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.
Bigger Than Trump
Having now reviewed everything I can find on what the President actually said at the protest in D.C., I can state with confidence that he did not cross a line into legally actionable speech. The bar set for classifying speech as criminal is pretty high, and the President did not even come close to meeting it.
Try to set aside what you think about President Trump. That’s a stretch goal for a lot of us, but let’s stretch: consider, for just a moment, that there might be an issue here that’s bigger than the President himself, and that could have repercussions that go far beyond January of 2021.
Those who call for the President’s removal from office are asking that punitive action be taken — in fact, that the most punitive action which can be taken, in the case of the Chief Executive, be taken — for his exercise of constitutionally protected speech.
Let that sink in. If the most powerful man in the United States can receive the highest punishment which Congress can mete out for the non-crime of speaking in a way that offends many people, then what protection does anyone have to speak freely? What does it mean to set a precedent that a sitting President can be removed from office for constitutionally protected speech?
During the Kavanaugh hearings, I argued that it was critical that the Senate confirm the nominee following the vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by Ms. Ford. A failure to do so would diminish the Senate’s authority by signaling that any future nominee could be derailed by nothing more than an unverifiable claim of past misbehavior.
Something even greater than that is at stake here. If we remove the sitting President, a man who received, barely two months ago, the support of more than seventy million Americans, that decision should be rooted in the most profound and solid Constitutional reasoning. Anything less elevates virtue signaling above the Constitution, and both endorses and enshrines the left’s view that the right not to be offended transcends freedom of speech and the rule of law.
If this disregard for law and the Constitution were coming only from the left, from people who already held neither law nor the Constitution in high esteem, I could almost overlook it as merely more of the unprincipled toxicity of the progressive movement. But some on the right are falling for this too — as evidenced by Ricochet’s own misguided rush-to-judgment piece a few days ago.
It’s time to put one’s feelings about the President aside, and to take a hard-headed look at the law and the Constitutional principles that are at stake. Everyone’s right to free expression is in the dock right now. That serves a left that has already embraced censorship and controlled speech. We on the right must do better.
Published in General
As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20. Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans. You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh. You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.
There is no such authority and 3 usc 15 is clear on that. Regardless of why the objection is made, the only lawful reasons to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3’usc 6 (which clearly requires any controversies to have been resolved by the states), or if there are competing slates of electors. Neither of those circumstances existed. The counting was a pure formality.
This is what I mean by misleading his people. They apparently believed there was some legal remedy and there wasn’t, and under that mistaken belief they died or caused people to die.
I don’t know how this could fail to outrage anyone. Trump fans ought to be especially outraged.
Well, since I haven’t listened to or read it, what were the worst parts or the worst part that the Left is claiming are so bad?
Post #13 above may be of some help.
Yuk.
If speaking is impeachable, then anything is impeachable — and impeachment will be constant forever.
Bad trend…
A little bravery and patience from the Right would be nice.
That is what I read somewhere. It was a gambit between Reagan and Kissinger
Just repeating the CNN propaganda.
There are two reasons to impeach.
First is to remove Trump from office. (He has 257 hours left. Heck, he could do a great deal of damage in one hour, let alone 257 hours.)
Second is to disqualify Trump from ever seeking office in the future. This would formally put an end to Trumpism, and would be salutatory for the Republican Party and the Republic.
Both are valid reasons.
My understanding is that the legal options hadn’t been exhausted yet. The House and Senate separating to discuss the issues (which would have been activated by the objections that were planned) would have been the last legal option available. Unfortunately before that could happen, the riot occurred and the objections were dropped. Am I misunderstanding the details there?
This is so careless and inaccurate. I expect better of a lawyer.
These issues are exceptionally complicated. You probably don’t know anything about a single one of those cases to express an opinion. I know about only a small handful, which I have examined personally.
The most notable one is the Georgia state court case in Fulton County, not brought by Trump, but by a private citizen. It was dismissed for misjoinder — while the judge carefully granted the motion to dismiss before considering the pending motion to intervene filed by alternative defendants — and while the judge ignored the applicable Georgia statute on civil procedure. I detailed this here. The Georgia rule was the equivalent of Rule 21 of the federal and Arizona rules of civil procedure (with which we’re probably both familiar, as Arizona lawyers).
Yes, I hope God helps you NTs to get over your obsession and hate.
Oh, God ! Please spare us from the lunatic NTs who are obsessed and won’t shut up.
Go away and pester someone else.
More mlunacy.
Thank you Philo. Just ordered it from Amazon.
More lunacy. Do you have to inflict this crap on readers of this blog to deal with some internal demons ?
double post. Sorry 😣
Yes, I’m afraid so. This is what I mean by the president misleading everyone for weeks now.
Objections can be made, but under the statute the only lawful reason to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3 usc 6, or if more than one slate of electors was sent for that state. None of those circumstances existed. The counting of votes became a legal formality once the EC votes were certified.
This is not complicated law, which leads many to conclude that the president and his team have, for weeks, known there was no legitimate legal claim left. Cruz surely knew that. The fact Trump didn’t admit that, and stirred his people on anyway is unconscionable.
I always take lots of notes. Happy to discuss more when you’ve read it.
I wouldn’t mind one more post to inform me how many of those decisions were on the merits of the claims. But we probably won’t get that anyway. This sounds like a Bulwark factoid so who knows what it’s worth.
I think they’re worried about the real life consequences of his speech (and possibly actions).
He has the right to say whatever he wants. Most Trump supporters didn’t take his words as a call to violence. But (predictably?) a small segment did, and they acted.
It is not illegal for the President to speak intemperately or unwisely, but there are consequences when he does so.
In this instance these consequences caused the members of Congress to feel actual physical fear – something they are not used to – and I think that’s influencing their responses.
Those are reasons to want to impeach. Things that actually justify impeachment are bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has done none of those things.
So this is an unhealthy fantasy being entertained by people who are willing to torture the Constitution in order to remove a man they don’t like.
I’d say “unhealthy fantasy” is something of an understatement. “Bloodlust” is something of an overstatement, but I believe that it’s closer. This is revenge, pure and simple.
Is this a fact? Have you examined the time line of his speech and the activity at the Capital? (I’m not saying it isn’t true but it is conceivable that those who acted so poorly at the Capital didn’t hear a word Trump said.)
On that day. Possible (though with smart phones it’s hard to say definitively).
According to this the speech ended about 1 pm and some people were already at the capitol by then. So at best they didn’t stay till the end.
This article lists multiple speeches/comms since mid December – which is only relevant in that opinions are formed over a period of time.
Clearly some people had planned for it, but most seem to have just been caught up when it happened. That’s often the nature of mobs.
I think I would have gone with “give it a rest.” Or better yet, “put a sock/cork in it.”
Hey, “Stifle yourself, Edith!” is even better.
Except you’re still assuming it was really Trump supporters who did the damage, etc. That’s an easy assumption for… some… to make, but it’s far from certain. BLM/Antifa agitators at the events have been identified.
Maybe time for another reminder, he’s only a family law attorney.
I agree they need to get over it, but not without some punishment/suffering along the way for the damage already done.