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.
An Open Letter to Senator Murkowski
“Fair is fair.” That’s what you said about your decision to oppose voting for Justice Ginsburg’s replacement. It sounds a great deal like the maxim in Equity that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” It’s a good rule, but only when this appeal to good faith is made in good faith. Perhaps it would benefit you to examine the principles of fairness that underlie President Trump’s term, and consider anew what “fair is fair” really means. Because, to paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Was it fair for Hillary Clinton to pay Christopher Steele for a dossier filled with “bar talk” that claimed, without evidence, that President Trump was in Putin’s pocket? Does that seem fair to you? Because, I have to tell you, to rational people across the country, that just doesn’t seem fair.
Was it fair for the FBI, on getting the dossier, to assume its status as holy scripture above reproach and launch a spying operation through both human sources as well as electronic sources on the Trump campaign? That seems a bit over-the-top to me.
Was it fair for the FBI, in seeking the FISA warrant to omit all manner of exculpatory information? Was it fair for Clinesmith to doctor an email to further defraud that court? Was it fair for the FBI not to pull the plug after January of 2017 when they knew from talking to the sub source, who was in the US, not Russia, that the dossier was bunk? Think about that Senator! Was that fair?
Was it fair for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller when he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence would have known, that the dossier was a paid-for political hit job with all the credibility of a Nigerian Prince email? Was it fair for Mueller, who had to know moments after he was appointed that there was no basis in fact or law to assume that Russia had Trump on its payroll, to continue the probe? He had to know that the dossier was full of disinformation. Did he care? Did he act fairly? Ask yourself.
And knowing that there was no “there” there, was it fair for Mueller to continue the Russia probe past the mid-term elections for the sole purpose of handing the Democrats the House of Representatives so that they could launch a meritless impeachment? Was that fair? Think about that. Had Mueller turned out his report in September, when he clearly knew there was nothing there, would the mid-term elections have gone the way they went? You already know the answer.
Was it fair for Mueller and his team of Hillary Clinton donors to consistently leak knowingly false information to the media to suggest there was a case against President Trump? Was it fair for them to set up a perjury trap for General Flynn? Was it fair for the D.C. Circuit to override the three judge panel and allow Judge Sullivan to engage in Star-Chamber proceedings against General Flynn? Does any of that comport with traditional notions of justice and fair play? Does any of that sound in some way like the Democrat partisans were acting in good faith?
Was it fair for the House through Jerry Nadler to throw out the rules that govern impeachments and that were recognized as fair when President Clinton was impeached? Was it fair to disallow counsel for the president to participate? Was it fair for Adam Schiff to classify and refuse to release the deposition of the Intelligence Community IG? The public still does not know what he said. And in the law, when a party has evidence that it refuses to bring forward, the law allows a presumption that the evidence would be harmful to their case?
And was it fair for the Democrats, upon learning that Mueller had nothing on the president, and after his very disappointing testimony (as far as Democrats were concerned) to immediately gin up a fake Ukrainian scandal? You must believe he did nothing wrong, even though you virtue signaled by calling his actions shameful. If investigating the openly criminal conduct of the former vice president, actions that he bragged about on video, is shameful, then what are we to make of your conduct in voting not to convict? It appears you wish to ride the fence on every issue.
Senator, you were sent to Washington to do a job. Apparently, you believe it is more important to keep your job by not doing your job, than it is to do your job. Understand that your base will return you to Washington if you stick to the conservative principles that got you there in the first place. But if you continue to waffle on major issues because you fear the electorate, that wont’ stop your opponents from going after your seat. It will, however, stop people like me and thousands like me from sending you a dime for your campaign. If you continue down this road you will be dead to us. You will be as big a traitor to conservative principles as John McCain and Mitt Romney. If you wish to surround yourself with such people, God help you.
Perhaps you should remember what a truly great president said about standing up for your principles and being willing to withstand the criticism:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
— Teddy Roosevelt, Citizenship in a Republic
There is no room today for political cowardice. We are in a fight for the very survival of the Republic. There are forces at work that seek to eliminate our Republic and replace capitalism with communism. If you align yourself with these forces Senator, you become to Americans as Benedict Arnold. Your name will not be kindly remembered. There will be no Murkowski federal building. There will be no Murkowski bridge. There will only be the enmity that accompanies the view of your actions.Published in