xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

Blatchford: Impeachment ‘bombshells’ fail to detonate for Dems in latest smear campaign

It’s Monday evening, Jan. 28, and the news is on — NBC with Lester Holt. Holt just announced yet another “impeachment bombshell.” How many have there been? Every new rumor that reflects negatively on Trump is portrayed as another “bombshell.” This time it’s a New York Times report on John Bolton’s book.

Reportedly, the Times hadn’t seen the text. Yet again, they received the information from anonymous sources who allegedly had access to a draft which allegedly reveals negative information about President Trump. This passes as news in New York — unverified gossip supplied by anonymous sources that lean anti-Trump and published by a formerly respected newspaper. Perhaps the paper’s motto should be modified to, “All the news that’s fit to print, and then some.”

Advertisement

So guess what? Bolton is now given status as a credible source by the left. One wonders how Bolton would have been perceived had he been supportive of Trump. Consider the following Fox News report on Jan. 30 by Greg Re: “Separately, Fox News has identified clips of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. … in which he says Bolton had a distinct ‘lack of credibility’ and was prone to ‘conspiracy theories.’ This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify … as an important and believable witness.”

Here we go again.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How many, after hearing the endless “bombshell” reports, are growing immune? With so many bombshells it’s a wonder that any buildings in DC are still standing.

Schiff and his gang demanded that additional witnesses be allowed before the Senate. This in spite of the fact that they’ve previously declared their existing evidence to be “overwhelming.” Does anyone else see this grasping at straws as a lack of confidence?

Schiff (who alternately calls Bolton credible or incredible — my head hurts) blatantly lied when he first presented his version of the transcript of Trump’s call. When caught in his lie, he attempted to toss it off as “parody” — a joke. Schiff, apparently, doesn’t consider impeachment to be a serious matter. He makes light of the truth. No, he discounted truth. Why was Schiff, with such a clear and blatant lack of candor, permitted to even participate? Democrats claim to have a big problem with people who lie.

Many object to Trump’s invoking executive privilege. How many times did Obama invoke it to avoid “shining a light” on the fast and furious illegal gun transactions? Others complain that Trump’s attorney general is acting as his personal attorney. Who cried foul when Eric Holder (then attorney general) publicly declared that he was Obama’s “wing man?” I’m thinking something about a goose and a gander.

Advertisement

Dems have lived in a state of outrage ever since Trump originally announced his candidacy. I have found amusement with the charges of Republicans being the party of hate. Without further ado, as evidence of who the haters are, just compare the two parties since the 2016 election.

Do the Dems have a history of failed, fallacious attempts to smear people? Some will say “Surely not!” In opposition, let’s be reminded of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

Who remembers, when Hillary Clinton was still considered the smartest woman in the world (note here that she was defeated by a disrespected, stupid non-politician), that she complained bitterly about the opposition using “the politics of personal destruction?” Fast-forward to today and look back. Just who is smearing whom? Back to the Kavanaugh hearings, the Left found and brought forward Christine Ford (a Ph.D. no less) who at length laid out a smearing story that couldn’t be corroborated by anyone.

To their credit, our Democrat friends have become expert wordsmiths. They have the ability to use words that sound dramatic or evoke emotions (anger, happiness, etc.). They use words as triggers. Some that come to mind are gravitas (used to degrade George W. Bush ― he lacked it), bombshell, overwhelming evidence, unprecedented, cover-up, incompetent, unstable, deplorable, racist, anti-Semitic, etc. The list is endless. How many have you heard used in reference to our president — or maybe yourself? People, being aware of this strategy, should be able to see through its emotional impact. The Dems have been at it for years and likely will continue in perpetuity.

The most pathetic thing about this entire issue is the inability of Democrats to let it go. After two years of Mueller’s investigation, congressional Democrats (apparently super sleuths in their own right) follow-up and come up with “overwhelming” evidence Mueller must have missed and finally file charges. Having arrived with a rock-solid case, they then want to bring forth additional witnesses. (Note: It seems their confidence isn’t so rock solid after all.)

I am firmly convinced that when this effort fails, they will bring forth even more false charges. Has the loyal opposition ever looked more inept and pathetic?

Now I’m for the truth and digging it out. Endless harassment with false “Trumped up” charges is getting tiresome. On the assumption that the impeachment fails, who else will be waiting for the Democrats’ next move in their never-ending attack?

Rick Blatchford writes from Mount Airy. His column appears every other Saturday. Email him at rpblatch4d@comcast.net.

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement