NYT goes Wile E. Coyote again

In 28 days, President Trump returns to office.

Impeachment. Lawfare. Even assassination. The establishment failed time and time again to thwart the return of the Lion of Mar-a-Lago.

They learned little. Like Wile E. Coyote, Democrats are on the phone with Acme placing another order for iron bird seed. Or anvils. Or boycott his inauguration.

Or “Putting Up Roadblocks to Trump’s Deportation Campaign,” as the New York Times called the mostly peaceful transition.

Ah yes, stop deportation, Democrats. Open borders cost Democrats the Hispanic vote and reduced the black vote. It is ironic to want to roadblock deportations but oppose roadblocks to keep the invaders out.

But the New York Times still thinks it is 2016 and Kamala is Hillary. It was the only major paper to endorse Kamala. Did she pay NYT the million bucks she paid Oprah to endorse her? Probably not. The paper that did not return its Pulitzer for Russiagate puts on airs about ethics.

NYT’s panel of legal experts are going all in on the Supreme Court, a body controlled by 6 conservatives—3 appointed by Trump, to save our bureaucracy.

OK, maybe Chief Justice John Roberts is a bit light in the loafers on conservatism, but he did vote correctly on Dobbs and let us face it, he has to deal with KJB. I am not saying she is a diva but she did complete a one-night stand on Broadway.

David “The Conservative Case for Communism” French said, “I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, but as Jack said, a broader view of the current court’s jurisprudence shows that it’s hardly a rubber stamp for Trump and MAGA legal arguments.

“For example, in addition to the cases Jack mentioned, it turned back several of Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, rejected Republican arguments about the Voting Rights Act and rejected the core of the Trumpist independent state legislature doctrine. It will be a more robust check on Trump than the G.O.P. Congress, and it’s not close.”

The call to have the Supreme Court save them was comical. Help me, Obi-Wan-Clarence. You’re my only hope.

Jack is Jack Goldsmith, an Ivy League law professor who was included in the discussion.

French, who is too Never Trump for National Review, was unintentionally hilarious, saying, “There are abundant legal guardrails that protect political opponents from actual incarceration, but few guardrails protecting them from ruinous investigations.”

Oh? That’s news to 1,200 J6 protesters.

French earlier cheered when NYC’s kangaroo courts convicted Trump, saying, “MAGA will redouble its support for Trump, of course, and some disconnected voters may well believe that the prosecution was political, but Trump is now a felon, and that will matter. Don’t expect anything like a dam break in public opinion that washes Trump away, but this will erode his support, and in a close election every bit of erosion matters.”

You cannot expect the public to buy the fallacy that this prosecution was apolitical and then hope the conviction will ruin Trump’s chances of re-election, but no one ever accused the news media of being smart. Or savvy. The news media did not lose its credibility. It threw it away.

French also fanned fears of retribution.

He said, “The targeting of political opponents is most likely to occur in special counsel investigations and the like. Politically, they’re more palatable (Trump can tell the American people that he’s merely trying to find out the facts). I fully expect a Trump Justice Department to retaliate.”

Even Goldsmith couldn’t stomach that.

He said, “This is part of a broader and awful back-and-forth investigation scheme going back to the Obama era Russia investigation of the Trump campaign, the subsequent Mueller investigation, the Bill Barr-John Durham investigation of the investigation of Trump, the Biden Justice Department investigations of Trump, numerous inspector general investigations of past actions that often were damning, and now Trump’s threatened investigations of his enemies.

“I am not equivocating here—some of these moves were more justified than others. But the overall effect is a disaster for the Justice Department and the rule of law.”

He’s right.

The next Democrat president can end this vicious cycle under the Rule of You Break It, You Bought It in most china shops.

The New York Times is out of touch with the times. In 2016, the left’s anger over Hillary losing fueled efforts to stop Trump like Democrats were the French resistance taking on Hitler. This time, no one over 25 cried when Kamala lost because she sucks.

Oh, not in a way that pleased Willie Brown. No, she is incompetent, not good on the eyes and cannot talk. FJB—never known for eloquence—is about to reach the late stages of dementia, but he is more articulate than she.

Democrats are coming around, voting to accept Trump’s continuing resolution. They know he was a good president who put the nation first. Maybe the party has not lost its last drop of patriotism.

Oh, you still have your dead-enders like the fellow who bang banged Fang Fang.

Eric Swalwell, D-Red China, wrote, “It will take a courageous Congress to stop Donald Trump’s most corrupt instincts.

“Trump is not letting those instincts go. The presidential election cycle wasn’t just about re-election: It was about avoiding justice and more importantly, for him, punishing those who oppose him. Many times this year he has threatened his perceived opponents, the press and even members of his own political party. Anyone who stands in his way is vulnerable. We should also assume that, since he was last president, he’s honed his ability to lash out against his opponents.”

Republicans never ask Democrats to reject a Democrat president.

Others also have not left the world of 8 years ago. Norman Ornstein wrote a month ago in U.S. News & World Report, “How to Stop Trump Before He Starts.

“There are tools President Biden and Senate Democrats can use in the next two months to limit Trump’s damage.”

They tried to do this with the continuing resolution and failed.

The public welcomes a second Trump presidency after four years of inflation, Afghanistan, illegal immigration and unpunished violent crime.

Emerson College Polling said Trump’s favorability is now 6 points higher than his unfavorability. Rasmussen said it is 7.

Grandma said time heals all wounds and wounds all heels.

At the New York Times, the wounds are all self-inflicted. They are going back for more.

* * *

File this tweet by Cynical Publius under “Things To Read When I Am Down.”

To all you Doomsters convinced that rolling back the Neo-Marxist Democrat agenda is impossible, I want to offer you two words of encouragement:

Gun rights.

In the 1990s, the Second Amendment was on its deathbed. So-called “assault weapons” were banned, concealed carry permits were increasingly rare for ordinary citizens, “high capacity” magazines were the next target of the gun grabbers, Waco was legitimized as a necessary limit on unlawful gun ownership, and a national sensibility that only lunatics owned guns was taking hold.

We were well on the path to becoming Australia.

But a sophisticated, multi-level strategy by real conservatives, at the federal and state levels, in the courts and in Congress and in the statehouses, transformed all of that.

Heller.

McDonald.

Bruen.

The AR-15, once banned, is now the most prolific firearm in the USA.

More than half of the states have constitutional carry laws.

Gun culture and the availability of reliable, accurate, reasonably-priced firearms have never been greater.

Women in the USA see their gun as the great equalizer against rapists and criminals.

Concealed carry classes are legion.

We may soon have reciprocal carry rights in all 50 states.

Where we stand in 2024 with respect to gun rights was INCONCEIVABLE in 1994. But here we are. We won, and we keep winning. Conservative ideas and policies CAN WIN. We CAN DEFEAT the tyranny of the Left. Gun rights show us the path.

So Doomsters, think about this, and realize the MAGA agenda is attainable, and will be attained soon. Be of good cheer.

Tranny surgery for kids is next to go.

Pessimism is easy. It’s atheistic. Optimism requires faith in God.

Comments are open to everyone today only.