Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Impeachment Idiocy
We are now formally into exactly the type of sham that the Framers argued against at the Constitutional Convention. One has only to read the clearest record of that discussion (Madison’s Notes) with even the most elementary understanding to know the whole process was to prevent this type of partisan action by the House.
The Articles of Impeachment were finally released from their hostage status in the House by yet another embarrassing Pelosi moment as she announced the seven House managers for this latest installment of a three-plus-year drama. Flanked by Chairmen Nadler and Schiff, she rambled about “time” long and confusingly enough that even Jerry Nadler briefly moved out of his trance-like gaze into nothing for a second or two to foster speculation that perhaps his months-long coma had ended. Adam Schiff also let those weasel eyes drift toward the heavens a few times as if to be asking for an end to the Speaker’s speaking – or perhaps a clue as to what the hell she was saying.
All of this so that Madam Speaker, who prays for the President each and every night as any good Catholic girl would, might take commemorative pens in hand to sign over the Articles to the Senate. While claiming this to be a grim and painful duty, she carefully signed the Articles one letter at a time to hand out the commemorative pens to proud accomplices. Ever the good soldier, she was able to hide the pain of the moment behind a satisfied smirk.
The list of idiotic features of these Articles could easily exhaust both my time and intellect, each having their limits. But there are a two, or three, or four maybe which spring to my narrow mind.
One is the oddity is that about four (or is it five, I don’t remember if Spartacus is still in the race?) senators who are still trying to become Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election, will sit on the “jury” to determine his presidential status. According to the House Democrats, if Trump’s inquiry into Biden misbehavior that is so very much a part of the public record is so brazen an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2020 election, what then is to be said of his opponent (whoever he or she might be) actually leading an attempt to remove him from office?
Another strange twist to the “charges” (at least to my simple mind) is that, according to the Democrats wording, Trump’s conversation with another head of state was so damnable because Trump himself was going to be running in the election and his “request” was intended to create an advantage for him. If that is the case (using the same reasoning), that same call made by a reelected Trump on January 31, 2021, would be alright. I suspect that the Framers would have wanted any “high crime” justifying the removal of a duly elected president to be much more than merely making a phone call on the wrong date.
I also find it odd that none of the “key witnesses” have actually been a witness to anything except their own self-interested opinions. That includes the latest “surprise” witness who has been shopping around for the best sentencing deal he can get on his recent conviction.
This latest “document dump” by the Democrats is just today’s proof that they have no real case or evidence despite 40-something months of all-out effort by one political party and an entire (with a few exceptions) media. Don’t worry more is coming, I’m sure.
So, with great damage to the Constitution and the vision passed on to us by the Founders, we will begin a trial with no crime, no first-hand witnesses, no actual evidence, and no regard for the hard-earned liberty this violated republican system was designed to protect.
At this point, the best we can hope for is a dismissal after opening arguments. That is what it deserves. By going beyond that, a stamp of approval is given this vile procedure that will ensure it happening again. Anything short of dismissal will push aside the first responsibility that the Senate has in the impeachment process, to prevent the president from serving at the pleasure of the House. But I believe that the Romney crowd will find that will not be media-friendly enough for their tastes. That opens up a whole ‘nother can of idiocy which I will take up ‘nother time.
Published in General
Democrats will pay for this.
My favorite from Speaker McConnell: “The Speaker distributed souvenir pens to her own colleagues emblazoned with her golden signature that literally came in on silver platters. The pens literally came in on silver platters. Golden pens on silver platters. A souvenir to celebrate the moment.”
She looks like dementia is calling. It was embarrassing if any of those people (or a couple here) could be embarrassed.
Golden pens on silver platters
Help me sign this page real fine
But I’ll have to drown my sorrows
When Cocaine Mitch speaks his mind
Are we alone in the Universe? Well, remember what the fellow said. I feel sad when I look at the stars at night, for if they are populated, what a scope for misery and despair. And if they are not, what a waste of space!
Edit: Wrong thread.
VP Mike Pence wrote a terrific piece on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for the WSJ. One man went against his fellow Republicans refusing to vote to convict him. Pence asked if there were any Democrats who would do that for Trump?
Also, Robert Ray, Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr have joined Trump’s legal team. I’ve seen them all on Ingraham’s show–I’m not sure but I believe all of them are against calling witnesses. Pop the popcorn!
In case no one has yet seen this: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/sen-rand-paul-joins-hannity-to-sound-the-alarm-gop-snakes-in-senate-may-block-trumps-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial-video/
My concern is there may be two or three Republicans channeling John McCain . . .
Are you sure?
Fairly certain, but maybe those are appropriate thoughts anywhere?
If the Democrats get to call witnesses against Trump, Trump should get to call witnesses too. Anything less is unfair. That’s the only conditions under which I wouldn’t object to witnesses being called – if both sides were allowed to call them.
There are certainly warnings in the Federalist papers. And the warnings are there precisely because the framers knew it could be abused. The Senate was chosen as the venue and jury for the trail because the framers hoped that the Senate would be the most seriously studious body for such an event.
But it is not idiotic, or a farce, it is deadly serious. And if it succeeds you can be sure it will be used again. When Clinton was impeached, the house was fairly certain they’d not get a conviction, but felt strongly enough to move forward because of the nature of the felony. On the Clinton impeachment, article 1 got 10 nos from republicans, article 2 got 5. No democrats voted yes. It has been long enough that there may be little aspects of payback.
When you read the federalist, the thing that stands out is this idea of public trust. Has Trump violated the public trust? This is what it comes down to. A president can do his job clearly in line with the constitution yet violate the public trust. Consider if Trump actually did become best friends with Putin and gave orders to his military and to his State department that essentially handed the keys over to Russia. All within his area of authority, and a total violation of the public trust.
That man would be Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas. I don’t know a lot about him, but growing up in Kansas, his action would be pointed out during that section of American History.
Correct, @bishopwash! After he made his stand, it was a nightmare for him and he was harshly condemned. But he back from it. Sometimes there is justice all around.
I looked him up on Wikipedia and he later became territorial governor of New Mexico and is buried here in Albuquerque. I’ll need to visit his grave soon. The page mentioned that Kansans looked more favorably upon him over time. Over one hundred years later it was a bit of state pride that he was considered the deciding vote.
You might even say Edmund Ross was a profile in courage.
I’ve heard that some have said that about him.
No they wont.
I agree. Everything has been factored in by the electorate. And not many are paying much attention. The halcyon days of the New York Times and Walter Cronkite are long over. I don’t believe it will drive a lot of support for Trump, or against Trump. What happens in the election next fall is just a matter of some small % of people who will decide that Trump is an ass, and is he a big enough ass that you won’t vote for him.
If Trump runs as a smart candidate and sticks to the real issues, he has a good shot to win.
And the fact that people will vote against Trump because he offends their delicate sensibilities while the nation prospers shows just how far gone the electorate is.
There is no word that will work except “stupidity”. I remember hearing a co-worker complain about rich people and corporations, so I asked if he realized he was employed by a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and also asked if he had ever been hired by a poor person. With the combination of ignorance and arrogance that typifies liberals and Nevers, he condescendingly asked if I had ever heard of the program that gave government funds to poor people to start companies. I thought for a few seconds and asked him, “Are you too stupid to understand where the government got the money to give to them?” I guess he’d never heard of taxes or of the fact that somewhere between 47% and 49% of Americans don’t pay income taxes. I wonder today if the country is too stupid, collectively, to survive.
People vote for candidates based on all kinds of reasons. That is their choice and I don’t believe that any one of us is the judge of that choice.
If someone is an ass, many people will NOT either do business with them, or associate with them. Some people hold principles and dollars do not change them. Having disdain for name calling, a Trump favorite, is a common response of a majority of people. And it is an indicator of the character of the name caller. If someone in business behaved in this way, they are gone. If Trump did this in his company, the company would be sued daily.
As I said, for some people, it’s acceptable to see a commie elected rather than to put up with a president who calls the Left out on its radical, post-modern, anti-Americanism. The price of your principles is too steep for me. It’s going to cost us our liberty.
Not what Trump does. He just denigrates, demeans. there is no criticism of policy.
If you invited Trump to dinner, and he engaged i this behavior with another guest, would you tolerate that? No.
I wouldn’t invite him to dinner because I don’t want him to be the star of my show.
Ha! I think he’d be a terrific dinner guest. The guy is hilarious!