Ethics Quote Of The Month:Rep. Alex Moody (R-WV) [Corrected]

us-constitution-01a

“It is wrong to have sent members of Congress home and then try to adopt without any debate a precedent-setting resolution that could imperil our Republic. The U.S. House must never adopt a resolution that demands the removal of a duly elected president, without any hearings, debate or recorded votes.”

Congressman Alex Mooney, blocking the Democrats’ idiotic and unethical attempt to pass a unanimous motion calling on Vice-President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, which is neither relevant nor legal under current circumstances.

Why yes, Congressman, it is! Not that you don’t deserve credit for speaking up, but it increasingly appears that the latest, most petty and potentially most dangerous effort by Democrats to prematurely end Donald Trunp’s tenure as President is incompetent, grandstanding, and not very serious, as if trying to remove a President shouldn’t always be serious.

On the other hand, after 19 previous attempts, maybe these mini-coups are like eating buttered popcorn to these vicious hacks. Once they start, they just can’t stop.

Mooney’s statement began, “Today I objected to Speaker Pelosi’s attempt to adopt via unanimous consent a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump. Speaker Pelosi should not attempt to adopt a resolution of this magnitude without any debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Exactly. It’s good to know someone in that big, white domey thing can read.

Pelosi’s statement, in contrast, suggest that she’s the one who has become unable to discharge the duties of her office:

“The House Republicans rejected this legislation to protect America, enabling the President’s unhinged, unstable and deranged acts of sedition to continue. Their complicity endangers America, erodes our Democracy, and it must end. The House will next take up the Raskin legislation in regular order to call upon the Vice President to activate the 25th Amendment to remove the President. We are further calling on the Vice President to respond within 24 hours after passage.”

Nonsense, designed for people who know neither the law, the Constitution, logic, or the English language.

There was no sedition by even the most broad definition (though I haven’t checked what Miriam-Webster has done to the definition in recent days). Pelosi’s Democrats have come closer to sedition, and they are nowhere near it yet. Protect America against what? No one, not even the most clinically Trump Deranged, seriously thinks that the President is going to do anything dire in the next 10 days. It is contrived stunts and plots like this one that endanger the nation, not anything the President has done or might do.

 Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the head of the campaign arm for House Republicans, called it “a politically motivated effort by Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats that will fracture our nation even more instead of bringing us together.” As to the first claim, “Duh,” and as to the last, “Of course”… as I already wrote here, and the conclusion wasn’t hard.

Emmer added that the anger underlying the Capitol riot was, in part, triggered by years of “fomenting the type of vitriol that has been dividing our nation over the course of many years and it has to stop.” That’s hardly a revelation either, or shouldn’t be.

Nor is it difficult to dismiss Pelosi’s lawless stunt as a desecration of the Constitution after her candid remarks yesterday in an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl. Stahl trapped Pelosi into spilling the beans by saying, “There is a possibility that after all of this, there’s no punishment, no consequence, and he could run again for President.”

“And that’s one of the motivations that people have for advocating for impeachment!” Pelosi responded. “I like the 25th Amendment because it gets rid of him, he’s out of office, but there is strong support in the Congress for impeaching the president a second time. This president is guilty of inciting insurrection. He has to pay a price for that.”

Well, “getting rid of him,” which has been the Democrats’ goal since he was elected, is not a valid motivation for cooking up a fake impeachment resolution and deliberately misusing the 25th Amendment, which specifically describes a disability. Donald Trump’s jerkism is a serious character flaw, but it isn’t a disability like Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, or if Reagan or Kennedy lingered on between life and death after they were shot. That’s what the 25th Amendment is for. I am certain the use of it that Pelosi wants would be forbidden by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, as all but the most partisan legal experts have pointed out, it is absurd to say that the President is guilty of inciting an “insurrection.” Jonathan Turley made that case definitively, and there is no plausible way a phony House impeachment will get Trump out of office before he’s out of office anyway. As Alan Dershowitz has explained, and he seems genuinely contemptuous of the Democratic plot, “The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office.”

The Senate cannot vote to convict a private citizen of anything. Read that Constitution, Nancy, or have someone explain it to you. Furthermore, neither the 25th Amendment nor an impeachment could stop Trump from running for office. The Democrats have a Representative, Alcee Hastings, who is an impeached and convicted federal judge. If he can run for Congress, Trump could run for President. (Andrew Johnson, who was also impeached but acquitted, also ran for Congress, and was elected to the Senate. Maybe whoever reads the Constitution to Nancy should also read some American history books.

So basically the Democrats are willing to exacerbate the bitterness and division in the country by using impeachment or the 25th Amendment to just denigrate and rough up Trump before he leaves office, as a political device to minimize the chances that they have to face him again.

That is not what those provisions are in the Constitution for. Using them as tools of political warfare is an abuse of power and an insult to our system of government.

_________________________________

Sources: US Constitution, Epoch Times, Tyler O’Neill

43 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Month:Rep. Alex Moody (R-WV) [Corrected]

  1. Well Nancy Pelosi never completed law school much less pass the bar so her ignorance of the Constitution is no big surprise. Too bad we’ll be stuck with her for awhile although her remaining as Speaker of the House after 2 years seems questionable. Perhaps her relatives should contact A Place For Mom.

  2. As Joe Biden would say, Nancy Pelosi, and all the rabid Democrats she leads, is a one horse pony. Trump is just a pinata with which they are obsessed. Nancy seems absolutely incapable of doing anything other than attacking Trump. It’s fairly pathetic, actually. I wonder if she’s not as demented as Joe is and has problems controlling her anger because of plaque build ups in her frontal lobe. She’s a modern day Captain Ahab, but an Ahab who knows not a thing about tracking whales.

  3. So what should the appropriate response be to the encouragement (if not ‘incitement’) of an attack on the Capitol?

    • Where was the “encouragement” of an “attack”? You can read that speech a hundred times, and there’s no exhortation to violence, while keeping the protest peaceful is stated outright. The political use of “fight” is never used literally, unless there’s an actual war, a la Churchill.

      Presidents shouldn’t be rallying protests against Congress. It’s irresponsible and reckless. The remedy is general disapproval, and we have that, plus the lesson learned: any protest has the potential to turn violent, and the more passionate the protest, the more the risk.

      • I recognised the message as clearly many others did. “Be there”. “It will be wild”; and “I’ll be with you” were all pretty clear in my language. Interesting that after all that he didn’t turn up. Have to conclude he knew what was likely to happen.

        • None of those phrasings would be considered an unambiguous call for bad action in U.S. English. The last is not even a promise of physical presence.

          • Interesting. So you’d be relaxed seeing the facebook post from your teenager inviting all-comers to a party at your place while you’re away: “Be there”. “It’s going to be wild!!!” Probably just a quiet game of scrabble? In my English you would expect the place to be trashed. The word ‘wild’ is the give away.

            • That’s beyond a stretch! The million women’s march where they wore “pussy hats” was wild. Trump has a vocabulary of about 200 words. Everything is hyperbole–great, wonderful, terrible, biggest, etc. The teenager is a good analogy. No, I wouldn’t be comfortable, but I wouldn’t think he meant a riot, either.

              Incitement requires scienter and intent. There was none

            • Andrew Wakeling wrote, “Interesting. So you’d be relaxed seeing the facebook post from your teenager inviting all-comers to a party at your place while you’re away: “Be there”. “It’s going to be wild!!!” Probably just a quiet game of scrabble? In my English you would expect the place to be trashed. The word ‘wild’ is the give away.”

              Nonsense.

              Here’s a perfect example of incitement directly from the chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, Hawk Newsome who said “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it” and then rioters across the USA proceed to tear shit up and burn shit to the ground. Was Hawk Newsome arrested for inciting riot, nope his statement was considered free speech; however, Hawk Newsome has been arrested for participating in illegal protests and riots.

              There is absolutely nothing in President Trump’s speech that rises to the level of incitement to violence.

        • Who you really need to blame is the press and the Democrats. They have twisted the language to make an ambiguous call to peaceful protest almost impossible. Over the last few years they have worked to equate ‘peaceful protest’ with bombings, shootings, dragging people from cars and beating them, burning cities to the ground and looting. That isn’t Trump’s fault. The fact that your brain equates protest with riot means that you fell for it. They successfully reprogramed you.

        • Andrew Wakeling wrote, “I recognized the message as clearly many others did. “Be there”. “It will be wild”; and “I’ll be with you” were all pretty clear in my language.”

          None of those things are inciting riot.

          Also; “It will be wild” was not stated by Trump in his speech, you are conflating previous statements.

  4. I can understand why Speaker Pelosi does not want debate.

    Remember the Mark O. Hatfield Ethics Train Wreck?

    If President Trump “incited” “insurrection”, according to these ludicrous definitions, then Pelosi did the same during the Ethics Train Wreck.

    “Trump & his stormtroopers must be stopped.”

    Yes, stopped from protecting a federal courthouse from a violent mob of rioters.

    According to Andy Ngo in his article “Rage at Capitol assault makes excuses for summer riots all the more disgraceful”, there were 277 injuries of officers in Portland alone.

    The attack on the federal courthouse continued after Pelosi’s tweet. By this ludicrous definition, Pelosi’s call to stop the “stormtroopers” incited further attacks against the courthouse and the DHS agents.

    And during the debate, House Republicans will continually point this out.

  5. Why are they so intent on throwing him out of office no matter what pretense they have to fabricate? Trump let the cat out of the bag. He refuses to go along with this sham election. By refusing to play the part he has been told to play, he has opened people’s eyes to how dirty the system is. But the Democrats don’t care. They are going to punish him as a warning to anyone else who dares try to get elected to high office without permission. It is complete. This may be the last election. Trump’s credit card processor has shut down donations to his campaign. His online store has been shut down. He is banned on all social media sites that are allowed to operate. He can’t even listen to music on Spotify! So, if they can do it to Trump, can’t they do it to anyone? From now on, will the banks, credit card processors, online stores,and every social media company have to approve your candidacy before you are allowed to RUN for office? How can you run a campaign if you aren’t allowed to take donations, aren’t allowed to advertise, aren’t allowed to communicate with voters? Who can stop them? Do elections really matter if a few billionaires decide who can be on each and every ballot?

    It doesn’t matter. The media has convinced too many people that getting Trump is worth ANY price.

  6. Here is an alternative point of view (not that I endorse it).

    http://reason.com/video/2021/01/11/the-case-for-impeaching-trump/

    The Case for Impeaching Trump
    “The question of whether incitement to riot is an impeachable offense is pretty easy,” says the Cato Institute’s Gene Healy. “Clearly, yes.”
    MEREDITH BRAGG | 1.11.2021 10:24 AM

    HD Download
    “From the beginning of this not normal presidency, we’ve had a lot of talk about both impeachment and the 25th Amendment,” says Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy, author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

    “In most ordinary circumstances…the 25th Amendment is a really poor tool for removing a president,” Healy tells Reason. “It was really designed for presidents that were nearly completely incapacitated: Woodrow Wilson after the stroke, James Garfield dying of blood poisoning after the assassination attempt.”

    “During the Trump presidency, when this solution has been proposed, I thought it was pretty unrealistic,” says Healy. “I think we may be in a different situation here, though.”

    “The argument for a 25th Amendment solution here would be: How lucky do you feel? Are we sure that what happened at the Capitol, after Trump’s riot rally speech, are we sure that that was peak Trump?…Maybe it is. Do you want to think about how much you’re willing to stake on that proposition?”

    The argument for impeaching Trump—an action House Democrats are promising if the president is not removed through the 25th Amendment—is different, Healy says.

    “What impeachment does is it puts an additional black mark on a presidency—an additional mark of disgrace and shame,” he explains. “It’s a signal to the presidents that are going to follow that this black mark can be put on you even at the last moments of your presidency if your behavior has been egregious enough. Making Donald Trump the only president to have been impeached twice would really underscore that point.”

    A long proponent of impeaching more presidents, Healy hopes the worst arguments against impeachment will be buried in the wake of Wednesday’s storming of the U.S. Capitol.

    “I don’t ever want to hear again, that it’s impeachment that’s a constitutional crisis, that it’s impeachment that’s disruptive and anti-democratic. I think that argument deserves to be laughed out of court, given what we’ve experienced over the last few days.”

    Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg.

    Photos: Pat Benic/UPI/Newscom; RMG News / Rise Images / MEGA / Newscom; Ken Cedeno/UPI/Newscom; Lev Radin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Shay Horse/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Carol Guzy/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Liu Jie Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Michael Nigro/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Shawn Thew/POOL/CNP/InStar/Cover Images/Newscom; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Yegor Aleyev/TASS/Sipa USA/Newscom; Shealah Craighead/White House/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom

      • Obviously no one told him this wasn’t supposed to be a parliamentary system, where you can just call for a vote of no confidence at any time. Beware, with a REAL senile old man in office, not an accused one (are you listening out there, you ignorant Reagan haters?) this might come back to bite.

    • “From the beginning of this not normal presidency…”

      This statement jumps out at me. Why is this not a normal presidency? I would argue that it was the Democrats and their allies in the news media and the entertainment industry that made it abnormal.

      From the beginning, there was no attempt to give Donald Trump a chance. As liberal as he was, Walter Cronkite would never have cried on election night when watching Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan win. The lip service paid by media pundits for the need to search their souls to determine why the 2016 election turned out the way it did disappeared pretty quickly. From attempts to bribe and/or threaten electors to pressure put on entertainers to turn down Inauguration festivities, it was clear that the Democrats were going to make sure this was not a normal Presidency. I read an article on Inauguration Day that asked what would happen if the President and Vice-President were both assassinated that day. Can you imagine the outrage had that article appeared in 2009 or 2013? Harassment of, not only the President, but also his children became acceptable and even celebrated when Ivanka Trump and her family were harassed by a fellow airline passenger for “not flying private” and whose spouse gleefully reported it on social media

      Hollywood did its due diligence, acting as a propaganda arm of the news media by reinforcing Big Lies, such as the Trump administration putting children in cages. Horrific statements and imagery by Peter Fonda and Kathy Griffin followed. Samantha Bee used vicious language and a disgusting allusion to incest to punish the President’s daughter for the crime of posting a photo of her baby on Mother’s Day.

      Betsy DeVos was blocked temporarily from visiting a school by a crowd of agitated demonstrators a mere month after the Inauguration. Trump officials were regularly treated as the enemy by the press until they left the administration and had dirt to spill.

      The strong economy was dismissed as a Ponzi scheme, tough talk with North Korea was inciting war (while discussions with the same were shown as proof that the President belonged to the Club of Dictators), getting our troops out of foreign countries and away from fighting local wars – something the Democrats have long supported – suddenly became irresponsible. If the the President didn’t go visit the troops, it meant he didn’t care about them; if the President visited the troops, he was making it all about him. Rumors were reported as fact; anchors spent days vilifying the President for a remark he was alleged to have made that no one present substantiated. Anonymous sources became the norm. Any statement by the President, whether in jest, exaggerated or designed to inspire was labeled a lie. In the meantime, a Democrat in trouble was mislabeled by CNN with the political party tag R for over a day before the R was removed (and not replaced with a D). When only Fox News or other conservative news sources reported events, they were dismissed because the other news sources weren’t reporting them; thus, they couldn’t be true. There are intelligent people within my circle today who insist that, if they didn’t see a news report on CNN or NBC about a particular incident, then it didn’t happen.

      As the news media downplayed any of the President’s successes and underreported any negative news about Democrats, the President was also robbed of the ceremonial aspects of his job. Roundly criticized for violating “democratic” or “Presidential” norms for not showing up at the Kennedy Center or the White House Correspondents’ dinner when it was inevitable that he would be derided for his mere presence on top of anything he said or did, they did not recognize they were violating those norms themselves by their transparent hostility.

      Not even private lives were safe. Rep. Maxine Waters demanded that members of the administration and its supporters be confronted in public, (“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”) Trump officials and other Republicans were kicked out of restaurants and harassed in public. Anyone with a MAGA hat became a target, whether it was a teenager on a field trip or an old man with a parody hat that read “Make 50 Great Again”. Rep. Steve Scalise was shot and had to undergo surgery after a leftist opened fire on a group of Republicans, then had to remind the short-lived memories inhabited by Twitter months later that, in fact, Democratic rhetoric can cause violence against conservatives. Eric McCormack tweeted that lists should be published of Republican donors so that they can be blacklisted from work (“”Hey, @THR, kindly report on everyone attending this event so the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t want to worrk with. Thx.”) and had to be lectured by Whoopi Goldberg on how dangerous that sentiment is.

      The Supreme Court nomination process was turned on its heels when the opposition decided that a 30-year old accusation against an otherwise impeccably-qualified judge warranted a circus sideshow that devolved into analyzing the inscription in a yearbook. (The judge’s children were drawn into it when a mean-spirited political cartoon was published mocking them in prayer) The Democrats and their allies insisted that the mere accusation was disqualifying enough and that all women need to be believed. Meanwhile, photographic evidence of Joe Biden touching and sniffing surprised females continued to surface.

      As impeachment scam after impeachment scam waxed and waned, the Democrats finally decided to impeach the President for linking foreign aid to investigating crimes, a “Presidential norm” that he didn’t violate, but norms aren’t norms if Trump does them…apparently. While forcing the country through this farce during the holiday season, they blithely dismissed growing concern about the COVID-19 virus, insisting that President Trump could not use the virus as a distraction from impeachment. Nancy Pelosi violated norms when she tore up the President’s State of the Union address in front of the whole world (a speech in which the President mentioned the virus concerns), urged people to visit Chinatown and her cohorts in the Democratic Party made similar exhortations about seeing shows and living normally.

      Then, as the Senate did not convict the President (as was inevitable), the Democrats realized that concerns about the virus that were affecting the stock market could be the key to toppling Trump. They immediately went on the warpath, demanding stringent lockdowns and excessive, and likely unconstitutional, measures to fight it. Anyone opposing them was a science denier who wanted to kill vulnerable old people. As Dr. Fauci, the CDC and WHO waffled on whether masks were effective or not, U.S. citizens were expected to march in lockstep (or goosestep?) with anything they said, even if it contradicted what they said three weeks before. Flattening the curve for two weeks became a months-long destroyer of small businesses as elderly nursing home residents suffered from isolation from their loved ones while Governor Cuomo packed their institutions with COVID patients so he didn’t have to use the hospital ship that the President sent. In the meantime, the Democrats falsely claimed that the President called the virus a hoax while their media friends splashed headlines about idiot registered Democrats who drank fish cleaner because of him.

      When the President offered hope – a Presidential norm – he was reviled for lying and misleading the population. For months, any talk of a vaccine being released before the end of 2021 was downplayed by the media as being unrealistic and irresponsible and that any vaccine put out would likely be unreliable.

      When Americans protested the loss of their jobs, the disruption of their children’s education and the overall ludicrous lockdown provisions in certain states, they were called selfish. Articles emphasized “most not wearing masks or social distancing”. And they were all called Trump supporters.

      Then some idiot cop used excessive force on a suspect resisting arrest and all hell broke lose as the media continued the false narrative that cops are hunting down and murdering innocent blacks; a lie facilitated by Democratic officials in city after city that allowed rioters to go crazy, destroying property, attacking innocent people and, in some cases, killing them, while claiming these were just peaceful protests. The idea of law and order was derided as criminals controlled the streets and took over an area of one of our major cities. When the President sent troops to restore order, the Democrats reiterated their accusations that he was a dictator and demanded he call back the troops, relinquishing government control of a Federal courthouse to the mob.

      Meanwhile, glowing reports of those “mostly masked” peaceful protesters – no mention of social distancing because, apparently, that doesn’t matter? – covered the news cycle. EA even covered the medical community’s insistence that it was essential for blacks – among the most vulnerable to the COVID virus – to protest as a protected right and specifically singled out lockdown protesters as not having the same right.

      The standout candidate among the long list of rejects to take the Democratic mantle for 2020 was a man who spent months in his basement, forgetting what office he was running for, using words that would have gotten Trump mocked for weeks. Added to his team solely for her sex and the shape of her private parts was a Vice-Presidential candidate who barely registered during the primaries and who flat-out accused her future-Presidential running mate of racism for compromising with segregationists during the ’70s and informed him that she believed the sexual harassment claims against him during the debates.

      The countdown to the 2020 election brought new lows as Big Tech didn’t bother to pretend anymore. As major newspapers and networks refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop issue, Facebook and Twitter clamped down on anyone even sharing the story and started suspending the accounts of not-insignificant players, such as the NY Post. Fact-checking conservative stories became the norm.

      When irregularities in the way several states counted their ballots on Election Night surfaced, the Democrats – who spent four years insisting that the 2016 election had been rigged by Russian interference and that Trump was not a legitimate President – now claimed that election tampering was impossible and how dare anyone claim our elections can be compromised by malicious actors. Big Tech jumped into the game by supressing stories about election concerns.

      Now, less than two weeks from Inauguration Day, the Speaker is trying to impeach the President one more time, the Democrats want to expel Republicans from Congress, Big Tech is suspending the social media account of a Senator who wrote an article it didn’t like and going out of its way to make sure that a private citizen – a former President of the United States – will not have the ability to use any of its platforms to disseminate his views. In the meantime, Twitter allows “Hang Mike Pence” to trend.

      No, this hasn’t been a normal Presidency. The Democrats didn’t allow it to be. They spent four years undermining the Presidency, the Supreme Court, the Constitution and our very system of government. They encouraged ignorance of our institutions, the maligning of our Finding Fathers and the marginalization of groups of people based solely on their race, gender, religious and political beliefs. they have caused incalculable harm to our country, possibly even irreversible harm, because of their hatred of one man.

      If you aren’t outraged, you haven’t been paying attention. If they can do it to Trump, they can do it to you.

        • Could you be more specific, just to educate a foreigner please? What’s the plan? Or do you envisage going straight to the the full ‘Michael Collins’? If so will there be time to evacuate the kids?

            • Michael Collins was a much better poet and according to Bertrand Russell a good dinner companion. If you’re looking for a model for your next career (revolutionary / guerrilla leader etc.) I’d recommend Collins. Wonderful orator. And very popular with the women ……

          • My first recommendation would be to break up the big trusts. These companies have too much power. It’s time for Congress to reduce that power. I’m not quite to the place where I think internet access should be a utility regulated by the government (because, frankly, I don’t trust the Biden administration to act any more responsibly or fairly than the tech companies did themselves), but they need to be knocked down a peg and, as we know, where ethics fail, the law steps in.

            The rest of it has to come from the American people themselves. They need to start rejecting dishonesty in the media, stop putting celebrities on some kind of intellectual pedestal and begin questioning the academic and scientific communities that have, thus far, been given the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, they need to inform themselves better.

      • It was abnormal because Trump did not get permission from the ruling class to become President. This hasn’t happened for a long time. Truman? Teddy Roosevelt?

  7. Nancy Pelosi is really something.

    * Either the President is medically incompetent to exorcise his duties, or he is not.

    * Either the President is guilty of misconduct worthy of his removal by impeachment, or he is not.

    However, there is no overlap here. If the president is incompetent, then he cannot meaningfully defend himself at impeachment. Only the 25 Amendment would be appropriate; indeed necessary. If the president were competent, using the 25th Amendment would be wholly inappropriate.

    (Perhaps, maybe, the Vice President could be impeached for failing to start 25th Amendment proceedings if truly warranted by circumstance. Perhaps also, the President could impeached for wanton endangerment by not stepping aside when medical incompetence is apparent, but that is not the alleged misconduct.)

    Pelosi is revealing herself to be an opportunistic hack by, treating two unlike emergency tools for removing the president as equivalent. The history of impeachment isn’t perfect upholding this distinction, but basic criminal law tradition and common sense should make this distinction apparent.

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.