I’m a Presidential history junkie, and I’d watch re-runs of “Three’s Company” before I’d tune into the current debacle in the Senate. If it’s not worth the Chief Justice’s time, it isn’t worth mine. The think is unconstitutional and sure to be over-turned if there is a conviction, and a waste of time if there is not. And frankly, it’s an embarrassment to my country. It’s like watching one’s senile mother run naked through the streets, screaming. If someone writes commentary on some aspect of the “trial,” I may weigh in. Otherwise, I regard it as just the late stages of the 2016 election tantrum.
1. For example, Law professor Douglas Kmiec wants Senators to vote in secret because he wants to see them convict Donald John Trump. This, of course, would be a travesty of democracy, preventing citizens from knowing what their Senators did in an important matter.
“Yet, despite Trump having neither law nor fact nor common sense on his side, it is largely predicted that conviction in the Senate will lack the requisite two-thirds vote. When Trump faced the earlier impeachment, I urged that the Senate have the benefit of a secret ballot like almost all jurors have in non-impeachment matters and that all of us enjoy in primary and general elections. The wisdom of a secret ballot is even greater because of the Jan. 6 riot, the continuing threat of violence against members of Congress, and in state capitals around the country.”
This guy is really a law professor (at Pepperdine)! HE has neither law nor fact nor common sense on his side, and has the gall to write that: astounding. Jurors are not elected, nor are they accountable to the public for their decisions. Senators are.
The AUC so hates Donald Trump that they are willing to pull down any laws and principles of democracy that get in their way. Sound familiar? It should. Here, let me run this again:
Some day when my stomach is feeling strong I will have to analyze which profession more thoroughly destroyed its credibility in its pursuit of President Trump. Academics? Journalists? Historians? Lawyers? Elected officials?
2. How can Rep. Greene be stripped of her committee assignments while corrupt, vicious, ignorant, dishonest Maxine Waters still holds a leadership position in the House? Recently some wag quizzed Generation Z activists using Waters’ words urging harassment of Trump officials but attributing them to Trump, and, of course, the Young and Deranged were incensed. Waters was moved by this and other references to her outrageous and inciteful comments to deny what she is on record as doing.
“As a matter of fact, if you look at the words that I used, the strongest thing I said was to tell them they’re not welcome, talk to them, tell them they’re not welcome,”. Waters said on MSNBC, where Democratic lies are never rebutted. “I didn’t say, go and fight. I didn’t say anybody was going to have any violence. So they can’t make that statement.”
Hmmmm. “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,” Waters said at a 2018 rally. “And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome, anymore, anywhere.”
Create a crowd (or mob), “push back on them,” and tell them that they aren’t welcome. That is calling for physical confrontation. In fact, several Trump officials and White House staff were harassed sufficiently to have to leave public establishments. The roving mob tactics of Black Lives Matter when they have intimidated restaurant diners and forced them to signal their support for BLM seemed to be directly inspired by Waters’ irresponsible exhortation.
Tyler O’Neil opines “On Wednesday, the Senate will begin to consider the arguments about the Capitol riot and whether or not Trump ‘incited an insurrection.’ The former President’s arguments against this claim are extremely powerful, and if Democrats conclude that Trump ‘incited an insurrection’ when he called for peace both before and during the riot, Democrats will have to accept responsibility for inciting the Black Lives Matter riots this past summer.”
Nah. As with Waters, they won’t accept any such thing. As with Pelosi’s fines for Republicans evading the metal detectors, as with the distortion of “civil rights” endorsed by the President’s nominee to oversee them at Justice, the current trend is that laws, rules and standards only apply when the Left wants them to apply, in the interpretation most politically advantageous.
Is that an unfair statement? I’d love to hear how.
3. Weenie alert! A survey claims that 3 out of 4 people in U.S. will continue wearing masks after the Wuhan virus is under control. “Nearly three out of four people in the United States plan to continue wearing masks in public even after the COVID-19 pandemic ends, according to a survey conducted by Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Four out of five said they also will continue to avoid crowds, and 90% of participants said they will maintain frequent handwashing and sanitizer use after the coronavirus has been contained.” Oh, fine. The news media and the rising totalitarians have Americans willing to abandon human interaction and the joys of life in the futile pursuit of “safety.” This is the existence where control of individuals is so much easier, with social contact reduced to online communication that can be censored and manipulated.
If the public is this weak, it deserves the lousy existence it will get.
4. Good. The Super Bowl ratings fell to their lowest level since 2006. This sports site declared the drop “puzzling.” Gee, I wonder what could be hurting viewership? I know it’s not the fact that the NFL promotes brain damage for profit: football fans have made it quite clear that they don’t give a damn. Might it be the league’s full on embrace of anti-police propaganda and anti-white racism?
I sure hope so.
5. This is a member of the House Judiciary Committee! Speaking of the unconstitutional plan to pass a bill banning President Trump from running for office if he is not convicted in the Senate trial, Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said, “I know there was some concern about it being a bill of attainder, but I’m not concerned about that because what he did was the most horrific thing that a president of the United States has ever done to this country.”
Yes, this guy believes that Constitutional provisions don’t apply if you think someone has done something really, really, bad. That’s the understanding of the rule of law held by a member of the House committee overseeing our legal system.
I guess I have to play that “Man For All Seasons” clip again:
Someone please sent this to Steve. Actually, you might send it to all the Democrats. Then you might have to explain it to them.
6. …And to her: CNN’s new legal analyst—since Jeffrey Toobin–well, you know—is Jennifer Rodgers. On a roll while denying every argument against impeachment offered by the President’s defenders, she said. “You don’t have a First Amendment right to lie.” Naturally, CNN’s John King said nothing, even though the Supreme Court has specifically held that lies are protected under the First Amendment.
Later, after she was mocked on Twitter and elsewhere, Rodgers retracted her ignorant statement, saying that “of course” lies are protected speech. “Of course,” but she was somehow unable to give out the right information until she was called on it.
At least she doesn’t—you know. I guess that’s something.