One meaning of the word “impeach”
is to challenge the credibility
Our liberal-progressive-socialist acquaintances are punching themselves silly, flailing away at their boogymen instead of convincing voters they can govern. Their choice — but the Policy Werkes can’t help observing that Democrats would do better to listen to George Foreman instead of John Nichols.
The Caracas wing of the Democrat(ic) party and their enablers in the news media have been beating the tom toms for impeachment since January 2017. Voters are not convinced. 59% of respondents to a recent Monmouth University poll say the President should NOT be impeached.
Getting punch drunk
Isn’t stopping a member of A.O.C.’s “Squad,” U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-MA, from moving to introduce articles of impeachment. Not of Donald Trump, but Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh!
She is doing so based on the fatally flawed story in the New York Times. This is a bridge too far for even Jerry Nadler.
We’ll give this one to Senate minority whip Dick Durbin, D-Illinois: “We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic. If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families.”
Tell that to your presidential candidates, Senator. They rushed to call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment on the basis of the New York Times’ latest drive-by shooting. The Wall Street Journal recounts:
The allegations against Justice Kavanaugh arrived in a New York Times piece based on a forthcoming book … about a lawyer named Max Stier who allegedly may have seen Justice Kavanaugh expose himself to a woman at a party while a student at Yale.
Except Mr. Stier wouldn’t speak publicly. An editors’ note appended after publication adds the previously omitted detail that the woman involved “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.” Oh.
The point is to insinuate that Ms. Ramirez’s accusations were credible and not thoroughly investigated. This is a brazen rewriting of history. The 414-page report on the various allegations … by the Senate Judiciary Committee … notes it contacted Ms. Ramirez’s legal team hours after the story broke. Ms. Ramirez’s attorney refused seven requests to provide supporting material. …
The FBI was able to interview Ms. Ramirez, two alleged eyewitnesses and a friend of Ms. Ramirez’s from college and turned up no substantiating evidence. A third alleged eyewitness declined an interview.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that “it’s almost as if the reporters, editors, publishers have a political agenda.”
Hitting below the belt
The WSJ’s William McGurn recounts some history:
This is what Democrats do when they believe there could be a fifth vote to overturn Roe, the 1973 decision that upended the laws of all 50 states to legalize abortion. It’s why Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1987 slandered Judge Robert Bork … It’s why Judge Clarence Thomas was savaged in 1991 … It’s why the assassination of Justice Kavanaugh’s character continues.
What others are saying:
• Piers Morgan: This Kavanaugh sex smear fiasco proves the New York Times is now a partisan hack paper.
• CNN: “Botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders.”
• Politico comments: “The paper’s mishandling of the new allegations seemed to confirm the view of Kavanaugh supporters that he had been railroaded by the news media.”
Who is NOT covering this controversy? As of this mid-morning writing: The New York Times!
Then there is the execrable WaPost columnist Dana Milbank:
President Trump is a horrendous racist. And it’s time for Democrats to stop calling him one.
Only a blind partisan could write such folderol and not see the self-rebuttal within. Milbank actually quotes an academic to say: “Crying racism is seen as crying wolf. It’s become politicized.”
Blaska’s Bottom Line: The New York Times has been impeached.