Do The Democrats Have A Death Wish?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

The early winter holidays are notorious for giving people the blues, but as the last Thanksgiving leftovers slide into the stockpot, the Democratic Party was put on suicide watch. Is the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein in charge? It’s a little late to call an exorcist.

The gun pointed at the Democrats’ head now is a stubby little low-caliber weapon in the person of Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has only grazed the party’s skull in two previous misfirings. The third time, the old saying goes, may be the charm.

When Mr. Nadler entertained Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July, he succeeded spectacularly in discrediting Mr. Mueller, and the inquisition he rode in on. It was the worst public demonstration of aphasia since William Jennings Bryan had a stroke at the Scopes Trial in 1925. Mr. Mueller’s pitiful performance put to rest the last sticky tendril of hope that his tortured report might avail to cast out the arch-demon in the White House. Even the Republicans on the dais seemed to feel sorry for him. True to his character as a schoolyard sap wearing a “kick me” sign on his back, Mr. Nadler just waddled away in a fog of bamboozlement, hitching his pants up to his sternum, to plot his next foolish move.

Which was to haul former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski into the committee in September. Mr. Lewandowski’s performance was the equivalent of watching poor Mr. Nadler get hitched to the rear bumper of a Lincoln Navigator and dragged over several miles of broken Coke bottles. And yet, ever-sturdy, like one of those plastic punching dummies with all its weight on the bottom, Mr. Nadler just popped back up, adjusted his “kick me” sign, and moved on to his next folly: the current comedy of errors around impeachment.

Really, the only question now is what new way will Mr. Nadler find to humiliate himself and mortify his party? Opening testimony this week will be supplied by a panel of Woke constitutional law professors who will attempt to tease out some hermeneutic legal basis for an impeachment other than actual misdeeds. They’ll surely settle on thought-crime, since there is nothing else. Whose idea was it to hit the snooze button just as the curtain goes up on the show?

Next will come a mighty hassle over whether the minority can call witnesses of its own choosing. Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) has already asked for an appearance by Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intel Committee, whose procedural shenanigans last month embarrassed anyone with a vestigial memory of Anglo-American due process. Some folks think that Mr. Schiff has got some ‘splainin’ to do about the predicating circumstances of his star chamber spectacle. He is, in fact, a fact-witness to all that, on top of being the issuer today of his own committee’s report on all that, and therefore susceptible to public examination — especially in a train of proceedings as grave as impeachment. If Mr. Nadler enables Mr. Schiff to slither out of testifying, there will be hell to pay, and in the not-so-likely prospect of an actual impeachment trial in the senate, it would be paid there as an unleashed defense goes for Mr. Schiff with pithing needles and thumbscrews of genuine interrogation.

Then there is the “Whistleblower,” this would-be pimpernel of perfidy hiding behind Adam Schiff’s apron under the false assertion that he is entitled to everlasting anonymity. What an idea under our system of jurisprudence! In fact, contrary to Mr. Schiff’s public pronouncements, there is no law that states what he claims — one of several things Mr. Schiff can be called to account for. And that is even if you accept the dishonest proposition that the fugitive who started this fiasco even was a whistleblower, rather than a rogue CIA officer acting on explicitly illegal political motives to interfere in the 2020 election. The CIA, you must know, is forbidden by charter and statute from operating against American citizens, including the president of the United States. Under the circumstances, the so-called “Whistleblower” might fairly be accused of treason.

Has anyone failed to notice that one of the “Whistleblower’s” attorneys, Mark Zaid, tweeted notoriously on January 30, 2017 that “Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.” Mr. Zaid later explained, “I was referring to a completely lawful process.” Yeah, sure. I think he meant a completely Lawfare process. Of course, the engineered “Whistleblower” escapade was only the latest (perhaps the last) chapter in the annals of nefarious events and actions carried out far-and-wide by several government agencies for three years, and by many officials working within them, and not a few freelance rogues in their service. There is no more accurate way to describe all that except as a coup. The authorities looking into all that have not been heard from yet. The portentous silence is making a lot of people in Washington edgy.

If the various House committees have put the Democratic Party on suicide watch, then something even more deadly is lurking just offstage. Hillary Clinton is making noises about jumping into the 2020 election. She senses opportunity as Joe Biden goes pitifully through the motions of running for office to avoid prosecution for his international grifting operations as Veep. Think of Hillary as the cyanide capsule that the party might actually choose to bite down on as the year ominously turns.