Pelosi’s Unconscionable “Snap Impeachment,” Part II: If This Happens, It Will Be Time To Release A Real “Kraken,” And I Hope I Can Help Feed Pelosi To It…[Corrected]

clash-of-the-titans-2010-kraken

Plan T, the apparent plan to impeach President Trump for a crime he clearly did not commit, is arguably the worse of the various AUC-contrived removal plots, because it will do the most damage by far. Even the actual impeachment, the ridiculous Plan S, had little long-term effect, and the Democrats abandoned it even as a campaign issue. Even they didn’t take it seriously: like so much of the rest, it was just one more way to denigrate, obstruct and weaken the leader of their own nation. It was part of strategy, that’s all. As I wrote in Part I, this is different in kind:

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.

I admit it: I am angry about this, and if it occurs, I will not forget it or forgive it—and I do not consider myself one of the Trump supporters being ostentatiously slapped in the face. I am angry because this is not how the United States of America behaves towards its leaders. I know readers here are sick of me saying this, but I will say it again because it is true: the nation owes respect and debt of gratitude to every President of the United States, without exception, when they leave office, and that respect should continue to the end of their days, and throughout our history. That’s right, every single one of them, the skilled and less-than-skilled, the competent and incompetent, the best and the worst of them, Andrew Johnson as well as Lincoln, Nixon as well as Eisenhower, the Bushes as well as Reagan, Hoover as well as FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and yes, Donald Trump.

The job was always a killing one and a near impossible, one, and it has only become more difficult and unpleasant. Taking the job is an act of patriotism, and enduring it is an act of courage and character. No President has been treated as atrociously by so much of the public, the opposing party, his own party and the news media as Donald Trump, and it is remarkable that he accomplished as mach as he did under continuous attack. Nearly every other President has been accorded a “honeymoon,” the occasional benefit of the doubt, the opportunity to just play the head of state and accept the pomp, ceremony and traditional acclaim that comes with it. Not President Trump. He was not permitted a peaceful inauguration, nor respectful audiences in Congress to his State of the Union messages, nor the pleasure of throwing out the first ball in the baseball season, nor the host role in the Kennedy Center Honors, nor even an invitation to attend state funerals. Yet President Trump buggered on, as Winston Churchill said, doing his best to try to fulfill his promises and do what in his view was in the best interests of America.

He has been kicked virtually every day of his four years in office, and now his repulsive, vindictive, thuggish foes want to kick him as he goes out the door.

The effort to lay lat weeks riot at the Capitol at Trump’s feet is too cynical and false to be tolerated. Professor Turley had a succinct summary of how disingenuous that is in his recent column in the Hill:

We have had four years of violent protests, including the attacks on federal buildings, members of Congress, and symbols of our democracy. Former Attorney General William Barr was heavily criticized for clearing Lafayette Square last year after protesters injured numerous law enforcement officers, were injured themselves, burned a historic building, caused property damage, and threatened to breach the White House grounds. There were violent riots during the inauguration of Donald Trump and a lethal assault on some Republican lawmakers playing softball. Indeed, this year started as last year ended, with attacks on federal buildings in Portland and other cities.

It is beyond hypocritical for the same people and party that largely encouraged, enables and rationalized these and more to now pretend to be shocked, call a single, particularly stupid and pointless riot at the Capitol a “threat to Democracy,” and to attempt to impeach the President for his role in it, which consisted of endorsing a Constitutionally protected protest. The true threat to Democracy has been ongoing for four years, and it was called “the resistance.” I find it hard to believe that the American people will accept such a transparent and Orwellian distortion of reality, but I know that I won’t.

If the Congress wants to censure President Trump or some other symbolic gesture, fine. As I have written here, it was inappropriate for the President to be challenging the validity of his defeat, even more so than it was for Hillary Clinton to challenge the validity of her defeat, by Trump. Doing so was, in sequence, predictable, irresponsible, dangerous, in many ways justified, and completely in character. I would not object to an official precedent being established holding that no matter how close or dubious an election is, challenges to the results must not be pronounced in public, by POTUS.

Impeachment on this basis, however, is pure lawlessness. Here’s Turley again in another column (this is his specialty, after all). The emphasis is mine:

“..Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.

When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”….

The legal standard for violent speech is found with Clarence Brandenburg v. Ohio. As a free speech advocate, I criticized that 1969 case and its dangerously vague standard. But even it would treat the remarks of Trump as protected under the First Amendment. With that case, the government is able to criminalize speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol.

Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.

So Congress is now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president blamed for violent acts of others after using reckless language. What is worse are those few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke against the draft in World War One and led figures like Woodrow Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.”

Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, a new favorite term for Democrats to denounce Trump and Republicans who doubted the victory of Joe Biden.In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. It dismissed the free speech rights for Debs and held it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the international conflict.

That decision was a disgrace, but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.

That, of course, just makes the argument that the impeachment is unjustified. Pelosi and her party made it clear with the first impeachment, as well as in their rhetoric, that little details like that don’t matter. First they wanted to remove Trump because “he isn’t fit to be President,” though that’s the voters’ call. Then they wanted to impeach him because they could, so they did. Now, they want to rush an impeachment through out of pure hate and vengeance.

Turley, in yet another post on the topic, observes,

This impeachment not only threatens principles underlying impeachment but also free speech in our Constitution. As with court packing, this is not the time for good people to stand silent even in the face of such unhinged anger. Indeed, Democrats may loathe the day that they embraced the concept of a “snap impeachment” — a contradiction in constitutional terms. Impeachments are designed for deliberative, not impulsive, acts.

I will pledge this: if the Democrats go through with their “snap impeachment,” I will do everything in my power to make sure they rue the day.

Finally, Turley made an observation that I was going to post on, but I’ll give him credit since I’m relying on his posts so much already. He said that it was profoundly disappointing that Joe Biden hasn’t but the brakes on this terrible idea by his party’s Congress. He concluded,

He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system….Biden could have refused to go along with this plan or to remain silent in the face of a clearly improper use of the impeachment power.  He could still have condemned the speech and the President, as many have done. He could then have asked for his party not to do greater damage by rampaging through the Constitution to try to remove Trump in his final days. That was a presidential moment missed by the President-elect.

As he often is, Turley was too measured. Biden’s failure to stop his party from an attempted impeachment designed to inflame much of the nation proves that his somber words about “healing” and being a President for all Americans were just cover for what he and his party intends, which is to crush and punish all opposition if they can, beginning with Donald Trump. This was Biden’s first test of judgment, character and leadership, and he flunked.

Nobody should be surprised.

49 thoughts on “Pelosi’s Unconscionable “Snap Impeachment,” Part II: If This Happens, It Will Be Time To Release A Real “Kraken,” And I Hope I Can Help Feed Pelosi To It…[Corrected]

  1. I think Biden is basically amoral. Hopefully in two years people will wake up and realize what a hypocrite he is and he’s not even near as smart as Obama. I am pretty sure that this will continue in spite of his phony smile and hollow words about unity and reconciliation.

    • Wayne, your points are stipulated. More importantly: I suspect that what’s driving Biden (more accurately, those pulling his strings) right now is pretty straightforward.

      Gerald Ford probably never had presidential ambitions. But he was willing to serve the nation – and his party – as Nixon’s veep once the vile Spiro Agnew was sent packing. Ford, as we know, saved the nation untold angst by issuing Nixon a more-or-less blanket pardon.

      That Ford was President during a huge financial crisis that he inherited was a problem. Couple that with the dumb “Whip Inflation Now” button, the cardigans and the fact that Ford was roughly as inspiring as a bushel full of dryer lint.

      But the media narrative was that he let a criminal skate, and that led us directly to the wretched Presidency of Jimmuh Cartuh.

      Biden has long been two tacos short of a combo platter, but he IS a party man. And he watched all that happen. He may himself question whether he’ll finish his own first term, but for damned sure he won’t scuttle the possibility that 2024 will go to a Dem on the grounds that he let a criminal skate.

      • Ford wasn’t the brightest bulb in the Universe. However, with a hostile Congress determined to abandon the South Vietnamese and cutoff U.S. aid despite Nixon’s promise he didn’t have much of a hand to play with. Also, the pardon of Nixon basically sunk his chances of being elected in his own right. A decent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        • The wrong guy at the RIGHT time. Ford wasn’t Presidential material, and knew it. He was a decent, limited man, and the perfect man to take the bullet and pardon Nixon, which was the right thing to do.

          • I once knew a couple that went to college with Gerald Ford. Remember, he was a big-time college football player at the University of Michigan. Many such athletes are rather arrogant when dealing with scrawny physics majors. However, they said Ford always was kind. They said he was overmatched in his classes, as most athletes are (the average Michigan ACT score is 30, 93rd %ile), but that he was well liked and a genuinely nice person. That man I knew, Jack Hinkel, went on to help develop the transistor at Bell Labs. I always remember Jack and Penny when someone mentions Ford.

              • Ford was also humble enough to say this after being sworn in as VP:

                “I am a Ford, not a Lincoln.”

                …which to me is maybe the most brilliant thing ever said by any politician.

                –Dwayne

  2. Jack: the best and the worst of them, Andrew Johnson as well as Lincoln, Nixon as well as Eisenhower, the Bushes as well as Reagan, Hoover as well as FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and yes, Donald Trump.

    Agreed. Wilson was awful. How many decades did he set back racial equality in this country? However, Princeton betrays its own stupidity by not honoring him. To observe he was flawed is truly unremarkable, as they are human beings, one and all.

    And, don’t get me started on FDR….

    -Jut

  3. We have had four years of violent protests, including the attacks on federal buildings, members of Congress, and symbols of our democracy. Former Attorney General William Barr was heavily criticized for clearing Lafayette Square last year after protesters injured numerous law enforcement officers, were injured themselves, burned a historic building, caused property damage, and threatened to breach the White House grounds.

    When President Trump sent additional DHS agents to reinforce security at a courthouse in Portland, critics reacted with what I call the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse Ethics Train Wreck.

    Mayor Ted Wheeler started this Ethics Train Wreck, by telling these “troops” to leave. Senator Ron Wyden called these federal agents “an occupying army”. Oregon Governor Kate brown made outlandish claims about “secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi called these federal agents “stormtroopers” who “must be stopped”.

    (Strangely enough, you had never dedicated an entire blog post to this Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse Ethics Train Wreck).

    This irresponsible, inflammatory rheotric undermined public messaging against against rioting. In any places, police were ordered to stand down.

    In a column published in the New York Post, Andy Ngo opined

    The upshot should be clear: The deadly storming of the Capitol building is the logical outcome of norms set by the left in 2020. By winking at and apologizing for Antifa, liberal elites telegraphed that political grievances ought to be resolved through violence.

    I will further respond to the points made by Turley.

    For years, the public has shown a lack of trust and faith in our political system. There also is a wide rejection of the media, which once was a shared resource for information. The media has destroyed its credibility with years of bias, including blackouts on stories viewed as harmful to Democrats. Without faith in our leaders or the media, more than half of this nation appears to be untethered from the political system. That detachment is perilous for a representative government.

    This is because they are being denied the ability to persuade others. In a comment on a previous post, I explain why most losers nevertheless b elieve that the system is legitimate.

    https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/11/04/late-morning-observations-on-election-2020-so-far/#comment-722938

    In this system, you can not always have the public policies that you want. What grants the system legitimacy is that people have the power to persuade others on a level playing field in the public square. To be sure, not everyone has an equal ability to persuade others- a large, well-funded organization can call many more people, knock on many more doors, leave many more door hangers, post many more fliers, purchase more TV or radio advertisement space than an individual. But the laws and customs regarding the means we can use to persuade people are the same for all of us, no matter who we are or what policy we promote. A law about door hangers applies equally to you and those who oppose you politically.

    The actions of Big Tech have undermined this legitimacy, and I would not be surprised at a violent reaction aimed at the leaders of Big Tech.

    If the system itself is illegitimate, and peaceful persuasion is denied, some would ask why not resort to violence?

    I would not object to a precedent being set where there is official precedent established that hold that no matter how close or dubious an election is, challenges to must not be pronounced in public, by POTUS.

    Setting this precedent would, among other things, require a full accounting of the whole Russian collusion and “Russia hacked the election” hoaxes.

    Biden’s failure to stop his party from an attempted impeachment designed to inflame much of the nation proves that his somber words about “healing” and being a President for all Americans were just cover for what he and his party intends, which is to crush and punish all opposition if they can, beginning with Donald Trump. This was Biden’s first test of judgment, character and leadership, and he flunked.

    It also means they are our enemies, unworthy of respect.

    • Micheal said:

      This is because they are being denied the ability to persuade others. In a comment on a previous post, I explain why most losers nevertheless b elieve that the system is legitimate.

      I think this is incisive, and an outstanding point that hasn’t been made in suitably stark terms. The biggest danger, and the reason many on the Right have become alienated from the political system and embraced an outsider is precisely this.

      They feel that they have no voice, no place to state their objections, and that the current system isn’t just rigged against them, it is actively suppressing their arguments and complaints.

      One of the biggest reasons the Founders wanted freedom of speech is that it is not only a fundamental human right, but it also provides an outlet for passions that would otherwise be expressed by violence. When people feel powerless to persuade, they eventually resort to ways that can’t be ignored or “de-platformed.” That’s when societies use totalitarian tactics to preserve order, and it always ends the same way. To be fair, this is also a good reason not to suppress the speech of Antifa and even those groups classified as terrorist.

      It also means they are our enemies, unworthy of respect.

      This is an observation I must reject. An enemy not respected is an enemy underestimated. That way lies destruction.

      Having said that and at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I suspect you meant that their arguments are unworthy of respect. If so, I agree.

      I think this is CoTD material.

      • When people feel powerless to persuade, they eventually resort to ways that can’t be ignored or “de-platformed.” That’s when societies use totalitarian tactics to preserve order, and it always ends the same way. To be fair, this is also a good reason not to suppress the speech of Antifa and even those groups classified as terrorist.

        We should be lucky that the Civil Rights movement did not end up like this.

        Regarding the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse Ethics Train Wreck, it totally surprised me that Jack never posted an entire blog post on that event. I mean, you had elected officials, including the Speaker of the House, denouncing the use iof federal agents to protect a courthouse, going so far as to accuse the agents of inciting violence by the arsonsist mob.

        And yet, Jack never posted on this.

  4. If Biden wanted “unity” he could simply go on record against this nonsense and state he will pardon Trump on his first day in office. Now – where is that unicorn I ordered?

  5. Frankly, Jack, I think this nation is one step away from a second Civil War. Someone else here compared the foolish and wrong attack on the Capitol to the Reichstag Fire. However, as James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi wrote in a book on the Pacific Campaign “it’s not enough to remember history, one must also remember the details.” Most folks are pretty much convinced that the Reichstag Fire was a set-up by the Nazis so that they could seize power, but few have read what really happened. The fire was actually set by an almost-blind Communist who wasn’t even German, he was Dutch. He was found guilty and executed. Others were charged but acquitted. The verdict was overturned later on the grounds that it was politically tainted, but the factual finding that this non-German was the one who set the fire was never disturbed. The finding that he acted alone a la Lee Harvey Oswald was also never disturbed.

    However, the Nazis jumped on the chance and expelled the Communist members from the Reichstag, giving themselves a strong majority, and then they cemented their power. Hitler was already chancellor and had been for about a month, but this meant no one could touch him or his party. A neighbor of mine down the street who was a Holocaust survivor said that this was about the time some folks stopped thinking that Hitler was a loudmouth who wouldn’t last. Unfortunately not enough did, and you know the rest. Elections were scheduled for soon after, the Nazis won an overwhelming majority, passed the Enabling Act, and before long they were confiscating weapons, silencing the opposition, stripping Jews and other citizens they did not like of their civil rights, and standing back as the property and livelihoods of those same folks were destroyed on Krstallnacht, with no action by the emergency services.

    So tell me, who is it who’s jumping on this event to trash not just Trump, but his following and his party as well? Who is trying to get every entity in the world to ostracize Trump like a leper? Who is it who’s clamoring for lawmakers who allied with Trump to get thrown out of Congress? Who is it who wants to brand anyone who slipped with the label of “race offender” so they can’t get hired? Who is it who stood back and held back aid from all kinds of destruction until they finally found some rioters they didn’t like? Who is it who’s making sure the flames of this don’t die down? Who is it that wants to kick everyone they disagree with off every platform they can? Who is trying to trash platforms themselves, the digital age equivalent of entering a newspaper office and trashing the presses? Hint: it isn’t the GOP.

    The WW2 vets tell the story that most ordinary Germans would claim they didn’t think it would go as far as it did, or that it went as far as it did. The fact is that most of them were already angry, having suffered an ugly defeat in WWI and then an economic depression that made it impossible to bounce back. They were fertile ground for half-truths, blame directed at those made unpopular, and promises that if they obeyed, everything would be wonderful again. Do I really need to spell the parallels out for you?

    Do you really think a party interested in reuniting this country would have thrown aside a chance for real police reform that everyone could agree on in favor of encouraging destruction? Do you really think a party interested in reuniting this country would essentially start a war on white men? Do you really think a party interested in reuniting this country would have done nothing but oppose and criticize the president’s handling of this pandemic, instead of trying to work with him on it? Do you really think a party interested in reuniting this country would stand four-square behind silencing those opposed and intentionally driving alternative providers out of business?

    Oh, and one other thing, given what we’ve already seen, do you think that the opposition you try to crush and silence and push into hiding is more likely to just go along with it, or to rise up against it? If you keep telling someone you aren’t interested in hearing what he has to say, you aren’t interested in addressing his concerns, and that he’s a fascist traitor, then what’s he got to lose by rising up?

  6. I’m rooting for the Democrats to go absolutely balls to the wall on this. Go out as far as they can on this limb. Have at it, Nancy. You’ve reduced yourself to a cartoon character.

  7. I always hate to engage in pedantic, word-Nazi rants, but this one’s driving me crazy, and I don’t blame you or the numerous others who have made this error:

    If the Congress wants to censor President Trump or some other symbolic gesture, fine.

    I am positive this is a spell check problem as pervasive as it has been. “Censure” is of course the word that you intended, but the rampant substitution of “censor” is a testament to the inadequacy of current software intended to spare us from spelling errors. Having said that, God knows where I’d personally be without it…

    [/rant]

    On to the substance.

    To your point, Jack, I guess censure just isn’t dramatic enough for Peolsi & Co.’s supporters, and quite frankly, the President deserves a significant amount of blame. His over-the-top rhetoric has basically made it penalty-free for the Democrats to respond in kind, and they have just taken it to the nth degree. This is the kind of non-proportional response politicians often claim as their right, especially when they can invoke “public safety,” or “the safety of the republic.” The Universal Trump strikes again.

    I wonder what would happen if there were actual consequences for things like this, for both sides, like voters holding them to account for being inflammatory? I guess that’s no longer a thing, (then again, maybe that’s why Trump lost!) and I blame social media in large part. Interestingly, social media is in the process of proving that a lack of self-awareness isn’t just limited to Democratic politicians, but to the Left in general.

    Prof. Turley said:

    Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.

    If we walk up and punch a guy who offends us in the face, and there are no consequences, what lesson do we take from that? I think we can all agree that the lesson is that supposed consequences for assault don’t apply under whatever those circumstances were.

    So when circumstances obtain to which we know there will be no consequences for trashing norms and standards of behavior, and even inure a benefit from our supporters, it’s no surprise that the little devil on our shoulder is going into full gratification mode. That’s where the Democrats find themselves, and boy, are they all in with that little Lucifer.

    I don’t really know if the Democrats want to damage the institutions they are insulting with their tactics, or if they (insanely, in my view) believe the harm will be limited to the individuals and parties they think deserve it. I suppose some of both — The Squad et. al. are happy to see our system damaged, and perhaps others just think it will go away like a bad dream after Trump is safely out of office.

    Tragically, the harm is very real and there will be consequences at some point. If history (and more recently, previously persecuted minorities) has taught us nothing else, it is that when one side of a dispute becomes politically ascendant after being treated wrongfully, exacting vengeance is an irresistible urge. I think Turley’s fear, and mine as well, is that the urge to avenge oneself or ones beliefs on their persecutors will result in escalation to the point of soceital breakdown and even more violence than we have already seen from both sides.

    Let’s hope this damage is not severe enough to lead us down that road. But even short of that, does anyone actually think we can ever return to the comparative sanity of the 1990’s (which was pretty over-the-top in its own right)? I don’t know, and you can never say never, but it seems a long way off at best.

    • Argh. I know the difference, that was just a stupid, careless typo. Thanks for the correction, Glenn. I’m a moron. The next sentence was a mess too, and I proofed that post, I swear.

      Fixed. I’m heading to the bridge now.

    • If history (and more recently, previously persecuted minorities) has taught us nothing else, it is that when one side of a dispute becomes politically ascendant after being treated wrongfully, exacting vengeance is an irresistible urge.

      It is irresistable because of the fear of what happens if those who had wrongfully treated them did not learn their lesson.

      I think Turley’s fear, and mine as well, is that the urge to avenge oneself or ones beliefs on their persecutors will result in escalation to the point of soceital breakdown and even more violence than we have already seen from both sides.

      Let’s hope this damage is not severe enough to lead us down that road.

      With recent events, such as people being denied alternative platforms, violence is inevitable.

      I would rather have a Civil War than a Holocaust.

      We were already lucky that the Civil Rights movement did not result in another Civil War.

  8. Since both the Democrats and Republicans are calling for President Trump to resign, this really is the right time for the President to resign and then Pence can pardon Trump and his entire administration for all real or perceived offenses against him/them during his term as President.

    • Which Republicans are calling for Trump to resign?

      In any event, I will assume, without deciding and for the purposes iof this comment, that Trump’s speech was reckless.

      How is it any worse than what various Democratic politicians and media figures said during the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse Ethics Train Wreck, defaming federal agents as stormtroopers, making outlandish accusations that they were abducting protesters, an d blaming the agents for inciting the attack on the courthouse (nevermind the fact that the agents were sent there because the courthouse was already under attack)?

      • So far only a few, including lame duck Pat Toomey and Democrat-in-GOP-clothing Lisa Murkowski. Until 17 senators say it, the answer is no, go to hell.

  9. It appears that the real plan is not to remove Trump from office — even Pelosi knows that’s not going to happen.

    Rather, the idea as I understand it is to impeach Trump while he is still in office, and then wait until later in the year to hold the trial in the Senate, so as not to impede Biden’s first weeks in office.

    Aside from being a hateful temper tantrum, it would appear that the Democrats are deathly afraid Trump would run and win in 2024. I’m not so sure he could do so, but there it is. One cannot but wonder what Twitter would do if he were to be nominated in 2024 (and even more so if he were elected).

    Sooooooo, if Trump can’t tweet, I guess that lets him spend all his time doing rallies across the country. Is that what the Democrats want? Is that what the Republicans want?

    • Nuts, as well as “Nuts!” You can’t impeach a private citizen. The trail can’t take place after Trump has left office. Talk about “moot.” And being on the verge of losing the House in the mid-term, a spite triaal would not be the most intelligent course.

      They are insane.

      • Insane? Can’t prove you wrong there, Jack.

        I believe their reasoning is: Impeach now, while he’s in office. They claim there is some legal support for being able to hold the trial after he leaves office. Again, the purpose is to disqualify him from running in 2024.

        Or maybe they figure they’ve got to make hay while the sun shines, because in two years it’s going to get a bit cloudy for them.

        • Impeachment bans convicted officials from “positions of trust,” which means appointed positions, not elected. The Supreme Court would definitely rule this. Heck, the House has an impeached and convicted judge among the Democrats!!

          • Good to know — too bad the Dems aren’t bright enough to figure that out.

            Also, not too surprising, now that I think about it. The Founders were not keen on the concept of bills of attainder, in fact I think there might be a word or two about that in the constitution.

  10. It really is funny how the Dems are going ballistic over their house being trashed by rioters but they were fine with businesses being torched all summer long.

    • When rioters threatened a federal courthouse and DHS agents swooped in to protect it, Speaker Pelosi wrote,

      She wanted to stop “stormtroopers” from protecting a courthouse.

      I wonder if she was wishing that there were more “stormtroopers” last Wednesday.

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.