I’ve been neglecting the category, which is especially inexcusable since there are so, so many of them. Rep. Al Green, however, made his distinction easy, thanks to the most ridiculous impeachment theory yet.
Representative Al Green burnished his credentials as an anti-Trump clown by announcing that the President’s alleged, unproven and unprovable reference to “shithole–or was it “shithouse”?— countries” is grounds for impeachment as a clear example of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Green drafted up new articles of impeachment on the theory that “the president’s hateful comments can impact policy.” ( This time 66 fellow Democrats voted for them: Every one of the 66 qualifies as an Incompetent Elected Official. Be proud, progressives! This is your party!) Actually, that better be about how the President’s hateful comments can impact policy if they are unethically publicized by double-crossing Democrats.
What a great theory Green has! All that is needed to impeach a President is for a member of the opposing party to come out and claim that a President said something that “can impact policy” in a private meeting. Then the news media chimes in with, “Sure sounds like something he would say!, CNN obsesses about it for days, ” there’s an impeachment and a conviction, and in just a few more easy steps, according to a Harvard Law professor, so this can’t be a crackpot theory, Hillary Clinton is President!
And they say Trump has mental problems…
There are many plausible explanations for Rep. Green’s nonsense:
…He’s never read the Constitution.
…He has read it, but doesn’t understand it.
…He understands it, but he doesn’t agree with it.
…He’s been hanging out too much with fellow Congressional Black Caucus member—Does this group have a function other than to embarrass African-Americans?—Maxine Waters, who is on record as believing that just being Donald Trump is grounds for impeachment.
…He’s been listening to Chris Cuomo and believes that speech he doesn’t like is criminal.
…He has some kind of weird vendetta against Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, and wants to be humiliated it for graduating someone like him—yes, Green is a lawyer. No, he really is. I’m not kidding! He is! I wouldn’t lie to you! ( Kaboom.)
…Somehow, the wrong Al Green got into the House. This isn’t the lawyer and former judge, who presumably knows something about law and government! This the soul legend “Reverend” Al Green! Sing, Al!
…He’s grandstanding for the increasingly reason-challenged Democratic base, which doesn’t care about law or facts when the President’s impeachment is involved. It’s the thought that counts.
…He’s an idiot.
Ethics Alarms 
The Honorable Al Green used to be a Justice of the Peace here in Houston, Harris County, Texas, before he was elected to the US House of Representatives. I cannot tell how many times I lost slam-dunk eviction cases in his court. He would find super-secret rules and provisions to delay or dismiss eviction cases because he didn’t want to evict people from their homes. Off the bench, he is fine fellow, though. Personable, engaging, and quite witty. His impeachment articles, though, do boggle the mind.
jvb
Yes, yes, but how is his singing???
It ignites the soul!
Perhaps you might want to consider California AG Becerra who announced he will prosecute business owners who violate sanctuary state law if the cooperate with ICE.
Yeah, I’m considering him, the Mayor of Oakland…pretty much everyone in California.
He’s a shmuck.
from Houston… no further excuses necessary
If you could draw up a list of the 100 most embarrassing public figures of the last year, numbers 99 of them would be progressives who’ve lost their minds over Donald Trump.
(#1 would be Donald Trump.)
What are the odds some congressional democrat will claim the shut down is a condition to impeach Trump?
Tex
I wonder if Democrats have considered that the shut down stunt might make conservatives like me LESS sympathetic to DACA eligible young people.
Many of us understand that these people had little to no choice when they arrived with their parents. We understand that rounding them up and sending them to their country of origin, of which they have no understanding, or familial support network in place would impose an unnecessary hardship on these folks.
However, instead of acknowledging their parents have created the situation they are in and then demanding that we must accomodate their situation without allowing us to take steps to prevent the situation from reoccuring, they are making it more difficult for people like me to remain sympathetic and willing to accept legislation that gives them some type of legal status. If they escaped from a place that could be considered dangerous and corrupt, a bit of gratitude and understanding on their part would go a long way instead of telling me they are entitled to stay in our country.
Everytime people are labeled as bigots and racists for requiring some sort of method or condition that prevents the same situation happening in the future it drives me further away from being willing to help them gain legal status. Such behavior has already reshaped my opinion on eventual citizenship.
I am tired of euphamisms such as “family reunification” to create a positive image of unfettered immigration or chain migration. If family reunification is a desireable goal why does the reunification need to occur here – why not reunify them by buying an air ticket sending them back to be with their families?
Addendum: feeling entitled is not an American value we should promote
Sandra Fluke and Elliot Rodger were known for their senses of entitlement.
Exactly, my point. When sense of entitlement becomes part of the fabric of our society, the edges will begin to fray. Ultimately that fabric will disintegrate.
Fluke’s and Rodger’s senses of entitlement were very similar.
Agreed. One wanted me to pay to keep her from getting pregnant and the other complained how unfair it was he wasn’t getting his fair share of “nookie”.
Why can not birth control be paid for exclusively by those who use it?
Don’t ask me; the answer should be “they should pay for it.” But this is the paternalistic “we should pay for everyone to nbe responsible because they won’t be own their own” theory. Which degrades ethics.
Here is a fair trade.
Free birth control to those who provide indiscriminate sexual services to the general public.
Both the Elliot Rodgers and the Sandra Flukes get what they want.
How can anyone take a Harvard education seriously?
How can Newsweek even run such an article.
We have been laughing behind Ivy League grad’s backs for decades here in flyover country, for their arrogant ignorant attitudes.
Now we are shifting to dismissal, as the education is shown to be lacking.