Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Trump Writes a Pretty Good Letter

 

Trump’s letter to Pelosi is not without some excessive rhetoric, but at the end of the day, it’s a pretty good summary of the state of affairs. I’d guess someone else actually wrote it, as it is pretty coherent and well organized. But you can pretty much tell where Trump added a few flourishes of his own. I like the closing paragraphs the best:

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.

I think that’s actually pretty forward looking for this president.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 23 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I disagree with the President’s claim that the Democrats’ articles of impeachment are “no more legitimate” than if the executive branch attempted to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense.

    An executive branch attempt to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense would have to go through an actual judge, who would have the authority to dismiss it out of hand if the charge had zero legal merit (i.e. “illegitimate”). Even if that judge did allow a trial the result would still have to go through the appeal process, potentially right up to the Supreme Court.

    By contrast, impeachment is an inherently political process, decided upon by elected legislative bodies whose members are answerable to nobody but the voters. The result cannot be overruled by any court of law. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is nominally the presiding officer of the “trial” in the Senate, can be overruled by the Senate with a simple majority vote. The Senate cannot impose any penalties other than removal from the position of the Presidency. As such, is not the same as a criminal trial. It’s a Human Resources exercise.

    The current impeachment proceedings are following to the letter the process laid out by the Constitution. It’s a perfect illustration of what Justice Scalia called, “stupid but constitutional,” and if it’s constitutional that means it’s legitimate, IMHO, since the work “legitimate” by definition literally means “lawful”.

    • #1
    • December 18, 2019, at 1:45 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  2. Gary Robbins Reagan

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    • #2
    • December 18, 2019, at 1:49 PM PST
    • Like
  3. Stad Thatcher

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    I disagree with his claim that the Democrats’ articles of impeachment are “no more legitimate” than if the executive branch attempted to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense.

    An executive branch attempt to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense would have to go through an actual judge, who would have the authority to dismiss it out of hand if the charge had zero legal merit (i.e. “illegitimate”). Even if that judge did allow a trial the result would still have to go through the appeal process, potentially right up to the Supreme Court.

    By contrast, impeachment is an inherently political process, decided upon by elected legislative bodies whose members are answerable to nobody but the voters. The result cannot be overruled by any court of law. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is nominally the presiding officer of the “trial” in the Senate, can be overruled by the Senate with a simple majority vote. The Senate cannot impose any penalties other than removal from the position of the Presidency. As such, is not the same as a criminal trial. It’s a Human Resources exercise.

    The current impeachment proceedings are following to the letter the process laid out by the Constitution. It’s a perfect illustration of what Justice Scalia called, “stupid but constitutional,” and if it’s constitutional that means it’s legitimate, IMHO, since the work “legitimate” by definition literally means “lawful”.

    I think Trump’s letter is actually for the American people. Not all of us are educated in the nuances between political vs. legal processes . . .

    • #3
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:09 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  4. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stad (View Comment):
    I think Trump’s letter is actually for the American people. Not all of us are educated in the nuances between political vs. legal processes . . .

    I think the percentage of the American people that will read this letter is fairly minuscule.

    • #4
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:12 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  5. Stad Thatcher

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    I think Trump’s letter is actually for the American people. Not all of us are educated in the nuances between political vs. legal processes . . .

    I think the percentage of the American people that will read this letter is fairly minuscule.

    Oh, good point . . .

    • #5
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:20 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  6. JamesSalerno Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Why don’t you tell us what you yourself think? I would be embarrassed to link to anything written by the Washington Post.

    • #6
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:26 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  7. iWe Reagan
    iWe Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I was quite impressed by the letter. History will highlight it, especially since there is no other readable and concise argument from anyone in power. 

    • #7
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:47 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  8. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    WaPo, where the Republic is Smothered in Darkness…

    • #8
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:53 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  9. Petty Boozswha Inactive

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Trump does not have the attention span to write such a letter – this was written by Kellyanne at his direction.

    • #9
    • December 18, 2019, at 2:54 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Gary Robbins Reagan

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Why don’t you tell us what you yourself think? I would be embarrassed to link to anything written by the Washington Post.

    Trump was simply mouthing off and throwing as much mud against the wall as possible. The WaPo link shows about a dozen misstatements of fact.

    • #10
    • December 18, 2019, at 3:20 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Sweezle Member

    Trump definitely made some valid points. I went to the White House webpage to read it. Before bothering with the predictable criticisms. 

    • #11
    • December 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. JamesSalerno Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Why don’t you tell us what you yourself think? I would be embarrassed to link to anything written by the Washington Post.

    Trump was simply mouthing off and throwing as much mud against the wall as possible. The WaPo link shows about a dozen misstatements of fact.

    You’re generalizing again. What do you think is wrong about it? Not WashPo Gary, you. There’s a dozen misstatements? Pick one or two that bug you the most.

    • #12
    • December 18, 2019, at 5:53 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. Franco Member
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Why don’t you tell us what you yourself think? I would be embarrassed to link to anything written by the Washington Post.

    Trump was simply mouthing off and throwing as much mud against the wall as possible. The WaPo link shows about a dozen misstatements of fact.

    The Washington post is a fraudulent newspaper. It’s a walking Pinocchio, a lying puppet of the deep state. It’s owned by a partisan rival of Trump who has a multi- billion dollar contract with the NSA that collects data on innocent Americans in defiance of liberty. It has columnists who are operatives for intelligence agencies who have been posing as conservatives for years. It claims Democracy Dies in Darkness and suppresses news that conflicts with its agenda on a daily basis.

    Anyone who cites it as a credible source is a moron. 

    • #13
    • December 19, 2019, at 12:57 AM PST
    • 12 likes
  14. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    I disagree with the President’s claim that the Democrats’ articles of impeachment are “no more legitimate” than if the executive branch attempted to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense.

    An executive branch attempt to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense would have to go through an actual judge, who would have the authority to dismiss it out of hand if the charge had zero legal merit (i.e. “illegitimate”). Even if that judge did allow a trial the result would still have to go through the appeal process, potentially right up to the Supreme Court.

    By contrast, impeachment is an inherently political process, decided upon by elected legislative bodies whose members are answerable to nobody but the voters. The result cannot be overruled by any court of law. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is nominally the presiding officer of the “trial” in the Senate, can be overruled by the Senate with a simple majority vote. The Senate cannot impose any penalties other than removal from the position of the Presidency. As such, is not the same as a criminal trial. It’s a Human Resources exercise.

    The current impeachment proceedings are following to the letter the process laid out by the Constitution. It’s a perfect illustration of what Justice Scalia called, “stupid but constitutional,” and if it’s constitutional that means it’s legitimate, IMHO, since the work “legitimate” by definition literally means “lawful”.

    Here is the part I do not understand, and maybe some legal eagles or Constitutional scholars on Ricochet can explain to me:

    How is it that the section of our laws that allow for Congress to impeach a President can then exclude the ability of the President, who remains an American citizen throughout the process, to answer his detractors in the hearings? 

    Is there somewhere in the text of laws regarding impeachment a clause that specifically states the President does not have the right to answer those holding a hearing. this hearing has a bearing not only if he or she is to be impeached, but also it is a matter reflecting on the reputation of the President.

    Basically what my query involves is that is if it true that the President has his abilities to respond to his detractors and all the claims, be they false claims or true claims, taken away from him or her, totally denied to him or her, and if that is true, then doesn’t that mean that “due process” – one of the most important parts of our rights as citizens – has been stripped away from him or her? And then wouldn’t that be UnConstitutional?

    I am of the opinion that it was implied in the writing of the Founding Fathers that the President would still retain the right to answer the detractors and their claims and lists of articles during the hearing. Because that is due process which was already spelled out

     

     

     

    • #14
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:08 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. Umbra Fractus Coolidge
    Umbra Fractus Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    How is it that the section of our laws that allow for Congress to impeach a President can then exclude the ability of the President, who remains an American citizen throughout the process, to answer his detractors in the hearings? 

     

    I’m not a “scholar,” but I would guess that those procedures are reserved for the trial process. The House, in this case, is more like a police department or public prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges against the defendant. Those decisions can be made without the defendant or his representation present. It’s during the trial, in this case the Senate hearings, where the defendant has the right to do what you speak of.

    • #15
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:34 PM PST
    • 1 like
  16. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    How is it that the section of our laws that allow for Congress to impeach a President can then exclude the ability of the President, who remains an American citizen throughout the process, to answer his detractors in the hearings?

     

    I’m not a “scholar,” but I would guess that those procedures are reserved for the trial process. The House, in this case, is more like a police department or public prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges against the defendant. Those decisions can be made without the defendant or his representation present. It’s during the trial, in this case the Senate hearings, where the defendant has the right to do what you speak of.

    Of course an impeachment is not a trial. Neither Trump’s life, liberty, or property are at risk. The worst possible outcome of the impeachment is he looses his job and is also barred from holding public office. Technically he could be removed from public office and not barred (they are separate votes held by the Senate) and so in theory if he is removed before the next election he could stand as the Republican nominee in 2020 and win again following his impeachment. Frankly this would be the best way to both let the people decide, and for Congress to carry out its duty of oversight of the Executive and upholding of the public good. Impeach, remove, but don’t preclude further office. Trump is clearly guilty of abusing his power, which is clearly an impeachable offense. Congress could finally reassert its supremacy over the filthy executive branch, and still give the people room to over rule their decision. And as a bonus we can have the vaunted Mike Pence 10 month presidency. That way he can actually get something for all the Trump BS he has been eating this whole time. Because we know he ain’t wining election in 2024…the best he could do is win the nomination, and even that is iffy what with Nikki going full Neo Confederate to please the …Republican party??? talk about irony being dead. 

    To Trump’s Letter to Nancy, it is about as perfect as his phone call… The man is an incoherent mess. I think for my personal amusement the presidential debates should be force to be written answers only. I’d love to see Trump have to write on his feet. I mean presumably this letter was him thinking things through and then saying them… he put thought into it. And still all he got out of it was this hot garbage? He should stick to tweeting he actually seems less dumb in 140 characters. At least there he has a semi-plausible excuse. 

    I’m sure Nancy gave it the Edrogan treatment and threw it in the trash.

    • #16
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:58 PM PST
    • Like
  17. Kay of MT Member

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Trump is clearly guilty of abusing his power,

    You actually believe that?

    • #17
    • December 19, 2019, at 3:09 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. Franco Member
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    How is it that the section of our laws that allow for Congress to impeach a President can then exclude the ability of the President, who remains an American citizen throughout the process, to answer his detractors in the hearings?

     

    I’m not a “scholar,” but I would guess that those procedures are reserved for the trial process. The House, in this case, is more like a police department or public prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges against the defendant. Those decisions can be made without the defendant or his representation present. It’s during the trial, in this case the Senate hearings, where the defendant has the right to do what you speak of.

    Of course an impeachment is not a trial. Neither Trump’s life, liberty, or property are at risk. The worst possible outcome of the impeachment is he looses his job and is also barred from holding public office. Technically he could be removed from public office and not barred (they are separate votes held by the Senate) and so in theory if he is removed before the next election he could stand as the Republican nominee in 2020 and win again following his impeachment. Frankly this would be the best way to both let the people decide, and for Congress to carry out its duty of oversight of the Executive and upholding of the public good. Impeach, remove, but don’t preclude further office. Trump is clearly guilty of abusing his power, which is clearly an impeachable offense. Congress could finally reassert its supremacy over the filthy executive branch, and still give the people room to over rule their decision. And as a bonus we can have the vaunted Mike Pence 10 month presidency. That way he can actually get something for all the Trump BS he has been eating this whole time. Because we know he ain’t wining election in 2024…the best he could do is win the nomination, and even that is iffy what with Nikki going full Neo Confederate to please the …Republican party??? talk about irony being dead.

    To Trump’s Letter to Nancy, it is about as perfect as his phone call… The man is an incoherent mess. I think for my personal amusement the presidential debates should be force to be written answers only. I’d love to see Trump have to write on his feet. I mean presumably this letter was him thinking things through and then saying them… he put thought into it. And still all he got out of it was this hot garbage? He should stick to tweeting he actually seems less dumb in 140 characters. At least there he has a semi-plausible excuse.

    I’m sure Nancy gave it the Edrogan treatment and threw it in the trash.

    So, I guess… Biden?

     

    • #18
    • December 19, 2019, at 4:34 PM PST
    • 1 like
  19. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    I disagree with the President’s claim that the Democrats’ articles of impeachment are “no more legitimate” than if the executive branch attempted to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense.

    An executive branch attempt to charge a member of Congress with a criminal offense would have to go through an actual judge, who would have the authority to dismiss it out of hand if the charge had zero legal merit (i.e. “illegitimate”). Even if that judge did allow a trial the result would still have to go through the appeal process, potentially right up to the Supreme Court.

    By contrast, impeachment is an inherently political process, decided upon by elected legislative bodies whose members are answerable to nobody but the voters. The result cannot be overruled by any court of law. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is nominally the presiding officer of the “trial” in the Senate, can be overruled by the Senate with a simple majority vote. The Senate cannot impose any penalties other than removal from the position of the Presidency. As such, is not the same as a criminal trial. It’s a Human Resources exercise.

    The current impeachment proceedings are following to the letter the process laid out by the Constitution. It’s a perfect illustration of what Justice Scalia called, “stupid but constitutional,” and if it’s constitutional that means it’s legitimate, IMHO, since the work “legitimate” by definition literally means “lawful”.

    Not so. The Congress passes, and the president signs into law, unconstitutional bills, which sometimes are rightly declared such by the Supreme Court. Congress violates its oath and violates the Constitution with unconstitutional legislation, which is by definition illegitimate. That the Senate more or less backstops the wrong done by the House partisans does not make the House’s disregard and abuse of the Constitution any less real or serious.

     

    • #19
    • December 19, 2019, at 4:49 PM PST
    • 1 like
  20. RightAngles Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    I don’t know anyone with two brain cells who thinks the WaPo is any kind of reliable source for anything.

    Journalism Dies in Darkness.

    • #20
    • December 19, 2019, at 5:56 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. RightAngles Member

    Here’s an indication of the degree of objectivity at WaPo (the “journalist” deleted it and then tried to say “That’s not what I meant.” Oh, don’t worry, we know what you meant).

     

    • #21
    • December 19, 2019, at 6:46 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. Django Member

     

    • #22
    • December 20, 2019, at 6:39 PM PST
    • Like
  23. I Walton Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that his letter was word salad. The following article from WaPo takes Trump’s letter apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/17/president-trumps-written-tirade-nancy-pelosi-annotated/

    Thanks. I hadn’t seen the full letter. The article proves the Posts unbalanced dedication to impeachment and that Trump was really pissed off more than he otherwise has been letting on, as he should be.

    • #23
    • December 22, 2019, at 4:51 AM PST
    • Like