UPDATED: The REAL Story

I avoid stories that I can't possibly keep up with, but this is one you've all read about and which is worth pointing to. I'm talking about the Fake News--or maybe I should just come out and say Hoax Journalism--about Trump's supposed "obstruction" in his phone call to the GA Secretary of State's lead investigator. The WaPo, which ran with the story has, as you know, tried to slip a retraction past John Q. Public after their fraud was exposed by the WSJ--I won't be resubscribing to the WSJ, but a hat tip to them nevertheless.

Now enterprising journalists are taking a closer look to see what this means. Obviously, the fact that the Dems actually referred to this hoax at their Hoax Impeachment 2.0 is a rather big part of the story--what the hell kind of "impeachment" is it that goes with unverified newspaper articles attributed to anonymous sources? But that may be only part of the bigger picture.

Here's a tweet by the Washington Examiner's Beckett Adams that points toward that bigger picture:

you all are missing the real story re: WaPo's correction of its Trump/Ga. investigations chief "scoop."

the real scandal is that a bunch of newsrooms claimed at the time they “confirmed” the details of the "scoop" with their own anon sourcing.https://t.co/4Xqxt3mcHk

— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) March 15, 2021

The link in the tweet, of course, is to Adams' full article on this story. Here's what he's referring, citing chapter and verse of the "news" organizations that were in on the hoax:

UPDATED: Michael van der Veen Speaks--And How!

Perhaps many readers have already seen this CBS interview with Trump attorney Michael van der Veen. He doesn't give an inch to the liberal reporter, and when she attempts to diminish the significance of the House Dems falsifying evidence in a Senate trial, he totally unloads on her. I like the touch at the end when he identifies himself as "citizen"--watch for that. 

You may, like me, find his talk of "Left and Right" finding a "middle" to be hopelessly naive, but for the rest his righteous outrage was refreshing:

Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen speaks with @LanaZak after the Senate's acquittal vote: "What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific. But what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that."

Watch the full interview: pic.twitter.com/ndjBZzJgNZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021

UPDATE: I'm not sure, but when van der Veen says that there were other examples of House Dem misconduct he may have been referring to the Raskin statements about Beutler's claims re the McCarthy phone call with POTUS. Jonathan Turley points out that Raskin claimed the Beutler statements were breaking news from "last night" that couldn't have been presented at the trial during the past few days. In fact, of course, Beutler's statement had been known for weeks:

The statement quoted Beutler as saying that she had previously discussed the call in public. Keep in mind Raskin just claimed that this was new evidence from “last night” and  the Senate needed to call witnesses on this “additional critical piece of corroborating evidence."

 

Briefly Noted: The National Disgrace Of Our Politics

Yes, of course I'm referring to the latest faux impeachment. This new low in our political theater has been exacerbated by the introduction of a military occupation of our capital city into the mix of outrages to the body politic, along with the attempt to turn the the latest liberal boogey man--no less than the former president and the 75 million people who voted for him--into non-persons.

I refuse to dignify this farce by paying much attention to it--especially since it's a ploy that's once again doomed to fail. However, I would like to note two articles that strike the proper note or chord.

The first article is brief: A Monsoon of Manure. Or, if you prefer straightforward Anglo-Saxon, a blizzard of BS. The article's thesis is simple but very much to the point of the state of our public discourse:

News Flash: All Publicity Is Good Publicity

As expected, the Senate's attempt at a show trial has turned into a low kind of political farce, but even at that it's a failure. There's no drama and no humor, so what's the point? There's not even any real interest for armchair legal analysts. The only question that offers something remotely like suspense is whether Schumer will be able to hold the Dems together in a block. Lindsey Graham says the whole thing is an insult and that any movement is in favor of Trump. 

Improbable as this may seem, it really does appear that the Dems, in their Ahab like obsession to cancel "Moby" Trump thought keeping Trump before the public eye by making fools of themselves was somehow a good idea. Mark Levin captures the spectacle exactly:

“First of all, we are watching one of the stupidest events by some of the stupidest people in American history, ...”

That seems pretty inarguable. And Levin sums up by explaining why this non-event is so lacking in interest:

This Looks Increasingly Desperate

The Dems and their proxies--or should that be vice versa?--desperately want you to believe that the Zhou Baiden regime is perfectly normal. It's just one more example of American Exceptionalism, whereby America returns to normal through the Ruling Class nullification of We The People through a hoax election. That would be truly exceptional, if it could be pulled off. It's unlikely, but they're trying. Thus, unless you follow the UK papers you'd never know that Doctor Jill and her patient were booed at some superspreader, er, football game or other.

Presumably this is why they're also going ahead with their faux impeachment, despite an almost palpable lack of interest from the country at large. If the country were really back to normal the Dems would be doing normal things, instead of holding a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder trial before a political body. A hoax trial that even a pushover like John Roberts won't dignify by his presence, in a capital city under military occupation. But I guess the new regime has no other choice but to try to demonize the ousted president if they're going to try to persuade the subject population that the coup was justified. 

Naturally, in the circumstances, polls run by lefty outfits like ABC have to claim that something like 56% of Americans want Trump to be "convicted." I'm not buying that, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that hardly anyone is paying attention. Or not enough attention to interest them in watching this farce. According to Rasmussen:

A Fascinating Historical Analogy For This Faux Impeachment

Big H/T to Don Surber, who came up with the article that sketches out a fascinating and instructive historical analogy for the continuing constitutional hoax being perpetrated in the Imperial City on the Potomac, under the occupation of the New Army of the Potomac. We'll get to that shortly, but first I intend to quote a few passages from two other articles that address this hoax briefly but succinctly.

First of all, Jordan Davidson at The Federalist sketches out the most important element of the reply brief that Trump's attorneys have filed today--Trump Legal Team Decries Democrats’ ‘Outlandish’ Impeachment As Unconstitutional ‘Political Theater’. As we'll see, the lack of a legal or even a constitutional basis for this proceeding in the Senate plays into the historical analogy. Here is a passage toward the end of the article that sketches this out:

UPDATED: Why The Time Election Narrative Is Good News

Time has published a lengthy article that purports to tell how the heroic coalition of Big Labor and Big Business "saved" Election 2020--they're such patriots, looking out for the interests of We The People! If you believe that this story was put out to tell the truth of the election then I have a slightly used but still very serviceable bridge in Brooklyn to sell you:

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

Time wants you to believe this was a "bipartisan" effort, an "unlikely alliance" between Left and Right. Wrong. This was a "unipartisan" effort, as in Uniparty. What the appearance of this story tells us is this:

1) The Establishment realizes that they have so far been unable to control the public perception that Election 2020 was a Big Steal. That remarkably wide perception--in the face of a relentless full court disinformation press--bodes ill for the 2022 elections

2) As a result they're putting out a counter narrative to the Big Steal, the purpose of which is to make it look legit. In other words, it's yet another attempted exercise in perception management--and that's what tells us that they know they're failing. They wouldn't bother, otherwise. The appearance of candor in the story is simply part of the technique and is another indicator of desperation.

If you can bear it, read this bit of flim-flammery. You're supposed to believe that the Establishment is just oh-so-eager to tell us the Real Truth, the "Secret History". The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Trust us--we're not lying this time! Puh-leeze!