For NeverTrumps, good news for America is bad news

With each report of good economic news, the public should expect that the establishment will grow ever more frantic in its rabid zeal to end the Trump presidency.

On the front page of The New York Times, January 5 – but below the fold – the headline reported: "The Dow Hits 25,000: The Party Will End One Day, but When?"  The January 5 Times lead story ignored the booming stock market to focus on whether Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III can bring an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

That January 5 Times front page, in column two, carried another economy-related story, informing readers that the Trump administration "would allow new offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters[.]"  The Times article pointed out that the president's action lifted "a ban on such drilling imposed by President Barack Obama near the end of his term and would deal a serious blow to his environmental legacy.

Meanwhile, money.cnn.com reported, January 5, that the economy added some two million jobs in 2017, which, it might be noted, reversed the serious blows hammered at the economy during the eight long Obama years.

The greater the successes of President Trump, the more intense the opposition.  After all, Bret Stephens, in his year-ending Times column, December 30, "Why I'm Still a Never Trumper," set forth a series of actions taken by the Trump administration that Stephens backs, including the appointment of Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, success against ISIS, and condemnation of "Title IX kangaroo courts on campus."  Yet Stephens still wishes, bizarrely, that "Hillary Clinton were president."

It is, clearly, quite reasonable to acknowledge the unreasonableness of the Trump-haters: if he succeeds in making America great again, they will be prodded all the more to protect their standing and seek his ouster.

And so, the past week, The New York Times has changed its position on the allegation of Trump-Russian collusion, claiming, now, that the FBI looked into the issue not because of material in a dossier accumulated by one Christopher Steele, with the focus on someone named Carter Page, but because of a bibulous chat between an Australian diplomat and a foreign policy wannabe named George Papadopoulos, who worked on the Trump campaign.  The sleight of hand at the Times was bolstered in an op-ed, January 3, by Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, of Fusion GPS, which, per Simpson and Fritsch, "hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert."  And Simpson and Fritsch now claim they "don't believe [that] the Steele dossier was the trigger for the [FBI's] investigation into Russian meddling."  

Simpson and Fritsch also claim in their op-ed not to have spoken to the FBI about the Steele dossier – again behold the careful use of language, as their disclaimer does not extend to the Justice Department.  And so the Simpson-Fritsch op-ed does not mention that Nellie Ohr, wife of  Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice official, worked at Fusion GPS during the 2016 election campaign.

But was the dossier the trigger for something else – the surveillance of people on the Trump campaign?   The anti-Trump forces are so careful with language – scoffing, for example, last March at Trump assertions that his phones at Trump Tower in New York City  had been wiretapped.  Also, we are apparently to ignore this report, on the Times front page, January 20, 2017 – Trump's inauguration day:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-[E]lect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The headline on this story read: "WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES."  This story went on to indicate that Obama officials were leaking information on their suspicions about Trump-Russian ties "because they feared [that] the new administration would obstruct their efforts."

One year later, the anti-Trump forces seem to be confident that President Trump will not put an end to the collusion witch hunt, lest he frighten shaky Republicans into agreeing to hold impeachment hearings.  And one might with reason wonder if the decision was made to staff the special counsel team with Democrat donors to provoke the president into dismissing Mueller for obvious bias, thus paving the way for impeachment demands.  (Imagine how the left would thunder if a Hillary Clinton investigation involved donors to conservatives causes.)

What would be the impeachment charge?  Does it matter?  Basically, wouldn't it come down to this: Donald J. Trump is president of the United States against our wishes?  After all, this was the headline on a Peter Wehner Times op-ed, "President Trump?  Just Say No."  The date: July 8, 2015.

Wehner ended that column – he remains staunchly anti-Trump – with these words:

Mr. Trump is a pernicious figure on the American political landscape. He can't be wished away.  Which means the people who have to confront and expose him are conservatives. We're the ones who have the most to lose from a successful Trump candidacy.

To this one would add: and the American people have the most to gain from a successful Trump presidency.

With each report of good economic news, the public should expect that the establishment will grow ever more frantic in its rabid zeal to end the Trump presidency.

On the front page of The New York Times, January 5 – but below the fold – the headline reported: "The Dow Hits 25,000: The Party Will End One Day, but When?"  The January 5 Times lead story ignored the booming stock market to focus on whether Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III can bring an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

That January 5 Times front page, in column two, carried another economy-related story, informing readers that the Trump administration "would allow new offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters[.]"  The Times article pointed out that the president's action lifted "a ban on such drilling imposed by President Barack Obama near the end of his term and would deal a serious blow to his environmental legacy.

Meanwhile, money.cnn.com reported, January 5, that the economy added some two million jobs in 2017, which, it might be noted, reversed the serious blows hammered at the economy during the eight long Obama years.

The greater the successes of President Trump, the more intense the opposition.  After all, Bret Stephens, in his year-ending Times column, December 30, "Why I'm Still a Never Trumper," set forth a series of actions taken by the Trump administration that Stephens backs, including the appointment of Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, success against ISIS, and condemnation of "Title IX kangaroo courts on campus."  Yet Stephens still wishes, bizarrely, that "Hillary Clinton were president."

It is, clearly, quite reasonable to acknowledge the unreasonableness of the Trump-haters: if he succeeds in making America great again, they will be prodded all the more to protect their standing and seek his ouster.

And so, the past week, The New York Times has changed its position on the allegation of Trump-Russian collusion, claiming, now, that the FBI looked into the issue not because of material in a dossier accumulated by one Christopher Steele, with the focus on someone named Carter Page, but because of a bibulous chat between an Australian diplomat and a foreign policy wannabe named George Papadopoulos, who worked on the Trump campaign.  The sleight of hand at the Times was bolstered in an op-ed, January 3, by Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, of Fusion GPS, which, per Simpson and Fritsch, "hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert."  And Simpson and Fritsch now claim they "don't believe [that] the Steele dossier was the trigger for the [FBI's] investigation into Russian meddling."  

Simpson and Fritsch also claim in their op-ed not to have spoken to the FBI about the Steele dossier – again behold the careful use of language, as their disclaimer does not extend to the Justice Department.  And so the Simpson-Fritsch op-ed does not mention that Nellie Ohr, wife of  Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice official, worked at Fusion GPS during the 2016 election campaign.

But was the dossier the trigger for something else – the surveillance of people on the Trump campaign?   The anti-Trump forces are so careful with language – scoffing, for example, last March at Trump assertions that his phones at Trump Tower in New York City  had been wiretapped.  Also, we are apparently to ignore this report, on the Times front page, January 20, 2017 – Trump's inauguration day:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-[E]lect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The headline on this story read: "WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES."  This story went on to indicate that Obama officials were leaking information on their suspicions about Trump-Russian ties "because they feared [that] the new administration would obstruct their efforts."

One year later, the anti-Trump forces seem to be confident that President Trump will not put an end to the collusion witch hunt, lest he frighten shaky Republicans into agreeing to hold impeachment hearings.  And one might with reason wonder if the decision was made to staff the special counsel team with Democrat donors to provoke the president into dismissing Mueller for obvious bias, thus paving the way for impeachment demands.  (Imagine how the left would thunder if a Hillary Clinton investigation involved donors to conservatives causes.)

What would be the impeachment charge?  Does it matter?  Basically, wouldn't it come down to this: Donald J. Trump is president of the United States against our wishes?  After all, this was the headline on a Peter Wehner Times op-ed, "President Trump?  Just Say No."  The date: July 8, 2015.

Wehner ended that column – he remains staunchly anti-Trump – with these words:

Mr. Trump is a pernicious figure on the American political landscape. He can't be wished away.  Which means the people who have to confront and expose him are conservatives. We're the ones who have the most to lose from a successful Trump candidacy.

To this one would add: and the American people have the most to gain from a successful Trump presidency.