things went as they do.
I’ll tell you what you will do if Trump wins: Make no change at all, and push your fight out 4 more years.
I’m not sure why I would believe anything they say ever again, given the coup they just tried to pull off.
Get back to me when every last one of these rats has been fired or imprisoned.
Instead of analyzing elections, I think it’s better to understand how we got Trump.
I don’t understand how people are so confident and comfortable about talking about elections.
I think that you are being unfair to this article. Here are its closing paragraphs:
“Politics is no longer about ideas, but rather about polemics and personality contests. People say horrible things to one another over the most mediocre of difference on social media, whether on principle or ‘for the lulz.’ One can argue whether Trump himself is the cause of this plague or mere symptom. But there is no doubt he is the face of it.
“The idea of warfare as an extension of politics may be as old as Clausewitz, but the converse—where politics is an extension of warfare—is a dangerous one indeed. If we actually prize moderation and ideas in the public square, and if that elusive word—decency—is ever to return to our lexicon, it might be worthwhile to recognize that our principles are worth arguing for, and might even be worth defending, but they are not worth fighting for.
“Naturally, to stand apart from the mob is to invite its attentions. Yet above principles exists something better, namely the virtues that actually consist of American greatness. Wouldn’t it be nice if we fostered those values again rather than wallow in the muck of the mob?”
I think that it is a good and fair article. I encourage my fellow Ricochetti to read it. https://thebulwark.com/the-age-of-trumpshevism/
True. The DNC wouldn’t let anyone handle their servers, and quoted one of their own hired contractors to say “They told me to tell you the Russians did it.”
There’s a reason that subject is avoided on the left and the right. Because it looks bad for both parties.
That’s because it works. It took me a long time to accept that. Follow @shabbosgoy. Smartest guy in Minnesota.
The problem is the media is against us and the whole government is basically just a vehicle to steal from each other as long as the bond market holds out. You can’t fight or manage this dynamic with idealism.
I swear to god if the GOP just would’ve overhauled the Health insurance system that would’ve been enough. But no.
His results were better.
The 1982 United States House of Representatives elections was an election in the middle of President Ronald Reagan’s first term:
269 D / 166 R
2018 :
235 D / 199 R
In his first midterm election, Trump’s party House seats were 20% greater than Reagan’s.
And, his party added 2 Senate seats while Reagan’s did not.
In 2018 we lost the National House vote by 8.6%, after winning it by 1.3% in 2016. That is an incredible 9.7% swing.
Agreed. I think Democrats are driving us toward that cliff with their foolish bluff calling for total transparency on the Mueller finding. When Trump starts releasing all this information (incredibly damaging to the FBI, DOJ, DNC, congressional Democrats…), there will be nothing left but to start the prosecutions. Of course, there’s a chance Trump will hold enough back that they’ll be able keep up their false narrative about Trump obstructing justice, but I wouldn’t take that bet against him in a million years. Idiots.
What “first principles” guide you to donate to Democrat candidates and the Democratic Party?
That doesn’t matter. 199 seats is better for the party than 166.
Do the math yourself : 199 R in 2018 is 20% greater than 166 R in 1982.
Plus, a gain of 2 Senate seats. Trump’s party had better results.
There is no such thing as a National House Vote even if you capitalize it.
For someone who spent so much time in the numbers on Trump winning because that is just how it works since WWII, namely that the other party wins after 8 years, you are way too fast to ignore the data.
Basically, Gary, when it suits you (Trump only won because any Republican would have won based on the past) you buy into the trend, but, when it does not (the Party in power loses seats in the off year election), well that is 100% Trump’s fault.
Yes, I was beginning to wonder myself but whenever anyone asked why Trump didn’t simply declassify everything and release it, my thought was that he was trying to do everything to not obstruct or even appear to be obstructing. More speculative, I also think that he was shocked that they were pressing so hard on it; in that case, let them keep digging the whole and hold off on pushing them into the hole until the maximum number runs up to the edge.
I can never get anybody interested in this stuff but this is a great article about how the Fed created populism. The author doesn’t say it but I’d say it created the new interest in socialism as well.
The whole system is set up to grow government and for cronyism and graft. Now people want in on the action. Too much centralization and centralize power. The GOP never did anything about it.
Big government and central planning begets more big government and central planning until it all collapses.
Look he either compared people like me to Bulsheviks and cult members or he didn’t. He rudely taunted people who disagree with him on immigration or he didn’t. (He did these were direct quotes)
It is great that you feel the end saved the piece. That just proves my point that the piece could have been written like an adult with out pointless name calling.
If this stupid name calling is something you feel is appropriate to defend, good on you.
Thanks for approving of this language and behavior toward people like me
There is also a huge difference between being found not guilty and not even being charged, as you should know.