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.
The Immediate Calls to Remove Trump Were Irresponsible
In the wake of the rioting at the Capitol on Wednesday, there have been many calls for President Trump to be either removed pursuant to the 25th Amendment, or impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.
I find these suggestions to be well past unwarranted, and beyond irresponsible. I find them to be deranged.
I am not surprised that many Democrats — apparently including Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer — have made such demands. I don’t actually consider them to be deranged. I think that they are scheming, dishonest politicians, which is no surprise.
I am surprised to see such deranged hysteria from Republicans.
Here is a partial list of Republicans or conservatives who have called for President Trump’s immediate removal from office following the reprehensible rioting on January 6, either through the 25th Amendment or by impeachment and conviction. I would appreciate any additions to this list.
- David French (here). Dated January 6.
- The Dispatch Staff (here). Dated January 7. I assume that this includes Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes.
- Jim Geraghty (here). Dated January 7.
- Kyle Smith (of National Review, here). Dated January 7.
- Most sadly, our own editor Jon Gabriel (here). Dated January 6.
- Erick Erickson (here). Dated January 8.
One would hope that thoughtful, respected, professional commentators would refrain from proposing anything so drastic for, say, at least 2-3 days. One might want to see how events unfolded. One might want to gather additional information. One might want to, well, act like a responsible adult.
Sadly, though he does not approve on prudential grounds, even Andy McCarthy has opined that the President’s actions are impeachable (here, dated January 7).
I am also disappointed in Sen. Ben Sasse who stated (here): “The House, if they come together and have a process, I will definitely consider whatever articles they might move . . . I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office…what he did was wicked.”
I don’t know whether I feel like Jeremiah, or like Cassandra, or like a lowly broken record. Over and over again, in times of crisis as events unfold, I have urged people to stay calm and reserve judgment. In this case, order was restored within about 6 hours, and Congress proceeded to confirm President-Elect Biden’s victory.
I have previously, and unequivocally, condemned the lawless and barbarous storming of the Capitol by rioting miscreants. Nothing that I write should be construed to justify such criminality. I have also criticized some of the President’s claim, such as his insistence that he won in a “landslide.” I also criticize his negative tweet about Vice President Pence Trump. I do not condone such rhetorical excess. I simply object to the deranged overreaction, too.
Of those that I’ve seen thus far, David French takes the derangement gold medal. Not only does he want the President removed from office, but yesterday (January 7), he tweeted: “Expel Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.” (Here.)
What is the proper response to such derangement? Generally, I think that we should simply stop reading, or listening to, anything said by these commentators who have demonstrated such poor judgment. At least until and unless they issue an apology. We should always be prepared to extend forgiveness to those who act intemperately, in the heat of a moment.
Published in Politics
The statute provides no method for Congress to get into the intra-state controversies. It refers to the certification process in 3 usc 6, which, basically upholds the doctrine that states are expected to sort out their own controversies, if any, before certifying their electors. The state executive is to report the resolution of the controversy as part of the certification process. So, again, any electors certified under 3 usc 6 cannot be rejected, so long as there is no alternate slate sent by the state.
In the absence of that alternate slate, or some forgery of the certification or something, the counting is a formality.
I think Jon doubled down on his post in some message thread, but the deluge of comments I’ve read this week make it impossible for me to search for it.
It looks as if the state legislatures could have taken action if they thought the process was not legal. That what you are saying? They didn’t. Was this because they couldn’t because they were not in session? I recall there were entreaties to Governor Kemp to call the Georgia legislature but he didn’t. The other states have Democrat governors so I’m sure they would not. Do I have this accurate?
Added: and James Lileks commented with full approval on Jon’s original nasty screed.
There is absolutely no sane or good faith way to get from Trump encouraging people to engage in the public process, and specifically to do so in a peaceful and orderly manner, and incitement.
These are facts:
1.) Trump encouraged people to engage in the public process
2.) Trump said do so peacefully
3.) Trump said to proceed in an orderly manner
4.) Trump asked people to knock it off and go home when knuckleheads did knuckleheadery
5.) Objections were raised, debated, and voted on according to the law
5.) Trump conceded when there was no longer a lawful avenue to pursue
Trump did literally nothing wrong. There is no good faith way to get from trumps actual words and deeds, you know in the real world, to incitement or insurrection or sedition or whatever overwrought bad faith barf from a diseased brain might role out onto the page.
There isn’t even a molehill here to exaggerate.
I understand that the rioters smashed the police officer Brian D. Sicknick in the face with a fire extinguisher during this “mostly peaceful” riot. Here is a picture of the murdered officer.
More credit for James’ wisdom and judgment.
It was amusing to watch a man renounce the first amendment and free speech within the day of saying that it was the hill upon which he would plant his flag.
Guruforhire (View Comment):
[There is absolutely no sane or good faith way to get from Trump encouraging people to engage in the public process, and specifically to do so in a peaceful and orderly manner, and incitement.
These are facts:
1.) Trump encouraged people to engage in the public process
2.) Trump said do so peacefully
3.) Trump said to proceed in an orderly manner
4.) Trump asked people to knock it off and go home when knuckleheads did knuckleheadery
5.) Objections were raised, debated, and voted on according to the law
5.) Trump conceded when there was no longer a lawful avenue to pursue
Trump did literally nothing wrong. There is no good faith way to get from trumps actual words and deeds, you know in the real world, to incitement or insurrection or sedition or whatever overwrought bad faith barf from a diseased brain might role out onto the page.
There isn’t even a molehill here to exaggerate.]
I’ll go so far as to say that Trump was reckless with regard to much of his rhetoric this past month leading up to this rally that got out of hand, and a few instigators (we’ve already seen the quality of their intellect and judgement on video) might have willfully heard what they wanted to hear.
1.) That’s not an impeachable offense.
2.) Impeachment-hounds can get back to me once they commit to supporting the immediate impeachment of Biden and Harris for doing much, much worse. Otherwise they can do something else.
I don’t respond to your posts. Let’s make that mutual.
From today’s Bulwark (https://thebulwark.com/the-constitutional-and-moral-imperative-of-immediate-impeachment/):
The Constitutional and Moral Imperative of Immediate Impeachment
“[I]t is plain that President Trump deserves impeachment and removal from office. He must not be allowed to leave office, gracelessly, claiming grievance as if the rightfully reelected holder of the presidency—a pretender to the throne, seeking to govern from “exile.” He must be forced to leave office, involuntarily, in ignominy and in shame, for his commission of high crimes and misdemeanors against the American republic.”
@garyrobbins How about something worthy of conversation.
Was it reckless or is this just social acceptability bias?
It seems he never really said much beyond that there were many irregularities and as such he won in a landslide and that he would pursue all lawful means to rectify this. This is includes encouraging people to engage in the public process such as petitioning their representatives, public protest, organizing, rallies, lawsuits, and so forth. While also saying that when all available lawful means are expended he would concede.
If this is even controversial then american civic life is dead, and we should just get down to shooting to each other because self government is now a criminal act.
Yes, I think that’s right.
I don’t know the answer to that, but I assume it varies a bit in each state. I doubt any state would have no method at all to call the legislature into session in such a circumstance, even if some executive action was necessary.
Not that it would matter to you, but the officer’s family has requested that his death not be “politicized,” and has requested a moratorium until there are further facts. So what “you understand” is the usual tone-deaf response to events. Sheesh.
I think President Trump’s rallies in the last two months were designed to spur action by state legislatures. I also think nothing happened because the republicans in those states were not willing to buck the establishment anti-Trump position.
After hours and hours and hours of requests to Mr. Robbins to tone things down at certain times, we get an article from a publication with absolutely no credibility other than as an enclave of haters.
But tomorrow or the next day or the next day, there’ll be a “friendly “Aren’t I warm and cuddly” post like the one on Tommy Lasorda. Don’t let it fool you.
In 1954 four Puerto Rican Nationalists opened fire with pistols into the well of the House of Representatives while it was in session. They fired 30 shots, wounding 5.
In 1978, Jimmy Carter issued pardons to all four.
You’ve noticed that too, have you?
Well, aren’t they just the self righteous woke types? Ah, how they must love Chuck and Nancy who, of course, are so proud of them. I have no, absolutely no use for any of them.
And there was that leftist bombing in the 70s.
So Puerto Rico not be allowed statehood.
Great minds, friend.
According to Wikipedia, the pardoned were given a “heroes welcome” by a crowd of several thousand upon their return to the island.
Puerto Rico and DC statehood will probably be high on the list of objectives this year.
Will those on the OP’s list also call for the cancelling, suspending, and (possibly) firing of ordinary Americans who exercised their 1st Amendment rights by attending the Washington DC protest, but didn’t enter the Capitol? Because that’s already happening in Wisconsin:
http://myracinecounty.com/news/burlington/2021/basd-places-teacher-who-planned-to-attend-washington-protest-on-leave/
DC’s total failure to maintain order this week should seal their fate on statehood. It is unknown how small a matter would need to be for DC to manage it successfully.
That is possible, I admit I was basing my statement on remembered impressions rather than specifically remembered lines, and some of those impressions could have been flavored by contemporaneous statements from the likes of Lin Wood.
Didn’t the Black Panthers demonstrate-with guns-within Capital building in 1967? I don’t know if they technically ‘breached’ the Capital, but I highly doubt their actions were legal.
And so do ours. :P