The Democrats' Inability to Accept Defeat

It is really quite astonishing. To refer to Democrats as "sore losers" seems so inadequate. After all, they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. That is why we have had the "resistance," attempted non-violent coup, the Mueller investigation and the sham impeachment proceedings. Just over one week ago, lead House Manager Adam Schiff said this: "The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff claimed for two years that he had hard evidence of Russian collusion. When Mueller disagreed, Schiff neither apologized nor came forward with his evidence. It appears that he believes the Russians will seek to interfere with the next election in order to re-elect Trump, which makes no sense as the Democrats overall are much weaker on foreign policy. So, what would Schiff do? Cancel the election? Simply declare the winner of the Democratic nomination to be president?

House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?

Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)

Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.

But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."

The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.

But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)