Impeachment Ethics Update, Holiday Edition, Part Two: The President’s Letter

The President’s epic and historic letter to Speaker Pelosi on the eve of the vote to impeach him is nothing if not audacious and to someone who has been making many of the same points the President’s letter does, satisfying. I bet Bill Clinton wishes he had thought of it, except that he had a problem Trump does not: Clinton had in fact committed felonies by lying under oath, something a President must not do. (As I said at the time, without ever hearing a satisfactory rebuttal, if a lawyer would be disbarred for such conduct, as Clinton essentially was—he was forced to quit the Arkansas bar before he was fired from it—how can a President be held to a lower standard?).As President Trump’s letter correctly states, “The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever.”

Well, they are recognizable under some bad and dangerous Constitutional theories, many of which have advocates in the House and among the “resistance” punditry. For example, even now, prominent Democratic House leader Maxine  Waters admits that she has no facts to back up her conviction that the President had a deal with Putin, she’s just sure he did. Waters said she was “ready to talk about” impeachment in February 2017, three weeks after Trump was sworn into office.Her theory later became that an opposing party House majority could impeach a President at will, and didn’t need any reasons other than as assertion that he was “unfit.”

That appears to be what Nancy Pelosi allowed her team to settle on, lacking anything better.

Naturally, the letter has prompted the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream media coup team (what Ethics Alarms calls “The Axis of Unethical Conduct,” or AUC) to have a collective head-explosion orgy. The mainstream print media would not even report on the letter  fairly, in most cases not giving readers the chance to make their own assessment and publishing it with “factchecks” attached, many if not most of which were just partisan spin as rebuttals. For example, in the New York Times version, the section I quoted above was linked to this: “The articles charge Mr. Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But an impeachable offense does not have to be a specific crime.” Well…

  • That’s an opinion, not fact. Every previous impeachment has involved a specific crime.
  • As Prof. Dershowitz pointed out, the “obstruction of Congress” referred to in the Articles of Impeachment  cannot be called misconduct, since the Supreme Court has deemed the President’s power in this regard an open question until they rule on it—next June.
  • As Jonathan Turley (and Trump) pointed out, “abuse of power” is too subjective a standard to use as an excuse for impeachment.

Characteristically, as we have seen the past three years, the attacks on the letter have focused on style at least as much as substance. (On substance, however, the letter is difficult to rebut.)

On yesterday’s CNN Newsroom,  the spectacularly hypocritical John Avlon (who once pretended to lead a “no labels” movement as a neutral non-partisan) claimed  that the President’s letter  would cause Republican Senators to raise questions about his “mental state.”  This is rich: Impeachment Plan S is blowing up in Democrats’ faces, so Avlon pivots to good old, evergreen, Plan E : ”Trump is mentally ill so this should trigger the 25th Amendment.”

Yeah, boy, putting out that letter laying out exactly what the impeachment is in language anyone can understand was crazy.

Avlon’s foolishness does raise a question: did the President really write the letter himself? I doubt it. I think someone–Steven Miller has been mentioned as a prime suspect—did an excellent job channeling the President’s unique style and tone, but the letter is too well constructed to be Trump’s alone. Hey, John: if someone else authors a letter for the President that he signs, and you think it’s an “unhinged rant”  and “the definition of not presidential,” does that mean he’s crazy? Can you delegate crazy?

As with so much that has gone before, the President has triggered his foes into broadcasting their own derangement.

A typical, measured, lawyer-checked, restrained Presidential letter would be far less effective. Ann Althouse figured this out, writing,

1. It’s not just one more statement in the voluminous back and forth about impeachment. It’s a written compendium of everything the President of the United States wants to say on the subject of this important historical event. It is long in that it’s 6 pages. (Anti-Trumpers have enough to be able to disparage it as rambling.) But it’s also short. (The Mueller Report is 448 pages.) It will surely be preserved and read and studied and reflected upon far into the future. It is clearly a historical document, unlike virtually all the other statements bandied about in — to use Trump’s term — “this impeachment fantasy.”

2. The letter refrains from purporting to say what the People of the Future think. It speaks to them. It’s modest in that regard: I’m thinking of you, and I want to talk to you, to “put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record” for you. He wants you “to understand… and learn.” There’s a mellow, humble tone to that.

In a subsequent post today, she writes about the letter’s style and language:

His language is an early manifestation of evolutionary change. And he’s an especially influential user of the language. Look around. More and more Americans are talking like him, including his critics! The people 100 years from now will probably speak and write much more like him than the people of today. And if that is where we’re going, they are likely to read Trump’s letter as a quite ordinary expression of a President’s position and to read the criticism of his letter (if it survives to be read at all) as trivial banter.

Super Bingo, Ann. Exactly. I can’t stand the way Trump speaks and writes, but he knows what he’s doing, and his primary audience isn’t people like me. Besides, I already agree with him.

Here are some excerpts from the letter, but by all means, read the whole thing.

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!

Comment: I love it.

You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense—it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.

Comment: I couldn’t say it better myself, except I would lose the exclamation point…

Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!

Comment: The truth hurts, or should. Sadly, I don’t think most of the Trump Deranged do understand this, based on the daily nonsense I read on my Facebook feed.

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for “two and a half years,” long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine.  Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”  Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.”  House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country’s best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports)—who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen.  A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf****r.”  Representative Al Green said in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”  Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine.  As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president.  It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!

…You are the ones interfering in America’s elections. You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

Comment: Ethics Alarms has chronicled all of this, of course, and more. That paragraph is damning and irrefutable.

Well, I better stop or I’ll end up posting the whole letter. However, this is brilliant, and is both what engaged Althouse and what is infuriating the AUC:

It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.

One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again.

Comment!

 

28 thoughts on “Impeachment Ethics Update, Holiday Edition, Part Two: The President’s Letter

  1. I can’t help thinking that when Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff came to Nancy Pelosi with the Ukraine phone call plan she heard them out and then said, “All right already. Enough. Let’s go ahead and impeach the motherfucker.”

    • I suspect it was more like this: “Really? A phone call? With Ukrainian what’s-his-name? Oh, for the love of Pete! This is nuts!”

      They responded. “Well, alright then! We got an impeachment! Let’s roll!?

      Pelosi: “Wait. How does this help me keep my Speakership?”

      They: “Uh . . . What?”

      Pelosi: “Yeah. We could get beaten up in the 2020 election if we don’t impeach and remove him. Voters might get mad and we could lose the House. If we lose the House I am out of a job.”

      They: “Oh . . . Please. Never happen. Not in a million years. We say ‘let’s roll!'”

      Pelosi: “This is on you. Not me. But, if you are gonna do this, Adam Schiff is a good guy lead the proceedings.”

      Nadler: “Well, Adam’s name does begin with “A” so we should start there. Maxine, see if you can get him on the line.”

      Maxine: “Right (dialing) . . . . Hello? Adam? Maxine here. Hey, we were just talking to Speaker Pelosi. She wants you to lead the impeachment. Are you available?”

      Adam: “Why, yes, I am. It would be my solemn duty to lead such a solemn proceeding to impeach the bastard for violating our solemn oaths.”

      Maxine: “Great. Let me know what you need.”

      Adam: “Uh . . . before you go, do you have that transcript of the Ukraine phone call?”

      Maxine: “Not yet. The call has not happened yet but we are sure Trump will call that Ukraine guy – what’s his name? – in a few days from now. Once he calls him, we can get the transcript to you.”

      Adam: “Perfect. When do you think he will ask him for a quid pro quo?”

      Maxine: “Don’t use that language in my presence. I don’t curse and I object to anyone cursing in my presence!”

      Adam: (Somewhat surprised) “Oh. Sorry. Maybe Tlaib can help me. She has lots of knowledge and can curse like a sailor.”

      Maxine: “Fine but I don’t want to know about it. Well . . . I have to go now and see about that airport baggage cart contract coming up for a vote. Take care, Adam.”

      Adam: (Turning to his chief of staff) “Who is Maxine Watters?”

      jvb

        • Why the phone call? Mysterious. Why didn’t they just go ahead and impeach based on The Meuller Report? Or his liking ketchup on his steak? Cue the Marx Brothers: “Vhy ad duck?”

  2. Per the bedrock Conservative HuffPo regarding SanFanNan on The Donald’s Letter:

    “Pelosi Says She Hasn’t Had Time For Trump’s […] Letter.”

    Yet she’s had time enough to determine it’s ‘”Ridiculous” and “It’s Really Sick.”

    Shades of “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”?

  3. Trump’s crimes are simply that he does not fall to his knees and obey his betters in the Democratic party when they threaten him with a negative label.

    Instead of whimpering and acquiesing to their demands he says screw you, I was elected president not you. For many D’s and R’s this is an unacceptable behavior. The media hates him because they didn’t make him so they can’t break him.

    Today R’s are seeing that conventional wisdom was wrong and fighting back against specious charges of racism pays dividends .

    The Democrats must destroy him and ensure the R’s return to their cowering ways or else their days of obfuscation, lies and demogoguery will be over.

    • While the President can be a total jerk when he chooses, I have to be honest…it’s more than a little refreshing to see DJT extend the proverbial “bird” to his critics and not only say “bring it on”, but turn around and give as good as he gets. The letter is just another exhibit of that.

      His actions have resulted in many very unbecoming and cringe-worthy moments and not a few “holy crap!” exclamations…and it may lead to a few more bully-style Presidents in the future. But you’re right, his refusal to submit has driven the more liberal side of politics absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

      As Steve Witherspoon has accurately written on many occasions, President Trump has pushed his opponents to go all-in.

    • All of this is true, but overlooks Trump’s self-inflicted weakness. Trump’s main crime is that prior to the presidency, he was a disgusting human being. Trump’s obnoxious persona is why the Democrats get away with as much as they do. Any standard Republican would have enough basic decorum to make the current behavior of the Democrats look insane. Instead, the Democrats look relatively tame by uninformed comparison. So while Trump doesn’t rollover to Democrat’s demands, he also doesn’t articulately condemn them, either.

      I think Bush II is the most appropriate comparison. Much of the precursor behaviors were at play -mocking his mannerism (which in both cases are partially an act to begin with), condemning his electoral college “steal” of the election, questioning his intelligence, etc). Bush had 9-11 going for him, but mostly, he didn’t take the bait. He acted presidential, and was remarkably effective (even if his objectives were distasteful – Department of Homeland Security for one). Had Bush reacted the same way as Trump, he would have been eaten alive (unlike Jeb, though, George would punch back).

      Trumps feeds into a negative feedback loop; he is not to blame for starting the loop, but he is responsible for his role in perpetuating it. Trump fights back against unfair criticism and condemnation, but makes so much noise in the process, the insanity of the criticism and condemnation is not apparent without careful examination. The Democrats are not so much personally out to get Trump, as they are about knocking down all their opposition. Trump’s behavior actually provides them cover, letting them be more strident about it while not looking relatively unhinged.

      • I don’t think so, Rich. That’s a rationalization, and Trump’s ugliness is style, The Democrats’ is substance. Glenn Reynold nailed it months ago: if the opposition could have just not acted crazy, they would have crushed Trump. But the just couldn’t do it, and instead decided to set the country on fire. That’s not one guy, it’s a whole party. As repulsive as Trump is, more and more people are getting it: his biggest “crime” is standing between us and a democratic Party hell-bent on socialism, open borders, globalism, racial spoils and quotas, and the gutting of the First, Second and Fifth amendments, just for starters. I don’t know what kind of sadistic deity that would but someone like Trump is such a crucial position, but the Democrats have made their agenda and Orwellian proclivities increasingly clear. People are getting the message.

      • Rich
        I don’t recall anyone calling Trump a disgusting human being before his role as president. Sure, he was recorded saying some things that gentleman would not say in mixed company but may nonetheless be true. The affair with the Playboy bunny suggests at least she wanted a piece of the Donald. If philandering makes one a disgusting human being then so too is Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, and many more. If you believe him to be a disgusting human being because he often resorts to streetfighting when he is forced to take another’s cheap shots then we could have elected Mitt Romney who let his adversaries kick him in his nads repeatedly until he acquiesed to them.

        I will agree that he sometimes needs to bob and weave rather than get into a slugfest but as long as he is fighting for that which caused 63 million people to vote for him I will respect his choices. The people will decide if his behaviors are no an acceptable cost to achieve that which is important to them.

        • How quickly they forget! I named him Ethics Alarms Asshole of the Year twice before he ran, and I’m pretty sure the sense of the gazillion posts I wrote about him in 2015 and 2016 could be fairly summarized as “he’s a disgusting human being.”

          • Back when Trump was first running in 2015, I remembered that I had the impression that he was an asshole but I couldn’t remember why. Then I found an archive of old Spy magazines from the 1980’s on the internet and started reading them. And then I remembered: in every issue, they had an update on the latest asshole things that Trump had done since the previous issue. When you named him Asshole of the Year, his behavior had actually improved since the 1980’s.

        • Before he ran for President, Trump was an eccentric billionaire of who’s existence was inconsequential to me. Candidate Trump is still dead to me for his comments about John McCain’s service. Though I hold person of the president of the United States in great regard, his unforced insults and uncouth nature during the campaign legitimately destroyed much goodwill towards him.

          I do not blame Trump for the Democrats attacks, but I do hold him responsible for taking the bait. The Democrats tried everything they are doing now before, but competent leadership in the White House was able to resist them. They are now exploiting Trump’s flaws and temper to advance their agenda. I don’t think this is really disputable. They see weakness, and are using his reactions as political cover. Trump may indeed be the only thing holding them back, but he is making his own job much harder.

      • Trumps feeds into a negative feedback loop; he is not to blame for starting the loop, but he is responsible for his role in perpetuating it. Trump fights back against unfair criticism and condemnation, but makes so much noise in the process, the insanity of the criticism and condemnation is not apparent without careful examination. The Democrats are not so much personally out to get Trump, as they are about knocking down all their opposition. Trump’s behavior actually provides them cover, letting them be more strident about it while not looking relatively unhinged.

        An observation and some random thoughts: I had the impression long ago that President Trump’s constituency *relates* to him because they see themself in him. Unfortunately (speaking generally) many of them are not really qualified to assess him as a president nor do they seem careful in the analysis of his policies (and especially those his administration carries out). So, they see him as ‘spectacle’ and they are dazzled and in some ways hypnotised. It is unfortunate — for them — that there is not a person or group (or institute) that could translate what Trump is doing to them. Both the *good* and the *not-so-good*.

        The NY Intellectual Establishment (and I mean the whole establishment not just the Jewish faction) seethes with hatred for the man. He is a human cockroach to them. Researching old articles in the Times they labeled him ‘The Donald’ and mocked him derisively. But the same sort of contempt they seem to have for the uneducated classes of America who they feel superior too. And if ‘superior’ is taken to mean ‘better prepared’ and more intellectually agile, they are superior to him.

        Yet he is — within the spectacle — *trumping* them. He plays (authentically, naturally!) the low-brow to all their high-brow pretensions. They have the long historical perspective, he has no historical perspective at all (that I can sense). They have ideology, he has a boxer’s instinct. Despite the fact that *they* (at least one NYT journalist made this declaration) made it clear they would engage in underhanded tactics to bring him down, he is not losing (yet) and he is winning with his constituency. And then he brings even those who are not lefties over to his side because they are forced to defend him.

        He succeeds (in my view) because he is uncouth and raw. Like those who represents. He fights dirty (with his language and his bickering boldness) just as his constituency would fight if forced to fight against a better-prepared adversary. But the odd thing is that he manages, somehow, to humiliate his opponents: and with that he wins with his constituency who see him as ‘fighting their fight’.

        He is not fighting their fight though — perhaps this truth rubs the wrong way but it needs to be said. (Though it is just my opinion). He is very much fighting the fight of the wealthy classes and it seems that they are benefiting — most. Generally speaking, the lower classes do not ‘win’. I mean, speaking historically.

        The underpinning of the Democrat position is essentially that of a race and class war against ‘the American establishment’: the white power-structure. The *absurdity* is that this is really their game, the game they have established. That is I think a clarifying view. They are not only ‘out to get Trump’ but they are forced to be out to get anyone who is of or who represents that class, the class they are fighting and the class they wish to displace and replace. Remember: in a few short years — let’s say 20 — they will definitely have the numbers.

        Let’s suppose Trump does get re-elected. What then? Let’s suppose that the impeachment hysteria results in nothing and *back-fires*. What then? What’s next for the opposition? What will 2020-2021 bring?

  4. Trump exposed the Swamp for what we suspected and damn near were certain it was: self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters.

    To misquote Jack Nicholson: “This nation needs an enema!” (They stick that in around Washington, DC)

    • Slick wrote:

      . . .self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters

      Our government elites, as well as ‘the captains of industry’, and all the good people in the finance industries and the industrial class, as well as the military class, and certainly the military-industrial class, do what they do to bring many benefits to the average, working people. It is not fair to say they ‘get rich off the backs of the voters’, since that sounds too much like ‘get rich off the backs of the workers’ — just a but too Marxist!

      We are all working in harmony now that President Trump has the reins. Why those Demos are working against the General Prosperity rising in the land like a new morning sun is beyond me. (The truth will bring them down soon enough).

      The working classes are gaining and regaining wealth and prosperity and when you see their smiling, contented faces, their happy children, you know that things are really turning around in America. Finally, they are able to do more than ‘make ends meet’: they are saving money like never before.

      • In at least 3 occasions, people who needed or wanted government interference on their behalf hired Hunter Biden. Joe Biden then lent them a helping hand. Doesn’t this look like they are “. . .self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters”?

        We have seen that just about every FBI, CIA, and DOJ employee that has come to light in the many investigations of Trump has used their positions to further their ideological and/or financial goals. We have seen that 95% of the federal employees who donated in the 2016 campaign donated to Democrats. How is it that the FBI can’t seem to find any Republican police officers to hire? We know it is because all police officers are Democrats, right? How is it that the FBI, CIA, and DOJ can’t find an employee whose spouse isn’t taking money from Russia, or who isn’t a journalist, or who didn’t take money from the Clinton campaign? Do these agencies have anyone without a conflict of interest? If not, how did that happen? If so, why weren’t THOSE people put on these cases? Is it because they are all “. . .self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters”?

        We have seen the money just disappearing. Six billion dollars just disappeared from Clinton’s State Department . President Obama gave $4.5 trillion to Wall Street for…well…worthless scraps of paper and loaned them another $9 trillion in almost 0 interest loans. Where did this money come from? From the people, by making our saving, our money, worth less. A clandestine cash tax, if you will.

        Look at all the money donated by foreign governments to the Clinton’s charity when people thought she was going to be president. When she lost, the money dried up and that program was shuttered before Trump took office. Couldn’t have been because she was one of the “. . .self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters”, could it?

        When President Obama left office, he was able to purchase over $30 million in homes in D.C., on Martha’s Vineyard, on the California Coast, and on the Hawaii Coast. Four mansions with 3 on the ocean despite having a cloudy work history before entering the White House and a $400,000/year salary as president. How could he do this unless he was one of the “. . .self serving self appointed elites who get rich off the backs of the voters”?

        We see it at the state level as well. In my state, the Department of Human Services ‘lost’ $100 million. The audit found there were no records of how this money was spent or who withdrew it, it was just ‘missing’. Because it was a deficit year and there was no money to make up for it, $100 million/year in employees were fired. When asked to explain the impact this would have on delivery of services, the director replied ‘none’. He explained that the agency had $100 million/year in employees who never interacted with the people the agency served and provided no vital support functions to the people who did. This is why Trump can fire 8,000 VA employees without affecting services (or improving it). How many such useless employees are taxpayers paying for? How did these people get those jobs in the first place? Is it because they all vote Democrat?

        This isn’t an appeal to Marxism class struggle, just the opposite. It is an appeal against corruption, for the Constitution, and for our rights as Americans. The government is supposed to serve the people and is supposed to answer to the people. The last 3 years have demonstrated that the officials and media at the top don’t agree with this and see the public as something that serves them.

        • I am getting soooo good at my ‘sarcastic irony’ (as my foremost disciple Slick puts it) that I even impress myself! 🙂

          So, what I want to understand is Who is talking about and writing about all those things you have just spoken about? (I really do not know, perhaps there is?)

          Is this what ‘draining the swamp’ means? Is this the reason or one of the reasons Trump is ‘hated’? Has he put anything in motion which might affect the malfeasance you outline?

      • In the spirit of the season, I am breaking my policy of not responding to Alizia’s postings. We will see how this goes… 🙂

        Our government elites, as well as ‘the captains of industry’, and all the good people in the finance industries and the industrial class, as well as the military class, and certainly the military-industrial class, do what they do to bring many benefits to the average, working people.

        M’kay. My only reference was to the Government elites, so the rest are irrelevant to my comment. That The Swamp gets rich while serving the People is self evident: they have exempted themselves from many of the laws they hold over the People. How does one get elected to Congress and several years later become a millionaire? I question the motives of bringing benefits to average working people, especially in the case of the Democrats and GOPe: All I seem to hear is ‘tax and spend,’ and about how ‘deplorable’ these people are.

        Or were you being sarcastic? Well done if so!

        It is not fair to say they ‘get rich off the backs of the voters’, since that sounds too much like ‘get rich off the backs of the workers’ — just a but too Marxist!

        I said what I meant: any interpretation further is your responsibility. No way would I be shilling for socialism, as you should well know: those in charge under that system are far worse about ‘on the backs of’ the people.

        We are all working in harmony now that President Trump has the reins.

        Sarcasm. Irony. Nicely done, Alizia.

        The working classes are gaining and regaining wealth and prosperity and when you see their smiling, contented faces, their happy children, you know that things are really turning around in America. Finally, they are able to do more than ‘make ends meet…’

        The working classes ARE gaining under President Trump. More are employed, and keeping more of what they earn. Small businesses are thriving. Economically, things are indeed ‘turning around.’

        … they are saving money like never before.

        Back to sarcasm?

        Or is this a satirical post?

        Merry Christmas!

        • M’kay. My only reference was to the Government elites, so the rest are irrelevant to my comment.

          But certainly not relevant to the entire issue: how America has become corrupted; what corruption means; how a corrupt society begins to destroy itself. All of this must (I think) be a backdrop to the necessary questions about the presidency of Donald Trump: Is he ‘draining the swamp?’ Is he doing things that genuinely disturb those who abuse the system and are the corrupt elements? Is that why he is opposed and hated?

          How does one get elected to Congress and several years later become a millionaire? I question the motives of bringing benefits to average working people, especially in the case of the Democrats and GOPe: All I seem to hear is ‘tax and spend,’ and about how ‘deplorable’ these people are.

          Are you suggesting that the Republican establishment is different, better?

          I said what I meant: any interpretation further is your responsibility. No way would I be shilling for socialism, as you should well know: those in charge under that system are far worse about ‘on the backs of’ the people.

          However you would agree — or would you? — that though we may not have a socialistic system we have, if I were to base it on your analysis, a corporate-socialism system. The government officials who are enriching themselves get enriched by the wealthy interests they serve. If this is so then it seems to me we could agree (as I often say) that ‘America has sold itself out to its business class’.

          Is that a fair assessment? If that is the case: when did this begin?

          The working classes ARE gaining under President Trump. More are employed, and keeping more of what they earn. Small businesses are thriving. Economically, things are indeed ‘turning around.’

          In case I have not made it very clear at other times, I am profoundly suspicious of the entire political class. And I am profoundly suspicious of *power*. Back in the early days of the Republic many of the Founders struggled mightily with the problem of power. Power corrupts because it always grows strong and then wants more and takes more. Liberty is always in a weak position.

          You tell me that the working classes are gaining. But I examine material (written, interviews and documentaries) that indicate that the problems are *systemic*. That is, it has to do with the established systems-as-mechanisms. Again the issue of ‘power’ comes up: the wealthy have not only wealth-power but power to continue to work out their schemes (if you will permit that phrase) to gain more and more. Because these systems exist, and because they function, it could be argued that the working classes see, now, a comparative benefit, but that they cannot really benefit in the long run as long as the same systems operate. Wealth therefore (some economists say this, and it looks to be this way to me but I do not know) flows to the top. The American worker grows more impoverished (relatively speaking) in this crucial time between the end of WW2 and the present.

          So, my question is: Is Trump really doing something for the American worker? And then I have a side-comment: to really do something for the American worker would mean addressing ‘income inequality’ and the *systems* as I say that carry out the upward distribution of wealth.

          In your way of seeing things: Can conservatives speak of these things and be concerned about them? Because you must know that looking at systems in this way is a by-product of a Marxian analysis: a critical eye turned to economic questions and situations.

          • Carlson is communicating here on various levels here, and I have to say there is a distinct ‘dog whistle’ here: let he who has ears hear. This is not *republican analysis* nor are these *republican talking points*. Tucker is speaking more in the vein of somewhat classic American populism (the American populist movement of the teens and 20s). And the Republican Party, to a minor degree, has been speaking like this.

            This is ‘forbidden speech’ in truth. Really, I am not making this up. Tucker is speaking in a new way and addressing realities that have not been addressed (though I can only review past news programs by what I find on YouTube, so I cannot be certain).

  5. They just don’t understand, they think the letter is comical and doesn’t connect.

    Has none of these democratic party hacks figured out what happens when you don’t provide fair representation? When you force forward impeachment on such ambiguous claims and back them into a corner? There is massive evidence of government investigative malfeasance, it has destroyed faith in the government that includes House and Senate Democrats. What remedy for such actions will many choose? The anti trumpers have ignored thier First option, is it time that they will move onto the Second option?

    Really what more can they do? Stand by principles or give in? Trump supporters feel they are being abused, not only did the democrats attempt a coup but now they are trying to take away thier choice for the next election as well.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.