With the collapse of the Clinton/Clapper/Brennan ‘Russian Interference’ in the 2016 Election, almost receding into the back ground? except for die-hard New Democrats and their Corporate Media allies. ‘CrowdStrike’ was the only organized investigative agency to examine the Clinton servers and e mails, the FBI deferred to its report: when has the FBI ever ceded its investigative prerogative?
The watershed of the Mueller Report,and its star witness, who seemed to be disconnected from the investigation he headed , in his appearance before the House, was utterly, even completely unimpressive. Both Mueller and Comey appeared as near comic figures, in this exercise in political theater: Schiff’s status as dramaturge/ringmaster was not yet in doubt or a state of collapse, the Impeachment in the Senate, would offer that opportunity.
But the undaunted New Democrats, under the leadership of the Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler troika, launched an Impeachment inquiry, with two weeks of ‘secret hearings’ which enabled Rep Schiff to cobble together his narrative of Trump’s political crimes, and its cast of characters : that passed in the New Democratically controlled House, that after Pelosi’s flat-footed machinations, was referred to the Republican controlled Senate.
The only Republican to vote to convict Trump was Sen Mitt Romney!
The above just the political background to this Financial Times editorial:
Headline: An unchained Donald Trump poses a threat to the US republic
Sub-headline: The Senate has given its judgment, now it is the turn of the American people
Roula Khalaf and the others editors at The Financial Times proclaim that Trump is not a political gentleman. But the political intent of these ‘Editors’ is presented here:
It is hard to overstate the danger a re-elected Mr Trump would pose to America’s system of checks and balances. Most pressing is what he could do in the eight months before the election to influence the outcome. This week showed there are no penalties for doing so. As a divided Democratic field heads to its first primary in New Hampshire, candidates should keep this top of mind.
Whatever their differences, which are in some respects deeply ideological, the priority should be to preserve the US constitutional order. They must nominate a strong and credible rival to Mr Trump. This week Mr Romney displayed principle and courage. History will celebrate those who follow his example.
The above might just be a not so covert restatement of Mr Caville’s recent polemic in these pages?
Carville is a New Democrat, and as such, presents Sanders as clear and present danger to ‘Centrist candidates’, who in his opinion are the only real chance of the New Democrats to wrest the Presidency from Trump. ‘Centrist candidates’ is the term of art for Neo-Liberal conformists, who tow the Party Line of the Clinton/Obama Coterie.
The very notion that Vulture Capitalist and political opportunist Mitt Romney represents ‘principle and courage’, instead of unslakable presidential ambition, clearly demonstrates that both the Financial Times editorial board, the Republicans and New Democrats are representative of the bankruptcy of the whole of the American singularity of the Property Party, and its two wings.