Posted on 05/20/2019 2:21:45 PM PDT by billorites
Democratic leaders in Congress proved the perils of “jumping the shark” this month. The phrase comes from the 1977 episode of the television comedy “Happy Days” in which one of its leading characters, the “Fonz,” jumped over a shark in a water skiing stunt in swim trunks along with his signature leather jacket. That moment was viewed as a desperate ratings stunt by a dying television series struggling to keep viewers engaged. Today, the phrase has come to define similar instances of desperation.
With the many overhyped political moments of the last two years, it is not clear when the partisan shark jump occurred. Soon after the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, legal experts and commentators on air began confidently declaring the crimes of Trump campaign “collusion” were obvious and established. As the report approached completion, commentators spoke widely of a finding of criminality as a virtual given.
Yet, Mueller then stated that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Russia investigation without criminal Russia collusion was like Geraldo Rivera opening the safe of Al Capone only to find empty bottles. To make matters worse, Mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction but Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found that the evidence would not support a criminal charge of obstruction.
Democrats then proceeded to try and shift attention from collusion to obstruction, but their unwillingness to actually open an impeachment inquiry has undermined their claims that obstruction crimes were well established. Almost instantly, you could feel national attention waning and lawmaker desperation growing. There have been some cringeworthy stunts during the past few weeks. Democrats tried to make redactions in the report be the focus, in order to avoid questions over the refusal to move toward impeachment. The problem is Barr released 92 percent of the report and 98 percent of the report to select members of Congress.
Barr was also willing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, just as he did before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats, however, then added a rare condition requiring Barr to agree to be questioned by the committee staff. Barr predictably refused, as most of his predecessors would have done. Democrats then held a theatrical hearing with an empty chair and a bucket of fried chicken on the table where Barr would have sat. Some ate up the fried chicken for the cameras as most of us winced.
Democrats had called for Mueller to appear before them on Wednesday. Mueller did not show, despite Barr showing a willingness to have him testify. Instead, the committee called for a hearing with constitutional experts to discuss the executive privilege claims raised by the White House. I was one of those experts, and the hearing did not exactly turn out as the Democrats planned. They have insisted that President Trump had already waived privilege to undisclosed evidence shown to Mueller. The committee witnesses, however, agreed that there is no such waiver.
Worse, the witnesses agreed that Barr could not release the “full and unredacted report” to Congress including any grand jury, or Rule 6(e), evidence. That is in direct contradiction to weeks of demands for the unredacted report along with a subpoena that demanded disclosure of the entire report. The committee maintained that “neither Rule 6(e) nor any applicable privilege barred disclosure of these materials to Congress.” Yet, the expert witnesses it called on have now testified that is not true.
As I noted to the committee, the subpoena, which is the very basis for the earlier contempt vote, was demanding an unlawful act from Barr, and the committee then held him in contempt for not committing that unlawful act. The key to setting up someone for contempt of Congress is to draft a subpoena that he might actually be able to legally fulfill. Notably, despite all of the punditry and cable news coverage of it, the contempt citation has not yet been submitted to the full House for a vote, let alone to a court for review. That is probably not because the contempt case is too strong.
The House committee also had problems with its demand for the other redacted material. I noted to the committee that roughly 2 percent of the redacted material was grand jury material barred under Rule 6(e). That leaves 6 percent, to which Congress, but not the public, has access now. However, most of that material was redacted as part of ongoing litigation and investigations. Indeed, the judges handling cases like those of Trump associate Roger Stone or resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn have imposed court orders. Barr could not simply release that material as demanded by Congress, and no witness disagreed during the hearing.
That would cover virtually all of the redactions that Democrats spent a week highlighting as the primary issue in their minds. Moreover, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the Flynn prosecution, issued an order to release some of the redacted material covered by that case. The order again supported Barr in showing that such grand jury information required an order from a court and could not be simply released by Barr.
The day following the hearing, Democrats held yet another spectacle of reading the Mueller report in a marathon for 12 hours on CSPAN.They even brought in a celebrity, although even my childhood friend, John Cusack, could not generate much buzz. The half day coverage of this Gregorian reading had plenty of us longing for the regular mind numbing CSPAN coverage of the “special order” speeches to an empty House chamber.
One reason for the waning audience is that Democrats are stepping on their own lines. The week that their witnesses were contradicting the position of the House Judiciary Committee and the staff was marketing Mueller CDs, Democrats held a closed door party caucus. In it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told Democratic members she has no intention of moving on impeachment. Imitating disgruntled Democratic voters, Pelosi said, “Some of our folks are a little bit ‘Why are we not impeaching the president?” She then added, “They get a little down.”
Well, they are a “little down” because Democratic members of Congress, including several presidential candidates, continue to assure Americans that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses and that they want to open an inquiry. Representative Maxine Waters slammed Trump, saying he has “done everything that one could even think of” to trigger an impeachment vote in the House. Without impeachment, Democrats do not even have a shark to jump. Watching House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler leap over a bucket of fried chicken simply does not have that same “Fonz” cachet
Maybe they should get Jim Carrey to draw another pro-abortion cartoon. That oughta work!
Any sane observer would argue congress and, apparently, numerous federal agencies have been engaging in highly illegal acts for years now, jiggery-pokery behind the scenes, weaponizing the organs of the state to beat up on people and organizations they don’t like. When they are caught, congress hauls them before a committee, yells at them and then they retire to a comfortable pension with full benefits and nothing changes.
There are real threats to America, resources are not infinite, and they could be using those resources to do the types of things they are supposed to be doing.
Next stunt: Trump’s Tax Records so they can parse and find something they can us to tar him. After that: Go after Ivanka and Don Jr. Only chance is that they can goad Trump into making some rash statement in a Tweet they can twist into an issue. But, Trump has learned a lot in two years and will not make that mistake. My only fear is that they will turn to violence and assassination as the only way they can get Trump. He better be ready—and so must all of his supporters. Advise—Trump and Pence better not take the same plane. President Nancy will be President 46. A puppet for the DNC masters and George Soros money.
Someone needs to explain to them how the separation of powers works. Congress is trying to assume control over the executive branch using power given only to the judicial branch.
I don’t think they travel together anyway for just that reason. I do wince, however, when I see them both in one place (like the SOTU address). Of course, Pelosi et al are there, too, so maybe they are safer.
Bump
When they have lost liberal Turley so thoroughly, anyone left on that train is clearly a cultist.
That’s why “they” call it Public Serve Us!
Vote Democrat or this dog dies!
Pelosi et al are there, too, so maybe they are safer.
_____________________
Pelosi isn’t the insurance policy. The Designated Survivor is the insurance policy.
Hopefully, it’s being limited to unassailable patriots.
The progs would suicide bomb Pelosi in a nano if they could also take out Trump. But if the entire audience of SOTU is killed, it is the designated survivor who becomes acting POTUS until an election is held.
The Democrats aren’t interesting anymore. Now that AOC and the Muslim sisters have stopped making idiotic comments, there’s nothing for the liberal media to discuss except the terminally boring Mueller Report. The alphabet networks continue to lose viewers.
It’s not as if there aren’t exciting events taking place. CNN’s ratings would break significantly out of their doldrums if they covered Donald Trump’s rallies, for example. Tens of thousands attend them in person, so millions would probably view them on TV. But presenting Donald Trump’s rallies is the last thing CNN would do.
The second last thing CNN would probably do is present Joe Biden’s rallies, since the leading Democratic presidential candidate can barely draw a city block’s worth of attendees to his speeches, which are even more boring than the Mueller Report.
Maybe if Kirsten Gillibrand had the courage to bash Christianity, her latest target, with as much fervor as Ilhan Omar used to attack Judaism, the Democrats and the networks would see a new burst of political excitement to try to build their futures on. But Kirsten Gillibrand courageous? She’s probably been exiled to an undisclosed location for her few disastrous forays into anti-Christian theology and won’t be heard from soon again.
From the party originating the phrase, “ It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Lawyers can turn a phrase into anything!
Would be far better 5o just surrender right now and concede ahead of time.
Amy Klobuchar peaked when she ate a salad with her comb.
” ...When they have lost liberal Turley so thoroughly, anyone left on that train is clearly a cultist.”
Yep. Turley usually only criticizes dems when they get the law wrong. But, here he goes beyond that by criticizing their political tactics.
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.