What’s Going on With Drudge? Rasmussen Claims ‘Matt’s Not There Anymore…Word Is He Sold’

John Hinderaker:

“…That’s what the London Times calls the explosive Labour Party files on anti-Semitism that, having been leaked, have now been reviewed by the newspaper. The rank instances of anti-Semitism exhibited by Labour members of Parliament, and the party’s weak response thereto, are shocking:

The secret files, seen by this paper, reveal the party is still overwhelmed with complaints about anti-Jewish racism that have been left unresolved for months or years. Most have resulted in lenient punishments or no sanctions, according to the documents, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign claims of zero tolerance.
***
In a leaked audio recording from the party’s disciplinary committee in late October, a Labour official complains that more than 130 cases remain outstanding even though the “vast majority” were reported to the party 18 months ago. One unresolved case had been on Labour’s books for more than three years, according to the recording.
***
One Labour member from Nottingham wrote that “Jews represent a viral infection that need to be completely eliminated” and said he wanted the “complete extinction of all Jews”. It took more than 10 months for the party to expel him after his case was first reported in 2018.
***
Another member was allowed to stay in the party after allegedly confronting a veteran councillor at a Labour meeting and shouting that he “licked the bum of Jews for money”.
***
The secret files show half of 100 anti-semitism cases between last summer and this May involved a warning or no action at all. Some members were told to attend “diversity training” although Labour has not set up such a scheme despite promising to do so.

Other members were let off without punishment this year despite posting comments about Holocaust denial and distortion, sharing articles about “a Jewish agenda to obtain the conquest of the gentile world” and saying it was justified to “have a dim view of the Jews”.
***
A Labour member from Birmingham was subject to a complaint after posting on Facebook that the Red Sea was the “ideal destination” to get rid of the Jews “who are a cancer on us all” before adding, “no need for gas chambers anyway gas is so expensive and we need it in England”. It took eight months for him to be expelled from the party after he was suspended by Labour last year.

Another female member based in East Sussex described Sajid Javid, the chancellor, as a “treacherous choc ice” for making comments that were supportive of Israel. She is said to have resigned from the party before a hearing could take place.

Other Labour members’ posts include claims that: “IRA murderers took their cue from Jews”; Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks; and the family of the former Jewish Labour MP Margaret Hodge were “rancid and “all in it together . . . the family of Israel”.

Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that Labour members responsible for anti-Semitism have been “suspended or expelled” from the party, but the leaked files show Corbyn’s assertion to be false.

Why has Labour been so reluctant to deal with widespread, virulent anti-Semitism among its members of Parliament? In part, I suppose, because Jeremy Corbyn shares their prejudice. His hatred of Israel and his tolerance toward Islamic terrorism suggest that conclusion. Beyond that, anti-Semitism is more common on the left than on the right in the U.K., as it is in the U.S. Many Labourites are, evidently, untroubled by anti-Semitism.

Labour leaders are fretting that the release of these documents in the last days of the election campaign will damage their party’s chances, with the Tories already leading by eight to ten points in most polls. Let’s hope they are right. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has released a proposal for sensible post-Brexit immigration reform, fast-tracking skilled immigrants while not allowing permanent residency to unskilled immigrants. Such a plan no doubt commands majority support in the U.K., as it would in the U.S. if plainly put on the table. That, too, should bolster the Conservatives’ chances…”

Original

PAUL MIRENGOFF:

“…In both its news and opinion sections, the Washington Post has been beating the drum for impeaching President Trump. However, two op-eds in today’s paper, both by writers with a strong aversion to Trump, are unimpressed with the case for impeachment. The op-eds are good evidence that the impeachment process isn’t playing out the way Democrats had hoped it would.

Kathleen Parker, a moderate, argues with “disappointment” that the case for impeachment simply isn’t there. David Von Drehle, a liberal, doesn’t take a position on the merits. His concern is with the futility of impeachment proceedings, which he seems to believe will redound to President Trump’s advantage.

Von Drehle is critical of both Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. He complains that Schiff, in his rush to impeach, hasn’t done enough to develop the evidence in favor of this measure. For example, Schiff has been unwilling to use the courts.

Nadler draws fire from Von Drehle for using law professors to try to advance the impeachment ball — a move that he says cannot have changed a single American mind. Von Drehle ridicules, as I did, professor Michael Gerhardt’s claim that “if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.”

Nothing?

This offense that House Democrats can’t be bothered to fully investigate, can’t be troubled to thoroughly document, can’t discipline themselves to coil into a mortal blow — this is the very worst thing any president could conceivably do? No crime will ever be impeachable unless this halfhearted mess is seen through to defeat?

Gerhardt’s statement is the sort of vacuous hyperbole people fall back on to prepare themselves for a wasteful gesture. We must do this thing because really, we have no choice. The sacrifice will be rewarded in the sweet by and by. You either nod along, or you think critically; you can’t do both. And once you’ve accepted the professor’s assertion that Schiff’s committee has fully nailed down the most egregious crime any president could commit, the rest is fated. Like a soldier in the trenches of World War I, you just hope your death is made more glorious by its tragic inevitability.

I disagree with Von Drehle to the extent he thinks that the impeachment proceedings are playing into Trump’s hands. My view has been that impeachment will either have no impact on the election or will have a slightly negative effect on Trump’s prospects.

But after listening to the law professors last week, I can understand why Von Drehle, from his anti-Trump perspective, is worried…”

Original

SHARYL ATTKISSON:

“…My own take is that both parties don’t know exactly what to make of Horowitz. Depending on who’s the target of his scrutiny, one side likes him because, often, he doesn’t entirely let the bad guys off the hook. The other side likes him because, often, he doesn’t go too far or too high up in assigning blame. From a political standpoint, that’s a win-win. People are sort of held accountable — but not too accountable. It’s pretty safe…”

Original

A good summary of the impeachment farce and historical precedents. Worth clicking over.

Victor Davis Hanson:

“…From now on, impeachment can be used against any first-term president with a record of success. It will be used solely as a political strategy by the opposition party that controls the House to weaken a president’s reelection chances. That’s the Democratic Party’s legacy and Democrats will live to rue it…”

Original

“…US President Donald Trump on Friday (Dec 6) called for the World Bank to stop loaning money to China, one day after the institution adopted a lending plan to Beijing over Washington’s objections.

The World Bank on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with US$1 billion (S$1.36 billion) to US$1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025. The plan calls for lending to “gradually decline” from the previous five-year average of US$1.8 billion.

“Why is the World Bank loaning money to China? Can this be possible? China has plenty of money, and if they don’t, they create it. STOP!” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.

“World Bank lending to China has fallen sharply and will continue to reduce as part of our agreement with all our shareholders including the United States,” the World Bank said in an e-mailed statement to Reuters.

“We eliminate lending as countries get richer.”…”

Original

Don Surber:

“…The big news on Friday evening is that Democrat leaders are not pushing House members to vote for impeachment.

Now it could be Nancy has the 218 votes she needs and is allowing some congressmen in tough races next fall to punt.

But I don’t see it. I do not see Democrats being suicidal over President Donald John Trump. Plus Clyburn’s words undercut the Democrats’ self-righteous call to impeach.

Clyburn told CNN, “This is a vote of conscience. I do believe that when it comes to something as divisive as impeachment, we have to leave members up to their own consciences, their own constituents, and what they think is in the best interest of their love for country.

“And so, I think it would be a bit unseemly for us to go out whipping up a vote on something like this. This is too serious, this is too much about preserving this great Republic.”

But if it is “about preserving this great Republic,” then Clyburn is under a moral obligation to press for Democrats to toe the line.

Does he not care enough “about preserving this great Republic” to lobby for impeachment?

Clyburn said, “If we cannot vote to impeach with what we had in testimonies last week and what we’ve seen in news reports this week, then we ought to just modify the Constitution and get rid of impeachment altogether.”

That may not be such a bad idea.

Or at least preserve impeachment for an actual crime.

Conventional wisdom in DC is Democrats will impeach and Republicans will acquit.

But Clyburn does not think it is important enough to twist arms to get it to pass. At best that is a mixed message…”

Original

Karl Rove:

“…There’s growing concern among Democrats that their July 2020 convention in Milwaukee could open without a candidate who receives a majority of the vote on the first ballot. The last time that happened to the Democrats was 1952…

…Going into the Super Tuesday contests on March 3, Mr. Biden would have 61 delegates, Ms. Warren 37, Mr. Sanders 31 and Mr. Buttigieg 26…

…Strange things happen at contested conventions. At the last such Democratic confab in 1952, the nominee was neither the front-runner, Sen. Estes Kefauver, nor Vice President Alben Barkley, ostensibly supported by President Harry S. Truman. Instead, on the third ballot, Democrats nominated Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson II.

Party elders felt that only Stevenson could keep Northern and Southern Democrats united, and had tried unsuccessfully to draft him to run. Only after a platform fight about civil rights; a disastrous meeting between Mr. Barkley and labor leaders; and wrangling over a loyalty oath aimed at Southern Democrats that threatened to fracture the party, as happened in 1948, did Stevenson reluctantly agree to run. Truman then arrived in Chicago and ordered some of the candidates out of the contest and favorite-son delegations to swing to the Illinois governor. The party left largely unified and mostly happy.

It is hard to see any of the Democratic ex-presidents playing Truman’s calming role in 2020. Instead, Democrats could be in for a rocky convention, featuring back-room deals and horse trades that anger and fracture the party…”

Original