Pelosi’s Unconscionable “Snap Impeachment,” Part I: Welcome to Plan T


In Ethics Alarms’ compilation of the previous 19 attempts at removing President Trump since his election had been stalled at Plan S, the unconstitutional, cynical and non-substantive impeachment of President Trump on spurious grounds in 2019. It’s lack of validity was demonstrated by the fact that neither the news media nor Democrats mentioned the sham during the 2020 Presidential campaign. In the introduction to the list, I wrote,

When Plan S, which late novelist Robert Ludlum might have called “The Ukrainian Perversion” if it had been one of his novels, fails like the rest, or if President Trump is re-elected, the list will keep growing. As scholar Victor Hanson Davis has pointed out, the sheer number of these successive plans belies the claim that this is not an ongoing attempt at a soft coup.

As it turned, out I was more right than I intended to be. Never did I suspect that Democrats would continue to try to remove the President before the end of his term even if they won the 2020 Presidential election, but they are doing so because the other 19 attempts failed. Since this cannot reasonably be called a soft coup, since the Democrats have already won the White House, Plan T must be recognized for what it is: an act of pure hate and vengeance, and a deliberate, calculated insult to Trump’s supporters as well as those citizens who believe that that their government should not behave like third-world failed state.

The rest of this post will be added to “Presidential Impeachment/Removal Plans, 2016 to 2020”:

Plan T (added 1/9/21): Trump should be impeached for “inciting a riot” with his speech to supporters on January 6, as Congress gathered to officially approve the states’ electoral college vote making Joe Biden the 46th President. The transcript is here.

The President did not incite a riot under current law or logic. While his speech was irresponsible, just as his refusal to capitulate to logic and political tradition by dropping his claims of fraud against Democrats and the 2020 election (while leaving pursuit of the genuine questions surrounding the fiasco to others) was irresponsible. There is certainly no evidence that he wanted his supporters to invade the Capitol, or that he was seeking a violent confrontation. His subsequent refusal to unequivocally condemn the rioters was another terrible choice, but hardly an impeachable one, especially in the context of recent, more destructive  riots that many political leaders and the news media fueled by their rationalizations and passive support.

There are no words in the speech that encourage violence. Law professor/blogger Ann Althouse listed what she considered the seven most provocative statements in the speech, noting that none mention or suggest violence:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. 

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.  

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.  

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.  

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. 

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.  

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people

If that’s an incitement to violence, then so are hundreds, maybe thousands, of speeches, some of them famous, made by U.S. elected officials and political leaders throughout our history.

The logic of impeaching the President for his speech (and, I assume, for having the bad taste to finally react to the ultimately successful effort by a confederacy of the “resistance,” Democrats, news media, and, finally, Big Tech and the social media platforms, to take him out of office “by any means necessary”) is that his words did spark the Capitol rioting, regardless of their meaning or his intent. If this really is the standard our government wishes to establish, that a politician’s words can be made impeachable by their unintended results carried forward in their name by the radical, the lawless, the mischievous and the moronic, then all passionate political expression is effectively banned, and an ill-chosen phrase—Barack Obama’s suggestion that the death of Trayvon Martin was analogous to one of his children being killed comes to mind—will be a potential career-ender for members of both parties.

Add to this the fact that Plan T is motivated not by the best interests of the nation or to protect the public, since Donald Trump’s Presidency ends in less than two weeks, but a gesture of hate and revenge by a party that, as the previous 19 plans already have vividly illustrated. never accepted the will of the people in electing this President, and have become more angry and frustrated as they efforts to remove him failed. Now, after their success, however tainted, they still cannot resist inflicting a final indignity, a slap in the face, an ultimate demonstration of contempt by not even allowing him to complete his term.

Incredibly, this is the most unethical of the 20 plans. The Theory is simply this:

“We have the votes in the House, and maybe the emotional and visceral revulsion at the rioting will give us the votes in the Senate, so we will impeach him because we can, and because we hate the bastard.”


There is a lot more to discuss, and we’ll do that in Part II.

31 thoughts on “Pelosi’s Unconscionable “Snap Impeachment,” Part I: Welcome to Plan T

  1. More Pelosi theater includes her recent announcement that she “…spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.”

    She knows (or should, but considering her place near Joe on the senility scale, maybe not) that the president can’t just open a drawer, push a button, and launch a nuclear strike. This is pure scare-mongering for democrats idiots, and/or just another underhanded way to insult Trump.

    • It’s not like the President said “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”.

      Hmmm, now where have I heard that kind of inciteful language before?

      • That kind of inciteful language may be found in the American Declaration of Independence, in Paine’s Common Sense, and in many other works of the period..

        • P.M.Lawrence wrote, “That kind of inciteful language may be found in the American Declaration of Independence, in Paine’s Common Sense, and in many other works of the period.”

          Yes, but it’s not the kind of statements that were in President Trump’s speech.

          Trump literally said,

          “…we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”


          The political has bastardized into this….

          Trump told the people at his Rally to “go down to the capitol to take our country back.” He told them to go with pride and boldness to take back our country.”

          They call that bastardization fact and say that those misquoted and bastardized statements are inciting riot/insurrection. When you confront the people that are misquoting and bastardizing President Trump’s words all you get back is the sound of crickets.

          President Trump is a real asshole but even an asshole deserves to be quoted properly and not have their words bastardized.

  2. The message is also, “Unless you’re a career politician who’s been sucking up to people ever since you ran for student council in grade school and have spent your entire working life currying favor and grubbing for money and listening to political consultants so you know what to say, you are not, I repeat not, to have the temerity to think you can win an election and participate in governing this country. WE, the career politicians and the bureaucrats we employ and defer to run things in OUR best interest. If you have the audacity to make money in any way other than how we do and you attempt to play our game, we’ll obliterate you. Consider yourself warned.”

  3. A quick thought, before your part two:

    The Democrats are not acting irrationally here. It is clear to me, and should be to most of us who have carefully followed the last four years, that they are trying intentionally to bait the Right into rioting. They will then, unlike our government during the BLM/Antifa orgy of destruction, violently suppress those rioters under the rubric of “insurrection,” “treason,” “sedition” or “rebellion;” You pays your money, you picks your verb.

    They will then use this “treason” as an excuse to do any number of things that will further inflame their opposition, and this will be intentional and by design. They hope for a situation that will scare the body politic so badly they will be able to paint anyone to the right of Mao as a traitor to the republic, and thereby ensure their control of government for decades to come. They really don’t care if they have to sacrifice a few hundred/thousand… (million?) lives to get their permanent government.

    I’ll flesh this out more later, but given their actions over the last four years, this seems to be a straight-line logical conclusion.

    All Americans must resist the impulse to violence now. Only by carefully navigating this section of history do we have a chance to preserve the republic. Otherwise, the Democrats will drive the opposition into an actual insurrection, and the leader might well be a guy like Trump, who is frighteningly incompetent to such a task (assuming anyone actually is competent).

    I had asked in an earlier comment if an insurrection from the Right was what the Left desires. My answer to myself, after careful consideration, must be, “yes.”

    We should not give it to them.

  4. I would just like to point out that the last time Pelosi and Company engaged in an impeachment effort, the nation’s attention turned away from an oncoming pandemic.

    We’ve still got the pandemic. What will we miss this time? There are any number of hostile actors out there right now who would love to find out.

  5. Trump should threaten to pardon all of the people that stormed the capital if Pelosi impeaches. That might just give them pause.

      • Actually, I was thinking he should do that in a double edged way: pardon anyone who comes forward for any crimes arising out of the election – the rioters, anyone who failed in their duty to review possible election fraud, and/I> any fraudsters (who confess). Not only would it make it harder to undermine the pardons of the rioters, but also it would create a moral victory in regard to any confessed fraudsters. That might make their victory hollow, might make possible a comeback by Trumpism if not necessarily Trump. and might even open the doors to goose/gander impeachment of the new lot.

  6. You think that just maybe all these people that are trying to impeach or get rid of the President via the 25th Amendment are using consequentialism as their only basis?

    Consequentialism: the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.

    Consequentialism is unethical which can easily lead people to immoral actions.

    Maybe we should start using consequentialism on everything that the Democrats do or say.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.