When definitive proof does not exist then pure supposition will suffice.
As we are all preparing for the impending World War III (remember, that is an assured result…any day now…) the national media has been consumed with the Senate impeachment trial. Now that it appears the effort will go off about as well as a firecracker in lawn sprinklers the Democrats, and specifically the press, are consumed with a feeling of dysphoria and are left with where to next turn for their inherent condemnation.
Their collective revulsion is so pathological that continued presentation of exoneration does nothing to stem their desire to punish. A years-long investigation into Russian collusion comes up empty. A desperate follow up to implicate with Ukrainian affairs has become impotent. So now the move has been to the future. These same outlets will condemn by trying to convict based on what they are convinced the president will do.
We saw this in the impeachment as the Democrats began flailing and insisting that the president needed to be removed, not based on the wan evidence presented, but because they were so convinced over the course of the coming year of the misdeeds he might commit. This is a convenient gambit; accuse Trump of wrongdoing, and when your neutered charges are dismissed it ‘’proves’’ the president will get away with wrongdoing, so he needs to be stopped. This tactic has been warmly embraced in the press.
In The Hill Democrat strategist Maria Cardona wrote on how this will reverberate going forward. ‘’So, if Trump is guilty, and everyone knows he is capable of repeating these abhorrent actions, his removal becomes not only necessary but the only way out for a party that is already in peril of becoming a shell of what it once was.’’ She takes the approach of many from her party of assumed guilt, and this then necessitates Trump’s removal. The concern for the health of the Republican party is a sweet touch.
Laurence Tribe offered up a reason for the immediate removal of the President, but tellingly it has little to do with any evidence of punishable behavior. No, it comes down to a very simple proposal — President Trump might do stuff!
Even if an unremoved Trump is defeated this Nov 4 so overwhelmingly that he doesn’t even try to hang onto power beyond next January 20, imagine the havoc this vengeful man could wreak in the intervening 77 days, pardoning his loyal henchmen and attacking political adversaries.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) January 26, 2020
This is a legal scholar, mind you. He proposes the removal of a president based on nothing found in the evidence but simply on his fever-dream expectations rooted in imbalanced hatred for a man.
This week, following his abysmal display on Don Lemon’s program, New York Times writer Wajahat Ali exemplified the tactic as well, speculating on President Trump’s refusal to vacate the White House if he were to lose the election this fall. It is a long recycled theorem, but his presentation is rather remarkable.
What if Trump loses the 2020 election but refuses to leave? He says it was rigged and promotes conspiracy theories and then says it's in the national interest for him to stay? What would Republicans do?
— Wajahat "Social Distance Yourself" Ali (@WajahatAli) January 30, 2020
It is staggering the level of obliviousness needed to resort to using a conspiracy theory to prove Donald Trump is resorting to conspiracy theories. What Ali bases this concept on is a mystery, but it is a popular one. Also at play is Ali seemingly unaware that, when it comes to claiming the upcoming election will be compromised, he is using the talking made by Democrats who suggest Trump has compromised it himself, as an early excuse for his reelection.
Hardly alone, the Times’ scribe was joined by CNN. The Apple Network recently concocted its own precog journalism surrounding something yet to transpire.
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 1, 2020
So now CNN is reduced to reporting on something that may not occur in reaction to something that has yet to happen, based on their perception of wrongdoing that has not been proven. This is Inception-level outrage reporting.
Following the lead from the mothership, CNN political expert Sam Vinograd got in on the speculative punditry regarding the election. She could seemingly foresee the president continuing to do something he has not been found to do…somehow.
Hold them accountable but not Trump?https://t.co/6Dz6INesrd via
— Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) February 1, 2020
Curious how one can be considered a serious political analyst when she has clearly not become familiar with the Mueller report. But we suppose the lack of any finding in the report, and the lack of substantive evidence in the impeachment is proof he will do it again in the future, for the first time?
At MSNBC they also were polishing the quartz spheres, predicting what is definitely going to happen come November as well as the president’s reaction to this process. Clearly this is promoting the intentions of the Democrat party, which is to smear President Trump with the ‘’impeached’’ label, despite no findings coming forward.
Told @AliVelshi & @JoyceWhiteVance that @realDonaldTrump will never get over the permanent stain of impeachment and that he will spend from now until November re-litigating the fight. I think the Senate Republicans' cover-up will end up being a mandate against them all in Nov. pic.twitter.com/pRtJ6AZG5G
— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) February 1, 2020
And so it will continue. With no legal decision arrived at, and no punishment to follow, the opponents of the President will need to keep demonizing him. The only way to do so without firm legal decisions made against him is to forward these fantasies promising his future misdeeds. Like the Russian investigation, as well as the internment camps and other promises of Nazi-like behavior, to say nothing of the various policies that were promised would lead to dead bodies in the streets, the lack of these dire promises coming to fruition will do little to stem their predictions.
Even if these acts could not be proven in a legal process the media remain convinced in their minds of President Trump’s guilt. If they can only come up with evidence to match their flights of fancy everything would get better for them.