The Democrats Are Apparently Determined To Be The Asshole Party, And They Should Be Called On It

The questions by Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez  during Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s hearing today mark him as far worse than a mere Ethics Dunce. It even exceeds the outrageous disrespect of President Obama displayed by GOP Congressman Joe Wilson when he shouted out “You Lie!” during a State of the Union address. Guiterrez—who opposes the rule of law and advocates open borders, just to put his principles and priorities in context— has been emboldened by the divisive and destructive abuse of the President by Reps. John Lewis, Maxine Waters and Frederica Wilson, among others (including Hillary Clinton), and more recently by the irresponsible and dishonest demand by Senator Gillibrand that the President resign for unproven, non-criminal conduct that took place, if at all, long before he was elected President, and that voters ratified by virtue of electing him.

Mostly, however, Guiterrez was moved to disgrace his office and the House of Representatives because he is an asshole—there’s no other word for it—who knows that his party will not discipline him, as it should,  for this most disgusting display of unprofessional conduct and hate-mongering.

“I’d like to ask you about sexual assault by the President of the United States of America,” Gutierrez asked.  This is itself a misrepresentation: there are no allegations of any sexual assault by a President of the United States, and non-government-related conduct real or alleged by a President before he became President is none of Congress’s business. But this Congressman talked at length about the President’s accusers from the 2016 campaign, and their renewed vigor as they try to exploit the post-Harvey Weinstein witch hunt.  Freed of the traditional limits of basic decency and decorum that Congress has always previously required of members when they discuss the Chief Executive, Gutierrez repeated graphic details from some of the accounts, which to him are nothing more than rumors he chooses to exploit. He has no idea whether they are true, accurate, or tactical partisan lies. Yet he repeated them as fact, to embarrass and insult the President of the United States.

This has been the plot, and it is a plot, from the start, as the Democratic Party has, from the moment of Trump’s election, worked to strip him of the vital inheritance his high office has always conferred on its successive occupants,  a basic level of respect, honor and deference without which effective leadership is all but impossible. Both parties observed these conventions because they knew that the government cannot function properly without them. Never mind. Democrats are angry that they blew the election, and are willing to court chaos to extract their revenge.

Non-criminal allegations, such as sexual harassment or “groping,” that involve conduct prior to a President’s election and that the existence of which was fully known by the electorate prior to an election cannot be “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  No President has ever been the subject of investigations into his life and career before entering politics. (The Whitewater investigation involved an ongoing legal matter involving the Clintons and evidence of criminal fraud.)

Yet Gutierrez asked Rosenstein whether he thinks there are “grounds for a criminal investigation or an ethics investigation against the President.”

It cannot be over-stated just how vicious, unfair and irresponsible this kind of behavior is. Such a gratuitous and unjustified assault not only diminishes the President, but the power and prestige of his office, probably permanently. We have seen this before: one party’s scorched earth defilement of crucial institutional protections for short-term or elusive partisan gain is later taken up, repeated and escalated as a matter of retribution by the other party as soon as it is out of power, and the institution is permanently weakened. Meanwhile, the public’s trust continues to erode.

We have had a year of this, and it is getting worse, which means that our democracy is further imperiled as each month goes by. If Democratic leadership allows—encourages— their elected officials to behave this way, when the Democrats finally do regain power, they may have a nation so poisoned by their own hand that it cannot recover. It now appears that blacks, women and Hispanics in the Democratic Party have been given full license to be assholes, as long as the ultimate target is President Trump.

This is disastrous for everyone, and the irresponsible fools, still in the throes of a loser’s tantrum, are incapable of seeing it.

Help.

68 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Leadership

68 responses to “The Democrats Are Apparently Determined To Be The Asshole Party, And They Should Be Called On It

  1. There are stronger grounds for a criminal investigation into collusion between the Democratic Party and the network broadcast and print media.

  2. Chris

    “I’d like to ask you about sexual assault by the President of the United States of America,” Gutierrez asked. This is itself a misrepresentation: there are no allegations of any sexual assault by a President of the United States, and non-government-related conduct real or alleged by a President before he became President is none of Congress’s business.

    … Yet he repeated them as fact, to embarrass and insult the President of the United States…

    …Non-criminal allegations, such as sexual harassment or “groping,” that involve conduct prior to a President’s election and that the existence of which was fully known by the electorate prior to an election cannot be “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Literally all of this is wrong.

    1) “The President of the United States” is Donald Trump. It is not a “misrepresentation” to ask about sexual assault by Donald Trump. No one thinks he’s asking if the office of the presidency assaulted someone. This is pure pedantry on your part.

    2) It is absolutely Congress’ business, as well as the public’s business, whether the leader of our nation has committed sexual assault.

    3) Groping is sexual assault.

    4) Nowhere did Gutierrez repeat these allegations as fact. I just listened to the speech, and while Gutierrez said he believed the women, and explained why, he did not state their allegations as fact.

    5) You don’t know for a fact what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are. No one does. The question has never been litigated.

    6) I’d rather Trump resign than be impeached, like many other accused sexual harassers have done from much less important positions because public pressure made them and the people around them realize that it was now impossible for them to do their jobs effectively. The idea that such allegations make movie producers and television hosts unfit to perform their duties, but not the leader of our the free world, is insane.

    • You don’t know for a fact what if any evidence there is that would support your contentions…you can’t self incriminate, he said, she said, won’t work on allegations…what is the crime? What proof do YOU have? Bring out your witnesses AND your proof…BTW… we still have a blue dress…:)

    • Wrong. And your comment is disgraceful in its willful dishonesty.

      1. A act by a student is not an act by a graduate. Andrew Jackson fought duels, but the President of the US did not. Misconduct by a Prince is not the act of a King. A woman”s sexual relationship while unmarried is not an affair by a wife. Etc.

      2. I repeat: the actions of a President before he became President have never been and are not legitimate concerns of Congress. It is an asshole contention, and backing it makes you an asshole. this has never been done. You are making this up. It is ultravires.

      3.I know for fact that high crimes and misdemeanors apply only to acts committed iin office, unless it was a serious crime, undiscovered, and within the statute of limitations. This is settled Constitutional law.

      4. Tell me, Chris, what is the sentence for groping? It is not a crime; it isn’t even a recognized civil offense outside of the workplace. Nor is old alleged sexual harassment provable. There are no crimes alleged at all. No adult is eer charged with trying to kiss another adult, putting a hand on a butt or a knee, none of that, unless it amounts to an attack, there is evidence, and there are witnesses. For a sexual advance to be an assault in criminal terms, there must be intent to commit assault, meaning that the assaulter knows that it will be unwelcome and unconsented. There must be actual, physical harm. There must be fear, or threats.

      Civil assault is simply unwanted and unconsented touching, with the touchee being in anticipation of being touched. It’s not a crime, and without actual harm there are no damages. A non-crime cannot be a high crime.

      Your argument is what is technically called “crap.” Your party wants to criminalize being Donald Trump, and that’s all it is.

      • Chris

        1. If a man’s wife murdered someone before they were married, and someone asked “I’d like to ask about murder by your wife,” the man’s response would not be “Dishonest question! She wasn’t my wife then!” He’d know who the questioner was asking about, and would not see any implication that she was his wife at the time. You’re being pedantic.

        3. In what case was this settled?

        • Settled, in that no legal scholars have ever contended that any act a President committed or was alleged to commit at any time in his life is valid justification under the Constitution. No elected official, ever, in all of history, has been impeached except for acts while in office. Judges, cabinet members, Congressmen, Presidents. Never. That’s because the theory is bats. You throw someone out of a job for what they did outside of the job.

          Again: if why shouldn’t Alcee Hastings be impeached as a Rep. for taking a bribe while a judge, which already got him impeached? It was a crime. He was found guilty. The same impeachment clause in the Constitution applies to him. So why has nobody made that claim? Because it’s ridiculous, and he’s not Donald Trump. That’s all.

          • Chris

            You throw someone out of a job for what they did outside of the job

            How does that comport with the Naked Teacher Principle?

            I’ll say this much: I was a child during the Clinton administration, and have looked on him with rose-colored glasses for most of my adulthood. You have convinced me that the man was very likely, if not certainly, a sexual predator. I think if he were president now, and faced the same allegations now as he did then, I’d believe that he should step down.

            Should he have been impeached for these allegations, rather than the lying under oath? No; at least, not without an investigation. If any of those allegations were proven, should he have been impeached over them? Maybe.

            Should we have a known or strongly suspected sexual predator as president?

            No. Of course not.

            • Teachers aren’t Presidents. See, the key feature there is children and teaching. Sexualization actively interferes with the job. And the NTP doesn’t say they have to be fired, just that they can’t complain if they are. Yes—if Trump had photos of himself online showing him engaging in “golden showers” I’d call for his resignation.

          • members of Congress can not be impeached.

            What Donald Trump is alleged to have done would be torts, and those are resolved by lawsuits.

      • Oh—the Congressman is just aping Gillibrand and the fem Senators lynch mob. If a woman claims it, it’s true. (You know, like Wanetta Gibson) That’s literally what Gillibrand said. They alleged it, I believe them, the President should resign, which means she represents their claim as fact.

        I assume this is the party line, but you’re right: Gutierrez didn’t quite go that far.

      • valkygrrl

        Misconduct by a Prince is not the act of a King.

        Kings are princes.

        Misconduct by a prince might very well be the act of a King, or a Ruling Queen, or Duke, Doge, Emir, Prince-bishop, Hereditary Elector, Khan, Kaiser…

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          Heeeeeeeeeere we are, born to be kings! We’re the princes of the universe…

          • valkygrrl

            You have no idea how many times I listened to that Queen album in highschool.

            • dragin_dragon

              You need to watch the series Hollow Crown. Hiddleston as Henry V</I. does an excellent job of pointing out the difference between King and Prince.

              • valkygrrl

                All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.

                Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.

                The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.

                Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

                –Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince published posthumously in 1532

                • Oh, crap, you were serious when you nitpicked the word “prince”… I thought you were being intentionally obvious for a few laughs…

                  I was going to question you and say “You knew entirely well what Jack meant by Prince in that context, don’t be pedantic”. I held up.

                  But now I see it was necessary:

                  You knew entirely well what Jack meant by Prince in that context.
                  Don’t be pedantic.

      • I forgot the worst part: #6. Do you really not get the “misconduct in office” vs out of office distinction? Or the “known to voters” feature? You really think every elected official should resign for any misconduct alleged and unproven that occurred at any time in their lives, unrelated to their current position?

        You just want the President out, that’s all. You should have the honesty to admit it, rather than making up tortured justifications that make no sense.

        • “You just want the President out, that’s all. You should have the honesty to admit it, rather than making up totured justifications that make no sense.”

          Because the Left wants him gone for political reasons, but they know there’re still enough Americans that won’t stomach that level of crap, so they have to manufacture and desperately search for a Constitutional and Legal means to oust him. And since they can’t find that, they must force everything they can to look like a Constitutional means.

          See, if the Left admits this is really about political warfare, the only logical conclusion is that they also do not respect the Constitutional system or the Republic.

          But they do not want to admit that and let the cat out of the bag (even though they’ve pretty much let the cat halfway out).

        • AND the right is done with being the patsies for this sort of conduct. In our great new America, both sides have forsworn ethics and morals in order to win.

          The Democrats WILL regret this tactic.

          • Rich in CT

            I hope both side realize that Russia, China, Syria, ISIS, North Korea, etc, will pour millions into ads for both side next election. Anti-Democratic forces must be smirking with glee that the US can so thoroughly tear itself apart over the flimsiest of collusion-cover stories…..

          • Ultimately, it was a significant proportion of the electorate that paved the way for this.

            There have always been those among the political class who eschew morals and ethics.

            Only voters could ratify their conduct.

      • Tell me, Chris, what is the sentence for groping? It is not a crime; it isn’t even a recognized civil offense outside of the workplace. Nor is old alleged sexual harassment provable. There are no crimes alleged at all. No adult is eer charged with trying to kiss another adult, putting a hand on a butt or a knee, none of that, unless it amounts to an attack, there is evidence, and there are witnesses. For a sexual advance to be an assault in criminal terms, there must be intent to commit assault, meaning that the assaulter knows that it will be unwelcome and unconsented. There must be actual, physical harm. There must be fear, or threats.
        Groping without consent constitutes the tort of battery.

        of course, if Donald Trump is merely accused of a tort, the proper forum to resolve these claims is a court.

  3. Political prognosticators have been calling this for months. Democrats have been following this predictable script. I remember someone mentioning that as soon as Franken promises to resign, then the non-election of Moore proves the damage potential of sexual misconduct accusations, they would ramp up their assault on Trump via that angle.

    And here we are.

    None of this has to do with law, order, justice, due process or governance.

    This is Civil War. Albeit a bit chillier than the first.

  4. Jack: The office deserves respect.
    Also Jack: The Congressman is an asshole.

  5. Steve-O-in-NJ

    You are absolutely right, Jack. However, the press, the only institution who can realistically call out political figures, is, with the exception of Fox, firmly on the side of the Democratic Party. They don’t consider them jerks, they consider them principled, fed up people standing up to a dangerous demagogue who used an out-of-date technicality to steal the White House.

    It’s really the same principle as “who polices the police?” where even those who are tasked with the necessary job of investigating misbehavior by fellow officers are just that, fellow officers, and not looking to hurt those on the same side. Part of my job for four years was working on police discipline, and internal affairs investigators regularly recommended against discipline and whitewashed popular other officers. Essentially the Democratic party are the equivalent of officers popular with their fellow officers and popular with the community. They won’t get called out on anything, and anyone who makes a peep about misbehavior will be quickly silenced.

  6. Chris writes: “6) I’d rather Trump resign than be impeached, like many other accused sexual harassers have done from much less important positions because public pressure made them and the people around them realize that it was now impossible for them to do their jobs effectively. The idea that such allegations make movie producers and television hosts unfit to perform their duties, but not the leader of our the free world, is insane.”

    I would suggest that the current sexual harrassment craze is similar to a social-hysterical fad or a contagious hysterical outbreak. I am reminded of the play The Crucible. I have the sense that these crazes are concocted, overall, and then brought to the surface and set, like attack dogs, against a rather vague enemy. I suggest that there is a great deal to be gained from taking a position that examines the phenomenon from an angle above it, as one might study a psychological problem.

    I admit to being somewhat influenced by Paglia’s argument that this is a deep problem among White middleclass women. I would not be inclined, ever, to put aside the issue and problem of assault, but really this seems very different (the phenomenon on the whole as it plays out). Underneath all of this one can notice specific and obvious power-plays. It is a game, but a very serious one.

    Also, I notice the underhandedness of having, and using, a ‘terrible accusation’ that any woman can pull up when she is so inclined and rock the very structure of the society. It is a female phenomenon we witness on the whole, But the use of this general tactic (the accusation of some terrible, unsubstantiated misdeed or crime) is taken up by progressive players.

    Until the ‘tool’ is knocked out of their hands and until they understand that it will not be tolerated, the use of the ‘tool’ will continue.

    Finally, the purpose of these encouraged, hysterical outburst really does seem to have as its ultimate goal and purpose a social procession of torch-bearers who arrive at the White House to impeach the president. A whole psychological structure, with entire psychological armaments, have been assembled and given power by, it seems to me, leading journalism.

    I’m going to write a letter to the editor! 😉

  7. Other Bill

    Gutierrez is a lame duck.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/luis-gutierrez-reelection-hurricane-maria/index.html

    I wonder why? Going to run for mayor of San Juan? Governor of Puerto Rico? Has he some skeletons in his closet?

    Very interesting he was sent out on this kamikaze mission to further the daily talking point script.

    • Other Bill

      I think Gutierrez and Waters and their ilk bring a lot more disrepute to the House than they do anything else. I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s a good idea to have someone who represents a neighborhood full of voters given a national microphone. How many people elected Adam Schiff? Maybe we need to enlarge congressional districts and cut the number of House jobs in half.

      • And repeal the 17 Amendment while we are at it.

        Constitutional Convention, anyone?

        • There are people who seriously want a Constitutional Convention.

          I think that the Left holds the Constitution in such disdain, that if Leftist states suddenly agreed to the calls for a Constitutional Convention, that warning sirens should be going off in everyone’s mind.

          I think an opening of an actual Constitutional Convention would be the opening chapters of a decades long break up of the United States into multiple entities, with no good long range outcome for any of them (or the world).

          I’d be careful what you wish for.

          • Tex, you say that like it is a bad thing…

            I know full well what I am asking for. We have irreconcilable differences, as a nation.

            And there are 28 states (of 34 needed) to call and Article 5 convention right now.

            • I do say this:

              “…with no good long range outcome for any of them (or the world).”

              Like it’s a bad thing.

              How would no good long range outcome NOT be a bad thing?

              We may gain some short term kicks and giggles out dumping California into the ocean…

              but really…?

              • Given that the states that impose this progressive crap on the rest of us cannot support themselves, I doubt we break up over an Article 5 dispute. I just want a stop to the lying bullshit coming out of the media and Washington. My point was more to the ‘an Article 5 Convention is possible’ more than endorsing a long breakup.

            • I mean get this:

              I would RATHER us go ahead and duke it out in a *for real* Civil War, with one generally consistent world view standing and a new set of political parties and differences breaking out of that one world view to govern the ONE nation, that for us to go whimpering into the night over a few decades as a series of tiny republics gobbled up one by one until the last few remaining republics who didn’t lose their way don’t stand a chance in Common Defense.

              • Think other world powers will stand by and allow us to resolve our differences in a hot war? I am betting on invasion if that happens, especially if it looks like we come out *stronger* than we are now (more united, restored resolve…)

            • And please don’t be like some of my fellow Texans who vacantly crow that Texas could easily defend itself.

              Our great state is literally the definition of indefensible terrain. Vast borders with no natural barriers, save the bayous of the Sabine river, and the Balcones Escarpment which does nothing for us once outflanked.

              • I take it you have never served in the military, Tex. Modern warfare does not hinge on terrain (although it is an important tactical consideration)

                Intelligence is the most important factor: where the enemy is, where he is going, what he has, etc…

                Not saying that Texas should go our own way (although on my more cynical days… if we could cede Houston, Dallas, and empty Austin…) but the large portion of veterans who live here with the great amount of resources would make us at least a target in any invasion. I DO pity the one who tries.

                • I’m not going to dignify that with a response. My military record here is no secret.

                  • I apologize, since it seems I am missing facts, Tex. I was not aware of any military experience.

                    What branch?

                    -Army (MI, DLI German graduate, and other jobs)

                    • 19A assigned to Airborne Cav Scout unit

                    • Given my background (reliant on Intel) and yours (Cav Scouts) maybe we see things a bit differently based on those worldviews?

                      I would never attempt to protect Texas borders. Let them come in, find them in mass, and destroy them. Drones have come a long way, and no army could cover the raw acreage of Texas (and would be taken apart, piecemeal, if they did)

                      I don’t expect all those hunting rifles to sit around unused in such an event.

                    • Oh…THAT kind of war?

                      I was assuming we wanted a war where we could defend Texas relatively intact so we could have our separate little Republics…

                    • Defend territory that is useful, tactically or strategically (which includes logistically)

                      Why defend Yellowstone park, for instance? Unless it site astride an important supply line or something, let the enemy have it. Better to defend a river port city necessary for commerce.

                      Texas has a lot of semi arid desert, west of about Kerrville. It would be our version of Russia giving up territory to bleed their enemies, allowing the weather and lack of food/fuel sources to wear them down.

  8. Jack,

    Tangentially, that’s a great picture you used for the article. Very evocative and reminiscent of that Nazi Shmuck, Roland Freisler, who played high judge to the July 20 Plot trials, haranguing the accused in that kangaroo court.

  9. There you have it. Let’s draft those articles of impeachment.

    • Chris

      What do you suggest we do when the president openly sabotages our country by siding with an attacker over our own intelligence agencies?

      • The time for doing something about Obama is past, so I’m not sure why you suddenly care care about the danger posed by his undermining of our nation.

      • Chris writes: “What do you suggest we do when the president openly sabotages our country by siding with an attacker over our own intelligence agencies?”

        This reminds me of your general anti-intellectual style. You start from an unsubstantiated accusation, something very hot, very emotionalized. Did you ever see The Manchurian Candidate? You might want to start mentioning that there are ‘57 Russian operatives who Trump had met with! We have the documentation!’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s