Skip to content

Liz Cheney Vows Never To Let Trump Near the Oval Office Again… Conclusions From A Kangaroo Court

Normally one waits until the end of the investigation to announce its conclusions, if, that is, it is a genuine investigation and not a “star chamber” (witch hunt).  However, Liz Cheney (whose chances to be Jeb Bush’s vice-presidential choice in the second Bush-Cheney ticket scheduled for 2016 were eliminated when Donald Trump easily knocked Jeb out of the race) made clear, long before the alleged “evidence” was collected by Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked Trump-hating Jan. 6th committee, that Trump can never be permitted to knock out the elitist establishment “Republican” presidential candidate again.

Not surprisingly, many of what now passes for “journalists” in the US, have reached precisely the same conclusion long before the alleged Jan. 6 committee published its pre-ordained “conclusions”.  A gaggle of “journalists,” not, apparently, grasping that an “insurrection” is not merely a mob storming around the Capitol behaving like fools, have been promoting the Democrat talking-point that there was an “insurrection” for over a year.  However, one does not overthrow a government by putting one’s feet on Nancy Pelosi’s desk.  A real insurrection takes a tad more than that, but who’s asking?

Certainly not “journalists” Wolf Blitzer, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Judy Woodward, David Brooks, or Ruth Marcus.

There was little substance in a July 2, 2022, PBS discussion, moderated” by liberal Judy Woodward, between PBS “conservative” David Brooks (aka another liberal) and liberal Ruth Marcus.  Woodruff begins the ritual by announcing that the discussion will consist in the “analysis” by Brooks and Marcus of the recent controversial SCOTUS decisions and the testimony to Pelosi’s committee from “Trump’s inner circle”.

Although the word “analysis” seems quite charitable for a discussion in which each conversant rehearses trivialities and platitudes about political divisions in the country, there were several moments that deserve comment.

Brooks begins by saying that although as an alleged “conservative” he is “sympathetic” to the “sound principle” that controversial topics like abortion should be handled by legislatures rather than unelected judges, he opines that our legislature is “broken” so that we are not going to get solutions.  Liberal Marcus concurs.  That is, Brooks’ “sound principle” is no longer sound and he has no idea what to do to get the solutions he wants “especially … for climate change”.

It is not clear why this recognition that the nation is divided on certain issues nullifies Brooks’ occasional “sound principle” that such matters should be decided by legislatures and, typical of such careless discussions, Brooks does not explain why.   If the nation is divided down the middle on an issue that only means neither side has made a compelling argument for their position, in which case turning the issue over to the states, many of which will reach a compromise for their own populations, is the right position.

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Marcus’ most telling remark is her complaint that the current SCOTUS has reached some “very strong conservative decisions in ways that … are deeply un-conservative, without due regard for … precedent.”  Her reference to the lack of respect for precedent refers to the legal doctrine of stare decisis that precedent, in this case, the 1973 Roe decision that legalized abortion across the land, should command considerable respect from jurists.  However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.  When prior decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned,” as liberal icon SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued Roe was, “the Supreme Court need not follow precedent.”

Brooks’ most striking statement is that with the testimony of 27-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson there really could be a case against Trump for insurrection because Trump’s directions to take out the metal detectors shows that he knows there are armed people capable of violence there and wants to make it easy for them.

What Brooks fails to mention is, first, that much of Hutchinson’s testimony is “hearsay” or she was “in the vicinity of” conversations, second, that secret service agents immediately replied that they were willing to testify under oath that much of her testimony was false, third, that Dan Bongino, a former secret service agent, replied that it is quite common for presidents to want the magnetometers removed in order to get larger crowds, and fourth that even CNN reports that Hutchinson had a motivation to stab Trump and Meadows in the back because, apparently, “Hutchinson had a falling out with Meadows in 2021 [since] she was supposed to go to Mar-a-Lago as permanent staff but that never happen[ed].” Apparently, Bongino does not use Brooks’ crystal ball to arrive at his conclusions but relies on what he learned as a secret service agent instead.

Needless to say, none of the three parties to this conversation even once mention the manifest problems with Hutchinson’s story but instead, like most of what currently passes for our “news” media, bought it “hook, line, and sinker” just like they formerly bought Hillary’s Russia hoax “hook, line, and sinker” that did so much damage to our nation.  However, none of that prevented Brooks from concluding the discussion that perhaps it was time for the Republican Party to decide that Trump should not run again.

The CNN conversation between Blitzer, Woodward, and Bernstein was even more amusing.  Blitzer, one recalls, is always eager to do his bit for the Democrat Party cause.  Woodward is famous for taking down Republican President Richard Nixon and Bernstein is distinguished, first by the fact that his parents were communists and second by the fact that he was standing next to Woodward when Woodward took down Nixon. Further, Bernstein was particularly zealous in pushing the fake Trump-Russian collusion hoax.

Blitzer begins by asking Russia-hoaxer Bernstein “[D]id we learn today” from the Hutchinson testimony “how much worse [Trump’s insurrection] was than Watergate”?  This trick is described in critical reasoning texts as a fallacy of complex questions. That is, Blitzer’s question assumes that “the [alleged] insurrection” was “worse than Watergate” and asks only how much worse it was.

Bernstein had his lines at the ready and, relying heavily on his own crystal ball, presumably not the one he consulted on the fake Russia hoax, reminded everyone that he has been reporting for many years that many people have stated that Trump is mentally unstable, all hearsay by a transparent partisan that is of no legal significance whatsoever.

Woodward too recited his lines perfectly when he stated that Pelosi’s committee “has written Donald Trump’s political epitaph.”  That is, Woodward uncritically repeated the claim, already denied by secret service agents, that Trump “leaped from the back seat trying to grab the steering wheel.”  Yes of course, and in 2018 Woodward, eager to do his bit for Hillary’s Trump-Russia collusion hoax, stated that “the investigative walls are closing in on Trump”.  At that point Blitzer, equally eager to do his bit for the Democrat cause, brought up the claim, also already denied by secret service agents, that Trump allegedly “tried to choke his secret service agent.”  This is journalism?

The purpose of both the PBS and CNN discussion is that each ended by agreeing with temporary Democrat-media star Liz Cheney that Trump must never be allowed again to run for president and embarrass the vacant self-absorbed “liberal” elitist class that has so much contempt for the American people.

By Richard McDonough

Richard Michael McDonough, American philosophy educator. Achievements include production of original interpretation of Wittgenstein’s logical-metaphysical system, original application Kantian Copernican Revolution to philosophy of language; significant interdisciplinary work logic, linguistics, psychology & philosophy. Member Australasian Debating Federation (honorary life, adjudicator since 1991), Phi Kappa Phi. Richard is a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative.

Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.

Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author’s opinion.

Featured photo courtesy of United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons