Fredo Cuomo thinks you should be 'mad as hell' about Trump acquittal

"You should be mad as hell!" Chris Cuomo barks into a camera, indicting the U.S. Senate for "hiding the facts" from voters by refusing to indulge further the already obviously sham impeachment effort.  Cuomo weaves an "argument" that doesn't compel a conclusion, but instead presupposes the conclusion and hysterically casts that conclusion in one hyperbolic statement after another.  It is a tautology — it is as it is because he says it is.

Cuomo's argument is purely emotional.  Cuomo probably never understood the satire in the character Howard Beale emotionally yelling, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" in the movie Network.  His rant is, nonetheless, emblematic of the House effort, and a fine illustration why the nation should thank the Senate for pulling the plug on the impeachment debacle.  

Cuomo presumes, for example, that each additional piece of "information," "fact," "witness," and document has independent significance and separate meaning.  That is obviously untrue.  No trial, hearing, or inquiry accepts this illusion.  One does not parade one person after another to say the same thing ad nauseam.  After the proposition has been asserted and proved adequately, similar witnesses, documents, etc., are viewed as unnecessarily duplicative.  Mere judicial or legislative economy would demand a better use of time and resources.

But the purpose of the impeachment effort was never factual; it was slanderous.  Slander, unlike factual proof, relies upon stating and restating the slander as often as is possible, ad nauseam, until it is believed by the greatest number of people.  One can conclude easily that Trump asked for an investigation into the Bidens, for example, but might naturally think that request reasonable.  If, however, one is told one million times over and over that the only possible purpose for such a request is to cheat, or is corrupt, one might start to believe it, notwithstanding that there is no way to prove conclusively any single subjective intent.  

Never mind, too, that our presumption of innocence would naturally forgive any legal act deemed corrupt only because of evil intent if there were other innocent intentions for the act.  Mueller cited this as a challenge in charging Trump with obstruction of justice on the charge of Russia collusion.  Trump's protestations of and demands for acknowledgment of his innocence, as well as other motives, such as protection of the office of the president, are non-obstructive intentions and could explain the same otherwise non-criminal acts.  Mendacious Jerrold Nadler attempted to explain away this obvious fallacy in the House case by saying "good motive" doesn't excuse a crime like bribery.  But there was no "crime" underlying the House's case — only the allegation of corruption and evil intent.  Trump abused his power only because his intention was for his personal benefit, according to House managers who stated the presumption again and again, ad nauseam.  

The Left ascribes no value whatsoever to objective meaning anyway, so making an argument regarding information to find meaning is utterly hypocritical.  To the Left, objective meaning is just another form of force or violence, since it compels people to accept patriarchal and culturally biased values.  The Left wants to destroy and dismantle objective meaning until only subjective meaning is deemed valuable.  This is why the Left argues over pronouns. 

In the House managers' world, where every fact, transaction, occurrence, or event means the same thing, what is the utility or value of more?  After days of impeachment testimony and argument, the average person is left wondering: if an investigation reveals nothing wrong in Biden's actions and exonerates him from wrongdoing, how is the request "wrong"?  More, how did it further the accuser's campaign?  If the investigation revealed that Biden is a crook how is the request unlawful?  More information, more emotional outbursts, would not likely answer the questions for the average voter.

The purpose of the impeachment effort by the House was political.  It was, and is, an emotional outburst born of anger, hatred, and a feeling of powerlessness.  These are the same emotions that caused a pathetic and helpless, albeit sympathetic, Beale to declare, "I'm as mad as hell."  Cuomo would have his viewers behave accordingly.  After all, in the movie, hapless, unthinking, frustrated viewers could be galvanized by emotional propaganda and then spurred to action, even if useless and destructive.  In the satire, people were mindless sheep.  Most Americans understand that Cuomo and many in the media actually see them as only mindless sheep. 

Americans are not ignorant.  They are not so easily manipulated.  Cuomo underscores for the vast majority of rational ordinary citizens why it is long past time to turn off the Schiff Show.

"You should be mad as hell!" Chris Cuomo barks into a camera, indicting the U.S. Senate for "hiding the facts" from voters by refusing to indulge further the already obviously sham impeachment effort.  Cuomo weaves an "argument" that doesn't compel a conclusion, but instead presupposes the conclusion and hysterically casts that conclusion in one hyperbolic statement after another.  It is a tautology — it is as it is because he says it is.

Cuomo's argument is purely emotional.  Cuomo probably never understood the satire in the character Howard Beale emotionally yelling, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" in the movie Network.  His rant is, nonetheless, emblematic of the House effort, and a fine illustration why the nation should thank the Senate for pulling the plug on the impeachment debacle.  

Cuomo presumes, for example, that each additional piece of "information," "fact," "witness," and document has independent significance and separate meaning.  That is obviously untrue.  No trial, hearing, or inquiry accepts this illusion.  One does not parade one person after another to say the same thing ad nauseam.  After the proposition has been asserted and proved adequately, similar witnesses, documents, etc., are viewed as unnecessarily duplicative.  Mere judicial or legislative economy would demand a better use of time and resources.

But the purpose of the impeachment effort was never factual; it was slanderous.  Slander, unlike factual proof, relies upon stating and restating the slander as often as is possible, ad nauseam, until it is believed by the greatest number of people.  One can conclude easily that Trump asked for an investigation into the Bidens, for example, but might naturally think that request reasonable.  If, however, one is told one million times over and over that the only possible purpose for such a request is to cheat, or is corrupt, one might start to believe it, notwithstanding that there is no way to prove conclusively any single subjective intent.  

Never mind, too, that our presumption of innocence would naturally forgive any legal act deemed corrupt only because of evil intent if there were other innocent intentions for the act.  Mueller cited this as a challenge in charging Trump with obstruction of justice on the charge of Russia collusion.  Trump's protestations of and demands for acknowledgment of his innocence, as well as other motives, such as protection of the office of the president, are non-obstructive intentions and could explain the same otherwise non-criminal acts.  Mendacious Jerrold Nadler attempted to explain away this obvious fallacy in the House case by saying "good motive" doesn't excuse a crime like bribery.  But there was no "crime" underlying the House's case — only the allegation of corruption and evil intent.  Trump abused his power only because his intention was for his personal benefit, according to House managers who stated the presumption again and again, ad nauseam.  

The Left ascribes no value whatsoever to objective meaning anyway, so making an argument regarding information to find meaning is utterly hypocritical.  To the Left, objective meaning is just another form of force or violence, since it compels people to accept patriarchal and culturally biased values.  The Left wants to destroy and dismantle objective meaning until only subjective meaning is deemed valuable.  This is why the Left argues over pronouns. 

In the House managers' world, where every fact, transaction, occurrence, or event means the same thing, what is the utility or value of more?  After days of impeachment testimony and argument, the average person is left wondering: if an investigation reveals nothing wrong in Biden's actions and exonerates him from wrongdoing, how is the request "wrong"?  More, how did it further the accuser's campaign?  If the investigation revealed that Biden is a crook how is the request unlawful?  More information, more emotional outbursts, would not likely answer the questions for the average voter.

The purpose of the impeachment effort by the House was political.  It was, and is, an emotional outburst born of anger, hatred, and a feeling of powerlessness.  These are the same emotions that caused a pathetic and helpless, albeit sympathetic, Beale to declare, "I'm as mad as hell."  Cuomo would have his viewers behave accordingly.  After all, in the movie, hapless, unthinking, frustrated viewers could be galvanized by emotional propaganda and then spurred to action, even if useless and destructive.  In the satire, people were mindless sheep.  Most Americans understand that Cuomo and many in the media actually see them as only mindless sheep. 

Americans are not ignorant.  They are not so easily manipulated.  Cuomo underscores for the vast majority of rational ordinary citizens why it is long past time to turn off the Schiff Show.