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
Pat Toomay has announced his retirement. He’s leaving in 2022. Maybe he’s posturing for governor, I don’t know. If he’s looking for a future office one would think he would not alienate part of his base. What would be the political angle of his posturing?
Arrested and released without charges, it seems. Which is pretty typical for the BLM/Antifa agitators.
I just saw bits and pieces of the day. Where did Trump go after the speech? I don’t think he marched to the Capitol, or did he?
Being loved. Or maybe he’s just cloudy on the whole “impeachable offense” thing. There’s a lot of that going around.
As a free speech absolutist, I will defend the president’s right to say whatever he want. As a citizen of the USA, I will encourage Congressmen and Senators to impeach and remove the rascal. There is no crime in his horrible speech, but there is political and social malfeasance.
Wanting D.J.Trump to be removed from office because of disgusting behavior is not a violation of his freedom of speech.
He’s in a tough state politically for him, so re-election excuses being a weasel.
I did not and am not trying to explain away anything. Just pointing out that “contributed” is a weasel word in the greater discussion of “incited” and “impeachable.” Sure, Manny is correct in his wording but it is a meaningless point. The “actions and speech” of tens of thousands of people “contributed” to what happened at the Capital that day. So what? Those who were at the capital that day are responsible for what they did. Fudging this “contribution” into an impeachment is very Pelosian. Be better than that.
LOL, I don’t use “weasel” words. Look over my comments here, especially #50. No weasel words.
I agree with Hoya that it’s basically an academic question at this point…But still, the guy tried to remain in power (which is not much different than seizing power in the first place), by means that would violate the Constitution and Federal Law…in part by openly badgering and the berating the VP. And that was before people got killed. People who, again, would be alive and well if not for his desperation to avoid the election results. Nothing I’m saying here is inflammatory or even very controversial factually. I’m basically sticking with things that are hard to dispute, not getting into things that might well be true, but are unproven (e.g. that a police officer was beaten to death.)
I know I’m repeating myself, and I apologize for that. Having a hard time seeing how this could be considered anything other than particularly outrageous conduct.
If that did happen, I think it was far more likely to have been by a BLM/Antifa member/agitator, not some random Trump supporter. Especially since we’ve seen how Trump supporters treat police elsewhere, and how BLM/Antifa do.
Good luck.
I do not see it this way at all. I think Donald Trump was genuinely concerned, and with good reason, about how the Democrats would govern this country.
Donald Trump has been alone on this mission since he started in terms of the politics of his presidency. He has never had an active party behind him. Part of the reason for that is that he came out swinging at the established leadership of the Republican Party right from the start. He represented the anti-Bush wing, which was pretty big.
I understand why that happened. But the result is that he had no trusted advisors to move him in a different direction. He felt that past Republicans had made big political mistakes so he didn’t trust them.
He got his strength from his supporters, the little people on Main Street, not Big Tech or the Beltway.
I think without the pandemic, without the horrific accusations the Democrats made about his handling of the pandemic, he would have won reelection in a landslide.
The weeks leading up to the November 3 election were chaotic in cities and towns across the country in terms voting procedures.
And Joe Biden and his team seemed, to many people, to be bullying their way into the White House. Which they were. That pressure from Biden added a lot of unnecessary heat to the situation. I am guessing his followers did it on purpose. The press added to it.
Without cheating, I agree. It’s possible that he still did, at least in many states, but the cheating was enough to overcome them. Remember that even while “losing,” Trump won something like 2,500 counties while Biden won less than 500.
I thought he was arrested again in Utah? Could be wrong.
The Utah incident was back in June or something, as I recall.
Hi Manny,
Welcome to the fight. It is an honor to have you as an ally.
Gary
Trump did not march to the capitol. Instead he retired to a “Pre-Riot” watch party. Trump appears at the 46 second point.
Or perhaps Senator Pat Toomey is acting out of an ethical concern for the Republic and the Republican Party. In both the House and the Senate, Pat Toomey has always been in an unfavorable situation given the nature of his district and then the State of Pennsylvania.
How pompous can you get? Why don’t you allow Manny to decide with whom he’s allied. From what I recall he’s unlikely to want anything to do with a pro-abortion voter, much to his credit. But that’s his call, not mine, and certainly not yours.
Why would I or anyone else listen to anyone about “ethical concerns” who wrote this?
“Demons” is right.
What if he doesn’t HAVE demons, what if he IS the demon?
Well, hypothetically speaking, they may be one.
Hypothetically speaking, any of us could be one.
Do you also encourage the immediate impeachment of Biden and Harris for their role in supporting and encouraging several months of racist domestic terrorism? It was, after all, political and social malfeasance, and based on deliberate lies to boot, disgusting behavior that no moral person should tolerate (or vote for).
Here we go again. I’ve only made it through the first page of comments on the post and have concluded this conversation is becoming worthless and destructive.
Stop arguing amongst ourselves over this week’s travesty. It happened. I see little evidence of good-judgement, self-control and self-discipline in the political, media/commentary, and business sphere right now. Ironically, that includes many whose chief complaint against President Trump was that he lacked good judgement, self-control and self-discipline. Instead everyone seems insistent upon being right.
IT DOESN’T MATTER! These are unconstructive and futile arguments.
This is a tipping point. The Left knows it controls all the levers of power and is pushing to cement its hegemony. It will succeed so long as we keep up the circular firing squad. When somebody at least 51% on our side engages in that activity, don’t demonize them. Remind them where their fire is better directed. It also doesn’t mean going off in a huff.
Fall back, consolidate. And then attack. The best defense is a good offense. That doesn’t mean going off charging into the cannons’ mouth, it means attacking effectively. Sometimes that means holding yourself in check and biding your time. Some times it means pushing hard. At all times it means keeping a clear head. It does not mean pulling out the long knives for those who don’t perfectly agree with ourselves, but nevertheless love individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and the means to defend them. We win by growing our coalition, not by purifying it. We win by being something that people want to join, not something that is is populated by internal squabbles.
The reaction to the events of this week have increased the likelihood that we are headed toward a civil war. It will not be tomorrow, and it will not be like the 1860s. It will be more like the Balkans, but different in ways we can’t imagine. The outcome is not a forgone conclusion either. So this is not something to desire.
Tom Kratman’s full piece follows:
[continued]
[continued from #118]
[continued from #119]