The Last Desperate Effort

From The Last Refuge:

Biden is currently “The Chosen One”.  That is to say Biden is the candidate chosen by the global power elite to protect their financial interests.  That is the answer to Johnathan Turley’s question.  That is why the U.S. corporate media, part of the system that protects the interests of the Big Club, will not allow discussion of Biden’s obvious Achilles heel.

The Big Club selected Joe Biden.  They go all-in on any of their selections, and they are going to help him regardless of how stupid they look doing it.  However, if Biden can’t deliver a win (and it looks increasingly like Biden will fail)…. well, the Club will cut him off and replace with another “chosen one”.  That’s why some people believe Hillary Clinton might re-emerge.

It is possible, but unlikely.

The Clintons are tenured club members; they might be able to lobby the members for another effort.  However, it would take an overwhelming amount of DNC Club hubris and confidence to support a Clinton -vs- Trump 2.0. However, there is a more likely argument to be made that Biden’s failure was planned.  Coordinated by members who planned to push the Moonbattery of their useful idiots (their base) to the furthest reaches of left-wing policy; thereby creating a void that none of the current candidates could ever fill. (Read more.)

From the New York Post:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.” This, from a newspaper with a tagline of “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Maybe the better journalistic epitaph is: Democracy dies in bias. How did journalism get here? I’ve never engaged much in media criticism, because it’s almost too obvious. Yes, the mainstream media is liberal and biased. But at least in the past, that bias was largely a function of insularity. Most reporters weren’t even fully aware they were prejudiced politically; everyone they worked and socialized with held the same left-of-center views.

 That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse. This media war is extraordinary, overt and increasingly damaging to the country. (Read more.)

 Are we witnessing a new Stalinism? From The Daily Wire:

For those unfamiliar with the history of Stalin’s demonic rule over the Soviet Union, children were “educated” to believe that loyalty to country was more important than such antiquated, bourgeois concepts as loyalty to family. If a parent harbored ideas that made him or her an “enemy of the state,” children were encouraged and expected to report them to the authorities. This occurred countless times during and after the “Great Purge” of Trotskyites and others during the 1930s....

Democrats set their target in 2016, immediately following the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump: Impeachment. The goal came first and the search for evidence came later. And this is where the comparison to Stalinism is not merely appropriate, but frightening in its precision. From 1936 to 1938, a series of large trials were held in Moscow of senior Communist leaders accused of treason against Stalin’s government. Most of them even confessed to their alleged crimes. Yet in 1937, an American commission led by John Dewey proved that many of the specific charges made during the trials could not have been true.

These were Stalin’s “Show Trials.” The “guilt” of the accused was predetermined, and evidence, whether true, distorted, or fabricated from whole cloth, came later — and only then in service of the predetermined conclusion. During the middle of Mueller’s work, Democrats took control of Congress with a new “squad” of loud leftists demanding they “impeach the mother******.” And time and again they have tried and failed to find a way to justify their predetermined conclusion. When Mueller produced the “nothingburger” that Van Jones of CNN predicted, the calls for impeachment only grew louder.

This is why Democrats now refuse to vote for a formal impeachment inquiry — because doing so would permit Republicans to subpoena witnesses that would bring the full truth to light. As another prominent rabbi once told me in a different context: “When you are searching for the law, you find the law. When you’re searching for a place to hang your hat, you find a nail.” (Read more.)

Can House Democrats arrest people? From The Hill:

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revealed in a new interview that House Democrats have discussed jailing allies of the president who do not comply with congressional subpoenas, an escalation of the House's efforts to force White House compliance with an impeachment inquiry. Tlaib told Deadline Detroit that such an action, known as inherent contempt, would be "uncharted territory" for Congress but added that "serious conversations" about taking the step have occurred within the Democratic caucus.

"There have been actual serious conversations about what the logistics would look like ... if we did have to force someone through a court order to come before the Congressional committee," she said. "This is pretty uncharted territory for many of us and even for Congress.”

Tlaib's comments echoed those of Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who called for the House to do as much in a CNN interview earlier this week. "I think it's time to call in the sergeant-at-arms and march them off to our little jail, which we do happen to have," Garamendi said on Wednesday. "Let them sit there and cool off for a while," he added. In an inherent contempt proceeding, the House or Senate would have its sergeant-at-arms or a deputy of that person take someone into custody. (Read more.)

And it always leads back to Hillary's emails, which is the ultimate cover-up. From Political Insider:

According to a new book, FBI agents claimed the discovery of thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop was an “oh s***” moment, with one admitting there were “ten times” as many as former FBI Director James Comey has admitted to publicly. The book, titled ‘Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law,’ written by James B. Stewart, paints a picture of an agency stunned by the findings. Thousands of additional emails were discovered after investigators found them on devices used by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin. The agents had been probing the former Democrat congressman’s explicit texts with a 15-year-old girl. “The agents called the discovery an ‘oh s***’ moment as they combed through Weiner’s iPhone, iPad and laptop,” Stewart writes.

The shock matched that of Abedin, a top aide to Clinton, who apparently broke down in tears when she realized her husband’s latest sexting scandal had exposed Hillary’s emails to further scrutiny at a crucial point during the 2016 election. Clinton herself wrote in her election biography ‘What Happened,’ that Abedin appeared “stricken” after hearing that they had found the emails. “This man is going to be the death of me!” before “bursting into tears,” Clinton said of Abedin. (Read more.)

More HERE. Share