I, Nancy Pelosi, Do Solemnly Swear

As direct action movements, left-initiated political violence and mass street mobilization continue to roil our society, what we’re seeing now is the creation of an Overton window that moves us closer to where we’ll be mentally by the election, as our fractured body politic convulses towards November. Apart from the legitimate grievances and outrage over the death of George Floyd, this moment can also be understood as one along the continuum of the 2020 election and the partisan binary that will continue to overtake us. So in a few months when you hear people say that the election is an existential moment, that everything rides on it, this moment right now is one we’ll look back on after the election to see how that fervor was built.

For example, in the 2016 political season there were a number of episodes that were memorialized in late that year and throughout 2017 as we constructed our narrative of the election. Think of the division, the allegations of Russian interest in dividing us to include trolls apparently organizing protests and counter-protests, the limited, instigated violence at Trump rallies and the organized violence at the inauguration. If these events parallel what we’re seeing now, it’s because this year will make 2016 look tame as our populist and radical era strains against our political institutions. That is not a suggestion that the protests we’re seeing this week are in any way stoked by foreign actors; instead, it’s a suggestion that, of course, we’re having more extreme versions of each of those dramas four years of increased societal division later.

What opposition leadership members the New York Times, Chris Cuomo, and Jimmy Kimmel are doing is providing permission for the use of new and aggressive language that shepherds in a shifting of beliefs. Put more simply, they are normalizing rhetoric bordering on revolutionary, and a political revolution is not out of the question.

Why this is immediately important is that before our recent unrest our deep and abiding division already made a contested election much more likely than at any time in recent history. The left is now prepared to cash in its chips. Their attacks on our institutions that have been allowed to fester for years have turned into true structural weaknesses of the type borne by a truly divided society, and that they are now ready to exploit.

The first is the effort for the past twenty years to create a competing metric of legitimacy for the presidency. Many of us have been exposed to this effort, even hearing friends or TV personalities make fantastical statements in recent years such as “Hillary won the popular vote.” Of course, the United States does not, and never has, conducted a popular vote for the presidency, and hence there is no “the popular vote” for her to have won. Note even the inclusion of the word ‘the’ in the phrase when spoken by pollsters and pundits alike. That suggests an implicit credibility for the term, as if it existed as a distinct count we tally. We went from the interjection of the phrase into our discourse as a means of politically harming George W. Bush to, many years of decay and division later, a metastasizing of the concept by a rising Electoral College-denier movement for a competing metric of legitimacy. It will be used to try and tip the scales in the case of a contested election and may even drive a plurality to refuse to accept the results.

The second is the deliberate attempt to undermine public faith and confidence in our federal Supreme Court, more recently referred to by the term asterisking. Many remember that as the explicit strategy of those opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination, but they should remember that years earlier President Obama took extraordinary steps to malign the court. Facing the very real proposition that his landmark legislation was going to be struck down, he deliberately sought to tie the legitimacy of the court to a preferred partisan outcome despite the existence of a clear precedent for that very type of judicial review. To further test the proposition of how successful this effort has been, ask yourself this question: what percentage of the people currently in the streets of our major cities will accept a Bush vs. Gore 5-4 election decision when the fifth vote is provided by Justice Kavanaugh?

The third piece of the effort is the mainstreaming of a narrative of voter suppression. This tactic ignores the nuances and countervailing data on the impact of basic voter verification and voter roll maintenance efforts and re-labels them as part of a conspiracy to suppress minority voters. The main champion of this theory is a politician who draws much from the style of President Trump. Her name is Stacey Abrams. She will take the lead for the Left, potentially while on the ballot, in seeding mistrust of the election results. This is the most direct and aggressive tactic of the three. The goal: to convince the right number of people that if the election doesn’t go their way that it wasn’t conducted fairly, and to sow this doubt both early and widely to lay the groundwork for the immediate contesting of the election in the absence of a landslide.

Analyses of the specific scenarios that may play out if and when we wake up on November 4^th not knowing who won are starting to appear in the press and academia. The individual scenarios do deserve attention, especially with such scarce precedents for most. But what’s most important aren’t the specific mechanisms we’ll use to resolve the election. What’s most important is that we are so divided as a nation we may not have the institutional trust or brotherly bonds left to resolve the election with a legitimacy that doesn’t break the federal government.

A worst-case scenario sees the end of the ten weeks between the election and inauguration passing with both candidates still claiming victory and their tribes lined up squarely behind them. In that case, there is a never-before-enacted continuity of government plan that swears in an acting president until the election is finally decided. That official? The Speaker of the House.

Nanzi and the Democaps need professional treatment for that malignant enlarged memory hole they're afflicted with.

WATTA MOTLEY CREW--Pelosi, Schiff, woebegotten impeachment managers (remember them?)
townhall.com ^ | February 1, 2020 | Congressman Andy Biggs / FR Posted by Kaslin

It appears that self-aggrandizement was a dominant factor in the Democrats foolhardy impeachment of Trump after all. Chairman Nadler could not have been happy when Speaker Pelosi entrusted the impeachment charade to the mendacious Adam Schiff, a position normally entrusted to Judiciary Committee Chairman.

Heck, 50,000 people died from the virus b/c Schiff did not get to make the final impeachment statement "guaranteed to ditch Trump."

Seeing Schiff and Nadler vie for the mic was a moment of inadvertently-produced levity. But it also indicated a Pander Act-----to attain a measure of notoriety within the Leftist base now controlling the Democrat Party.

Who was Pelosi rooting for? Schiff or Nadler? She's never said.....cackle.

The mic fight also demonstrates the continued delusion of the House managers ---- looking like refugees from a flopola Democrat pep rally-----who believe that if they talk everyone to death, using boring worn-out soliloquies, they would convince enough senators to vote to expand the Senate trial. Then they would get to drag this charade out even longer.

Never happened. Nanzi, where did you go wrong (sob)?

Hard to believe, House impeachment managers, actually believe that mouthing mistruths often enough, (sometimes loud, sometimes soft, sometimes with a smile, sometimes with a snarl), these mistruths magically become true. Or at least, accepted as truth by some of their braindead followers.

The objective truth, ultimately wins out. And----souvenir pens or no souvenir pens----the truth is that there simply was no there-there. There never had been.

Look at 'em pictured above......the impeachment squad did not ever want Donald J. Trump to be president. They want him off of the 2020 ballot. They are willing to do, say, and ultimately, believe anything, no matter how implausible.

They even put their faith in the doddering Counsel Robert Mueller and his gang of biased, anti-Trump prosecutors who spent years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, looking for dirt on the president.

Now we hear that extending the investigation was bait---setup as an "obstruction-of-justice trap" for Trump--- should he move to curtail the nonsense.

They were disappointed when even muttering Mueller had to acknowledge that there was no criminal conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and their acolytes, however, believe that there is concrete evidence of a conspiracy, and that one day they may be able to produce it. Except they will never succeed for the simple reason that there was no coordination, no cooperation, no collusion, and no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Instead of dreamily chasing after their socialist utopia, this bunch forced the entire nation into their nightmarish pursuit of revenge and disruption.

Their hidden agenda all along, after all, was to undo the 2016 election. They want to turn back time.

And, with the majority of senators seeing the best that the Democrat House managers could present, the senators have rejected an extension of this malevolent marathon of vituperation toward the president.

The woebegotten House managers have been passionate about their work. And as sincere about their motives to “save the country” as a Don Lemon apology.

From mid-summer 2016 and over the past three years, the deep state, Leftist media, and radical Democrats have done nothing to help this nation. Instead, they have relentlessly attacked this president, his family, his friends and business associates, his supporters, and his voters.

While the president has been improving the judiciary, the economy, our military, and American prestige at home and abroad, the vociferous malcontents in the Democratic Party have tried to undermine his efforts and the will of the American people.

“””it’s a suggestion that, of course, we’re having more extreme versions of each of those dramas four years of increased societal division later.”””

This commentary is along the lines I was thinking of yesterday.

Exactly who are the leaders of the Black Lives Matter? Corporations are giving money to Black Lives Matter and who is the Chief Executive Officer of Black Lives Matter?

Exactly who are the leaders of Antifa? There are thousands of young hoodlums all dressed in the appropriate Antifa garb and nobody knows who are the leaders?

Are Black Lives Matter and Antifa the revolutionary arms of the Democrat Party?

It certainly seems to gives that appearance.

The goal: to convince the right number of people that if the election doesn’t go their way that it wasn’t conducted fairly, and to sow this doubt both early and widely to lay the groundwork for the immediate contesting of the election in the absence of a landslide.

It's both side's goal. If Trump wins then the Democrats will claim it was because of voter suppression. If Biden wins then the Republicans will claim it was because of voter fraud.

And the real terror in that is that it may prove impossible for either tribe to be declared a winner. Pelosi would be president for the whole term.

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.