It’s a testimonial to a divided America — and a divided Democrat Party. Its Machiavellian leadership, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and company, know that impeachment proceedings against President Trump wouldn’t play well in Peoria. Yet to not impeach would enrage much of the Democrat base and further empower the new, rising socialist/Dem wing of the party represented by giddy gaffe machine Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So lose part of the middle or part of the base. What is a power mad Machiavellian to do?
In a way, the Democrats are being hoisted with their own petards. Their all-powerful public-relations team, the U.S. media, have worked the leftist mob into a frenzy with 24/7/365 anti-Trump reportage and self-assured recent claims, by those pundit Tucker Carlson calls “the stupid people on television,” that the president is guilty of an impeachable offense. Such a claim may be a journalistic offense (more on that momentarily), but while image is not reality, it can create political realities. The Democrats don’t want to be seen by their rabid supporters as letting a criminal president who’s a danger to the Republic skate. For then, you know, they’ll be part of the “conspiracy.”
So Nancy Pelosi, a crafty elder statesman, is walking a fine line. As Bloomberg reports, “Pelosi and her top lieutenants, under rising pressure to take a more aggressive stance, point to the risks of derailing important policy goals if they are seen as focusing on scoring political points through impeachment. They also say any such effort would be premature while Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe continues to play out.”
“‘Our position has been, is now and I think will be: until the Mueller investigation is over, it’s premature to discuss what action ought to be taken as a result of it,’ Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the incoming majority leader, said Tuesday. ‘We want to see what he’s found out.’”
We already know, however, much of what Mueller has found out: not what he wanted to.
His investigation was supposed to uncover “Trump-Russia collusion,” which even CNN, caught on hidden camera last year, admitted was fake news (but the network was pushing the story, anyway). Yet that fantasy didn’t materialize. Now the probe is about a far less titillating alleged campaign-finance violation.
Yet some say this is no less fanciful. As many know, the issue is that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, angling for a reduced sentence, cooperated with Mueller’s team and claimed that then-candidate Trump directed him to make a few hundred thousand dollars in payments to two women to keep them quiet about extramarital affairs he allegedly had with them. Trump denies he knew of the payments when they occurred.
Put aside that Cohen is widely considered a liar and fraudster. The Federalist’s Gabriel Malor makes the case that Cohen’s “sentencing memorandum is a roadmap for indicting Trump.” Yet another analysis was offered by Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton.
His point is simple (video below): It is in no way a crime for a politician, or anyone else, to use his own money (which is what Trump apparently did) to pay people to keep quiet about something that never was a crime in the first place. Moreover, it’s pretty fanciful to characterize money a candidate pays to someone else as a campaign contribution to himself.
Then there’s the analysis of expert campaign finance lawyer Dan Backer. As Fox News reports, “Backer, a veteran campaign counsel, said it is common practice for high-profile individuals and companies to take part in these kinds of payment arrangements. He said Trump is a brand, he has carried out similar payments for years and these so-called ‘hush-buys’ will likely continue.”
“‘Brand protection is not a campaign contribution,’” Forbes magazine quotes Backer as saying.
Nonetheless, Dershowitz points out that criminal action should be taken — against the women Trump allegedly paid off, porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, to the tune of, respectively, $130,000 and $150,000. Dershowitz says they’re guilty of classic “extortion.” Note here that news producer Robert “Joe” Halderman was convicted and jailed in 2010 for trying to extort money from comedian David Letterman via threats of exposing extramarital affairs.
Dershowitz also pointed to double standards, saying there’d never be talk of impeachment or indictment were Bill Clinton charged with Trump’s transgressions.
To vindicate this assessment, consider how then-president Barack Obama’s campaign was found guilty in 2013 of campaign-finance violations involving $88.3 million in funds (vs. Trump’s $280,000). No one spoke of impeachment. No one mentioned indictments. His campaign paid a $375,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission — one of the largest in the agency’s history — and nothing more was said. (Great video below on this and other examples of campaign-finance “selective outrage.” Relevant portion begins at 27:40.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZlqp6feaOw
Even more egregiously, Congress itself has a taxpayer-financed “hush fund” that it uses to pay sexual misconduct and other claims against its members. It has paid victims more than $17 million since its 1990s creation, and this is done in secrecy — we don’t know who the transgressors are.
Yet as Tucker Carlson put it recently, by the reasoning currently deployed against Trump, “any money a political candidate spends to maintain or protect his image while running for office now qualifies as a regulated campaign donation and has to be disclosed; that would include, by the way, in addition to an infinite number of other things, buying toothpaste and getting a haircut.” It would also certainly include the congressional hush fund, says Carlson.
Yet leftists say Trump could face prison time. “So to translate, ‘Trump’s a criminal! He’s goin’ to jail — for committing a smaller version of the same made-up crime that we in Congress have committed for years and have forced you to pay for,” Carlson explained.
“‘And, by the way, we’re never apologizing for that because we don’t have to, and CNN isn’t going to make us,’ Carlson concluded. ‘Screw you, America, and your stupid election — we’re in charge.’ That’s the real message here, in case you missed it” (video below).
The truth is that today we have, roughly speaking, a two-tiered (in)justice system. One is for rich, powerful, well-connected leftists and (maybe) their decently behaved neocon pets.
The other tier is for everyone else.
Photo: AP Images
