Adam Schiff, meet Columbo!

There is an episode of Columbo from 1990 called Columbo Goes to College. It tells the tale of two spoiled, entitled, and sociopathic young men who murder their professor after he catches them cheating on an exam. So convinced of their own intellectual superiority are these two punks that they devise a way to kill said professor in a manner they are absolutely certain will never be discerned. They even frame an innocent man without regard for his life, just for fun, because they can. The father of one of the boys is a high-powered lawyer, equally arrogant as his son, if not more so. The boys know without a doubt that they are smarter than the police, especially Detective Columbo, whose special talent is playing the fool when he is always ahead of the game. They purposefully ingratiate themselves to Columbo, their guest professor, as self-appointed deputies in the investigation. Of course, they are caught in the end; their arrogance melts away as Columbo demonstrates for all exactly how they committed the crime. Their confidence in their own intellectual superiority is blasted to bits.

The Columbo episode is distinctive for the all too common pretentiousness of these boys and the lawyer father. Columbo plays the young murderers like a Stradivarius, the same way Trump plays the left and the mind-numbed, anti-Trump media. While the viewer knows that Columbo is on to the murderers early on, he is never over-confident. He solves his crimes with evidence. The two boys are so self-righteous that they do not realize they've been caught until the very last moment.

Adam Schiff and his willing dupes in the media are about to be proven to be as immature and as stupidly arrogant as Columbo's smug miscreants.

Here's a good article on Columbo and the Socratic Method...

Just One More Thing…
by Tim Madigan, Source: Philosophy Now
When I first started teaching Introduction to Philosophy classes twenty years ago or so, I found it difficult to get students to relate to Socrates and the Socratic method of enquiry. They found Plato’s dialogues hard to follow, and for many of them Socrates himself came across as an unpleasant or intimidating character. And so, as a way of connecting Socrates to a character most of them had more fondness for, I would ask if they were familiar with the TV program Columbo. Even those who professed never to watch the show knew about its main character, so ably acted by Peter Falk. His filthy raincoat, his disheveled hair, his nagging wife and his forgetful nature were all part and parcel of a beloved iconic figure. Well, I pointed out, Socrates too was known for his unkempt appearance, his nagging wife Xanthippe, and his distracted behaviour. But more important, as Shakespeare would say, there was method to the madness of both Columbo and Socrates, for their outward appearances did not correspond to their inner natures.
The Columbo episodes, as fans will recall, were not typical whodunnits. Instead, we the viewers knew from the very beginning the identity of the murderer (often played by Jack Cassidy or Patrick Macnee). The fun was anticipating how detective Columbo would find out whodunnit, and trap the murderer into confessing. In most cases, the arrogant killers underestimated Columbo’s investigative prowess. By playing dumb, he lulled them into a false sense of security. They would give him vital clues without realizing it. Columbo’s most irritating technique was to leave a room and then return, with a befuddled look on his face. Scratching his head, he’d say “Just one more thing...” and ask a seemingly innocuous question. The killer, by then eager to see the last of this annoying fellow, would quickly answer, and later find out that the question was not so innocent after all, when Columbo returned to say “You’re under arrest.”
Students were able to see for themselves the connections between Columbo’s detective techniques and Socrates’ method of discovering philosophic truth. Both were polite but persistent interviewers, and while people with nothing to hide usually enjoyed their company, those who did not wish to have their alibis or ignorance probed would react in exasperation or with violent threats to them. Suddenly Socrates would no longer seem such an off-putting character. It’s a shame that Peter Falk never performed as Socrates. He would have been perfect for the part!
Of course, like all analogies, one shouldn’t take such comparisons too far. Columbo, after all, solved all his crimes, whereas it’s debatable whether Socrates ever solved anything. Nonetheless, using a popular figure like Columbo as a way to help understand Socrates’ mission was an effective way of reaching students who might otherwise not have understood how this ironic figure was beneficial to the society in which he lived. Like many other philosophy instructors, I’ve made use of other films and television shows to draw similar connections. For instance, when discussing Aristotle’s concept of friendship, I show clips from Seinfeld episodes; and when delineating Descartes’ concept of the ‘evil demon’, I use clips from the film The Matrix. I was delighted last year, while discussing John Locke’s concept of the social contract theory, when several students pointed out that ‘John Locke’ was the name of one of the main characters on the TV show Lost. It’s not coincidental, I pointed out to them, that the creators of a show about strangers trying to interact in a ‘state of nature’ would choose such a name for a main protagonist.
In several of the following articles, various ways of using popular culture to address age-old philosophical themes will be explored. In recent years there has been a veritable explosion of interest in this approach, thanks in large part to Bill Irwin’s publishing endeavors (see his article). If nothing else, the large sales of books devoted to philosophy and popular culture shows that there is a continuing interest in this convergence of deep thoughts and chosen entertainments.
Of course, popular culture is a dynamic, unstable field. Once beloved cultural icons can become tomorrow’s forgotten figures. Indeed, most of my students today barely know Seinfeld or The Matrix, and almost none know who Columbo is. I do my best to keep up with contemporary culture, using the TV character Monk as my inroad to Socrates now. But for philosophers at least, Columbo will always remain an iconic figure; for what better expresses the philosophical pursuit than his wonderful expression “Just one more thing…”?
Tim Madigan teaches philosophy at Saint John Fisher College in Rochester, New York, and is Division Chair for Philosophy and Popular Culture for the Popular Culture Association.

"The moment Trump won, the plan to discredit him with the fake dossiers that had been commissioned and produced by the Clinton campaign escalated into high gear."

The problem with this analysis is that it misses the original intent of the Fake Dossier. It was supposed to have been the ultimate "October Surprise" to take down Trump. It was fed to sympathetic media whores a few days before the election in order to explode in the Beltway news cycle and prevent the election of Trump.

The problem was that the story was SO preposterous and unbelievable, that even the Beltway Whores wouldn't publish it. That left only Plan B: use it as the "Insurance Policy" to impeach president Trump after the election for colluding with the Russians. The problem with Plan B is that the 'dossier' was no less preposterous and unbelievable in 2017 than it was in November of 2016. The only people that are more stupid and naïve than press who didn't quite fall for the November Surprise are Obama, Clinton and their minions who thought they could pull the Insurance Policy off. It almost worked, but fortunately, it hasn't.

Another great article from American Thinker, thanks for posting it.

Folks, this is not going to go away. This is the biggest political scandal in the history of our country, IMO.

The noose is tightening on these people. And they know it. When you listen to the testimony they have been giving at various times, you can hear it...they are couching their statements.

They are beginning to look at their own situations, and judge for themselves how they should protect themselves. It is happening. The rats are poised to jump the sinking ship.

I urge you to listen to the podcasts and read the show notes from the Dan Bongino show beginning on January 5th. He explains this all very well.

I agree nothing could happen. It didn’t happen with Fast and Furious. Didn’t happen with Benghazi. But this feels different to me. It IS different.

article on Columbo and the Socratic Method…

Interesting. When I was in college studying Mechanical Engineering, I recall being told that I was getting a narrow education and wouldn’t know much about the world, only math and physics and their application. True. But in that required “humanities” course I did learn the meaning of “philosopher" sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] . . . and notwithstanding all those people with Batchelor of Arts degrees, it often seems that I am the only person who remembers it. The philosopher knows that it is not wise to claim wisdom; the journalist should know it is not wise to claim objectivity. In fact, journalists know that - for commercial reasons - journalism is systematically negative.
But can negativity be objective? "The conceit that negativity is objectivity” is very workable, IMHO, as a definition of “cynicism."
Which seems to convict journalists of cynicism.

-- Wow, our country truly is lost! --

It is if the people don't wake up. Think of all the institutions that claim they are trustworthy, then ask why you believe them.

The press claims it is trustworthy. Every government agency (not just feds, state and local too) claims to be trustworthy.

If the threshold for "allowable conduct" is "everything short of criminal" (which is at bottom the ethical standard of government actors), then world is much more harsh and dirty than most people appreciate.

One underlying principle of the constitution is limited government, and that is for good reason. Government will abuse every.single.power it is given, every.time. And it will see to it that the abuse is not punishable as a crime. The government broke the compact with the people, the constitution, generations ago. The government opened the borders to invaders, and 9 robed weenies on the Supreme Court made homosexual marriage into a constitutional right.

Damn well seriously broken - by the very people who supposedly have position to defend it. And the public yawns, or even asks to be put under an even heavier hand.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.