Posted on 05/09/2023 3:44:24 AM PDT by cotton1706
The editorial board of the conservative, Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has urged its readers to take heed of William Barr’s recent warning about Donald Trump, and the former attorney general’s caution about what would happen if the former president won a second term in the White House.
Barr last week described Trump’s first term as a “horror show. He predicted Trump would fail to deliver on conservative policies, even if he did win the 2024 election.
The Journal wholeheartedly agreed.
“The rebuttal from the Trump establishment will be to cite his first term, but that record supports Mr. Barr’s point,” it wrote. “We also agree with many of Mr. Trump’s policies, and we backed them during his Presidency. But his most important policy victories were conventional GOP priorities delivered by people he now denounces as “RINOs.”
“A fuller account of Mr. Trump’s Presidency can wait for other days, but Mr. Barr’s warning is one that GOP voters deserve to hear,” it added. Republicans “have to decide if they want to let Democrats make their nominating choice for them, while ignoring Mr. Barr’s warning about the policy risks of a second Trump term.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
All-Amnesty-all-the-time, former "conservative" voice of the PBS Newshour, Paul Gigot.
OF COURSE the editorial board would be against Trump.
After Robert Bartley died and Gigot took over, the editorial page went full RINO.
F all of them.
The Murdochs are at it again…
By most metrics Trump was more successful than the previous and current presidents so I don’t see how one could make an argument that it would be a “horror show”.
The government of the government, by the government, for the government already has done everything to destroy Trump in the past. They are telling people that they will create complete chaos if we elect him again to change government.
BLM riots
Countless investigations
Rigged elections
Disparate Justice
Viral releases
Plotting with foreign enemies and cartels
Attempted race wars
Continuous demonstrations
We the people accept whomever they want, or they are prepared to release war against us, using the full force of FedGov.
Trump isn’t the Choas. They want our money, and not our opinion.
We had a Republican majority house and senate for two of those years, so I would look there for a failure of Conservative policies. The scumbags like to promise Tea Party/MAGA when they're running, but as soon as the voting stops, the lobbyist bucks commence, and amnesia sets in.
Liberal Yahoooooo luvs them some TDS
The more the Deep State (which the Wall Street Journal caters to) pushes back against Trump, the more I believe Trump is the only one not part of it, and is thus the best choice.
He thwarted globalist progression. To them that was a horror show.
Democracy is dead. Long live the global imperium!
Propaganda everywhere.
Here’s the concern I have about Trump running as the Republican nominee.
Under normal conditions, any candidate with Trump’s momentum would easily waltz into the nomination and defeat all challengers in the Republican Party.
However, we know the Democrats and many establishment Republicans will do anything to keep that from happening.
It’s not fair and will tear the country apart but it won’t matter to these people.
Trump is currently under indictment in NY over bogus charges, I fully expect at least 2 more indictment, one in Georgia for questioning the last election and one federal indictment over his handling of documents from the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Additionally, Trump is likely going to lose his civil case against the woman claiming he raped her years ago.
Can the Republican Party afford to nominate someone who is facing 3 criminal indictments and a civil judgement for Rape.
Let’s say he actually wins the nomination and general election and becomes POTUS, if he’s convicted in any of the criminal cases against him, would that not be considered high crimes and misdemeanors and grounds for impeachment, knowing full well a bunch of Republicans would join in to impeach him again.
This is the worst-case situation that needs to be considered.
WSJ hasn’t been Conservative for at least 20 years. (I quit reading it in 1999/2000.)
Remember when Trump was president and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House? Remember when Paul Ryan was the Speaker? Remember when Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell prevented Trump from building the wall?
Is that the kind of not delivering the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdochs are talking about?
A conviction didn’t stop Marion Barry.
Heck, it probably HELPED him.
We NEED Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona or some combo theirin.
And this is against the backdrop of mail-in voting, which isn't going away.
What Trump or DeSantis did 15 years ago, unless it's a murder, doesn't concern me. But if neither of these guys can tell us how the f he will flip these EC votes, he don't deserve the nomination.
Parenthetically, if the WSJ et al publish vapid editorials that don't address THIS question, screw them, too.
A couple of major differences, he’s not he POTUS and he’s a Democrat, the Democrats in the last election voted for a brain damaged Senator from Pennsylvania, a dead state senator from Pennsylvania and in 2020 vote for a POTUS that has dementia.
Heck, Former Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings from South Florida was once a Federal Judge, he was impeached and removed from the Bench, later he was elected to the US Congress.
Would Republicans do the same thing ?? I doubt it.
“if he’s convicted in any of the criminal cases against him, would that not be considered high crimes and misdemeanors and grounds for impeachment, knowing full well a bunch of Republicans would join in to impeach him again.
This is the worst-case situation that needs to be considered.”
Generally no. Because high crimes and misdemeanors refers to actions while in office. And the prosecutors are not acting in good faith, but instead are acting with a political purpose. And if the people decide to elect a candidate despite convictions, then the Congress would be hard-pressed to remove on that basis. It would be a non-starter.
The purpose of the trials is to prevent Trump from being on state ballots, but it’s not working. And the people in the primaries would just write him in anyway. They’re flailing and failing.
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.