The Morning After

I am writing this the morning after the Mueller hearings. And I am pinching myself to try and find out if what I recall of the hearings yesterday actually happened.

I mean – are the Democrats really as stupid as they appeared to be yesterday?

Did they really intend to showcase the Mueller report’s fundamental departure from the rule of U. S. law, wherein the President was not afforded the presumption of innocence, as required by the due process enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution? Did they not expect that Representative Ratcliffe, or one of the other Republican representatives, would use the opportunity presented by the hearings to ensure that everyone understands that no prosecutor, ever, has any authority to make statements about “exoneration?” Did they not understand that the great unwashed masses are at least alert enough to realize that if the President himself can be treated this way, then there is no hope for the rest of us?

Did they really intend to make it glaringly obvious to the entire country that Mr. Mueller failed to recommend a criminal indictment for obstruction by the President for no other reason than that he simply did not have sufficient evidence to make such a recommendation? Did it surprise them that Mr. Mueller himself felt it necessary to correct his testimony at the beginning of the second hearing, when he specifically repudiated the rationale that he was prevented from recommending indictment by Justice Department rules?

Did they actually intend to vividly demonstrate that the vaunted Special Prosecutor appeared to be completely non-credible, lacking even basic awareness of what was in his own report?

If such a debacle did actually occur, then that must explain the grin on my face this morning which refuses to go away.

But wait a minute. The Democrats are diabolically intelligent and single-minded in pursuit of their agenda. They just can’t have been that stupid. There must be some fiendishly deceptive underlying motive for what just happened, which us ordinary folks have trouble perceiving.

Because, as incredible as it may seem, even this morning, many Democrats appear to be continuing to persevere in their now forlorn hopes of impeachment, as they speak of calling further witnesses before their committees to delve into the Mueller report. They do this even as they know that their political leader, the Speaker of the House, has no interest in impeachment. They do this when they know that even if they should somehow miraculously succeed at impeachment, they would never succeed in winning the Senate trial which would follow. They are starting to look like an assortment of quite bedraggled whack-a-moles, as they continue to get slapped down time after time in their relentless stalking of the President.

I wonder if something like this has ever before happened in the history of the United States, when one of the political parties became so inflamed with rage against the incumbent President that they were literally blinded to the self-destructive effects of their own actions.

This is a serious question for Democrats, because after yesterday’s shenanigans, even the totally in-the-tank-for-the-Democrats Main Stream Media could not avoid the conclusion that the hearings were a disaster for the Democrats. And that is saying a lot. If the events of yesterday could have possibly been contorted into a positive for the Democrats, the Main Stream Media would have made it happen. But even they, with all their bias, and all of their bright and articulate talking heads, could not figure out how to do it.

So I am still left with the conundrum. Why did the Democrats hold those hearings? And why are they speaking of holding further hearings?

I am assuming that their very first priority is to win the next presidential election. That is a reasonable assumption, is it not? And it is also reasonable to assume that the bases of both parties are stable and solid, and not likely to signifcantly change their voting patterns. So this election will be won in those swing states that Mr. Trump took last time: states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Do the Democrats really think that the voters in these states are overwhelmingly concerned about Russian collusion and Trump obstruction, especially after the negative results of the Mueller report and most especially after the catastrophe of the hearings yesterday? I can understand that the voters of the radical left typically found in California or New York would be foaming at the mouth about supposed Presidential wrongdoing regardless of the results of the investigation, but I just can’t see that happening in the states that matter for the election.

To the contrary, these voters are likely to be concerned about things like the economy, health care, and immigration. The obvious strategy would be for the Democrats to aggressively attack the President on these issues. And frankly, they had better get it done soon, because they really don’t have a case to make on the economy, despite all of their whining about minimum wages and the benefits of the rich. They may be able to convince these voters on health care alternatives, since that issue is somewhat open given the crumbling of Obamacare. However, on immigration they should be very concerned, since the voters in these swing states might not be happy to hear about all the benefits which Democrats are proposing for illegal aliens. A savvy voter might be asking himself, where will those benefits be coming from, if not from my benefits and my pocket?

So the question remains. Are the Democrats so infuriated with the President that they simply don’t care what happens, as long as there is the slightest possible chance that they can bring him down? Or maybe they are thinking that the Democrat presidential candidates can attack on the issues, while the incumbent House committees can continue attempting to unearth Presidential wrongdoing. But what about the House seats in those swing states? Do the Democrats think that their Congressional candidates can run on a record of nothing other than House investigations of President Trump? If it is a calculated risk they are taking, it seems like a very long shot indeed.

I may be giving the Democrats more credit than they deserve by thinking that they are actually acting in accordance with a coherent, cohesive strategy. It is probably more likely that there is a wide spectrum of ideas among Democrats as to how to approach the next election. And I think it is also likely that many Democrats are so incensed with the President that they simply cannot make rational decisions about how to oppose him.

I find this to be a really interesting phenomenon. It appears that the President has been able to unhinge his political opponents from reasoned thinking, simply by virtue of his speech. To state it directly, he has offended them. He offends them every day by what he says and how he says it. He is politically incorrect on a grand scale.

So the progressives and the rest of the politically correct in this country rant and rave about the President’s speech, they disparage his fitness for office, they label his speech as hate speech, all the while being forced to acknowledge that he has every right to speak as he does, since that pesky Constitution of ours guarantees it.

We saw this recently with a surprising attack on the President by Fox contributor Napolitano. [1] Although maybe it should not be considered surprising, since he has become increasingly critical of the President as the President’s successes have continued to accumulate. Mr. Napolitano labels the President’s recent criticism of the extreme left “squad” of congresswomen as hate speech. But if he were to think carefully about what the President said, as well as what those congresswomen are doing, he would realize that the President is not conducting a personal attack on these women. The President is attacking what those women are doing, which is to undermine the very foundations of our republic with their vile anti-American rhetoric. Their ideas go well beyond mere dissent, and the President is correct to recognize that and aggressively criticize it. In fact, the President is one of the few in leadership who seems perceptive enough to understand the extreme danger the country faces from the progressive agenda represented by these women and many other leftist Democrats. And so, once again, Mr. Napolitano completely misses the point of the President’s words.

We all owe this President a tremendous debt of gratitude. Long after he completes his second term, and leaves office as one of our most successful presidents, he will not be remembered for all of that success. Instead, his legacy of fearlessness – his courageous proclivity to say what needs to be said, regardless of who it offends, will be recognized as his greatest contribution to our country. He will be celebrated for having made it clear that “hate speech” is really nothing more than speech that someone else doesn’t like, and that it is a completely relative term which is used to inhibit that precious gift of freedom of speech which we are so fortunate to enjoy in this country. It will be understood by all that he single-handedly guided our nation in throwing off the suffocating yoke of politically correct speech, and that he saved us from the domineering tyranny of the easily offended.


1. Napolitano, Andrew. “Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump has unleashed a torrent of hatred.” Fox News. July 25, 2019.