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.
Rep. Jim Jordan Seeks to Oust Rep. Liz Cheney from Leadership
According to this Politico article, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan plans to move to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair. Cheney previously announced her support for the impeachment of President Trump. According to the same article, the top two Republicans in the House — Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise — oppose impeachment.
This strikes me as a proper response to Cheney’s action. As I have posted previously, I find the calls for Trump’s impeachment to be a deranged overreaction. It is very disappointing to see some erstwhile conservatives and Republicans supporting such an action.
Rep. Cheney is entitled to her opinion and may vote as she sees fit. I think that it is quite proper for her House colleagues to remove her from a leadership position, if they disagree strongly with her on such an important issue.
I do expect that any Republican Congressmen or Senators who support impeachment to face a serious primary challenge in their next election. Rightfully so, in my view.
Published in Politics
I have criticized the President for his treatment of the Vice President regarding the counting of the electoral votes. I think that the President was wrong about this, and should not have done it.
“Welcome” may be a bit optimistic.
Were we talking about the different countings? I wasn’t referring to the state level, just the final count in front of both houses of congress.
Impeachment supporters never seem to answer that, for some reason.
I agree with can, and I’ll include should. But they won’t, because the Dims have the majority of the House.
You are agreeing that they can be impeached for things said before they were in office? How far back in time can this go? Is this now available because of the new ‘cancel culture’ feature?
Hmm. The path forward will be antipathy to what the Biden administration does and whether it will be sufficient. There is no guarantee that it will. And I don’t agree that the schism will necessarily lead to Dem victories. It may. It may not. Both party leaderships are capable of amazingly stupid things. Some of the NTers are perfectly capable of voting for Biden. There’s no reason to think they can’t come back to the GOP. But when they start to think they should run things, doesn’t that show a pathological delusion on their part?
There’s a difference in kind between wink-wink-nod-nodding looting a McDonalds as a senator and wink-wink-nod-nodding breaking and entering the Capitol Building while a session of Congress is attempting to ratify the results of an election as the sitting President, no?
Both parts of your statement are inaccurate. The first part is understatement of the content and action and the second part is overstatement of content. Wink-wink-nod-nodding doesn’t cover that up.
I agree with Hoyacon on this issue, Brian. I would want to know more directly what position Cotton is taking. In the spirit suggested earlier by Jerry Giordano when he cautioned me for taking umbrage too soon against Mitch McConnel, who I think is a lot less worthy of consideration than Tom Cotton, I am seeing things moving at a very fast pace right now. Maybe a deep breath wouldn’t hurt. But I will repeat my thought that this is in the Senate hands right now and McConnell is the leader. If he lets this happen while Trump has only days left, he and others, including possibly Cotton, will be nothing to me.
Well, the last survey I saw had 90% approval of him as president. You can try to create your own party. Good luck.
I wonder how many of them work for companies invested in China?
See my subsequent comment/reply to Hoyacon on this.
I suppose you also liked “Tea bagger.”
To re-use an old expression: When you’re invested in China, China is invested in YOU!.
I’ll concede the first part but Trump clearly was whipping up the crowd before hand and then gave a weak sauce statement in which he was obviously (to quote Brian Watt) “…walking on a tightrope trying to appease both factions…” We can argue semantics but the point stands: looking askance as the President while rioters attempt to disrupt a Constitutional process (and a fair argument can be made that he had a hand in it happening with his pre-riot rally) is fundamentally different then what Biden/Pelosi did (or didn’t) say about BLM and Antifa riots. This isn’t even considering his weeks long campaign of disinformation (hacked voting machines, winning by a landslide, etc…), attempting to bully the VP into de-ratifying the EC vote and strong arming Georgia voting officials to find votes.
But if you throw in a burning down a Wendy’s along with the looting of the McDonalds plus add another looting of a Foot Locker would that balance out the moral equivalency equation.
If that doesn’t balance it out just add in the Antifa take over a portion of the City of Portland then if needed the firebombing of Federal Buildings.
Somebody has to figure out how each of these acts of looting and rioting should be weighted and measured.
So “attempt to disrupt a Constitutional process” is worse than encouraging riots that burn buildings – including federal buildings! – sometimes after trying to make it impossible for people inside to escape, and the rest that Biden and Harris have done?
Lots of “disputed assertions” there. Even if YOU think Trump was “strong arming Georgia voting officials to find votes” doesn’t make it so.
I’m not excusing the BLM/Antifa rioters or trying to downplay their significance. I was making a point (attempting at least) about why there is a difference between Biden’s/Harris’ support of BLM/Antifa and attempting to disrupt a Constitutional process.
Not to nitpick, but do you mean February 14,1912?
Re: your riots are worse than my riots. See my response above to EDISONPARKS.
Re: disputed assertions. Yup. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.
There is a difference and it is the type of difference you are trying to describe. Biden/Harris, as far as I can recall, didn’t support rioting, at least not overtly, but supported “peaceful protests”. They didn’t condemn the rioting until some point after large numbers of commercial facilities in several cities were destroyed. Harris is reported to have financially supported funds that helped bail those charged with rioting out of jail.
I think the President made a misjudgment in encouraging large supportive crowds coming to DC in January. By that time his options were exhausted. But I cannot read his mind and conclude that he was attempting “to disrupt a Constitutional process.” I also cannot conclude that he thought anything like what happened would happen. And reports I have seen place those who violated the Capitol at that location already when he was speaking to the crowd so it hard to fit the action to his words.
I was mostly just trying to make a joke about how the MSM narrative of the day is chronic amnesia on the Antifa Leftist riots, looting, takeovers of cities which occurred throughout the year.
Suddenly the (D)/MSM/Culture Combine declares any protest gone wild when done by non-Leftist is the equivalent of a terrorist seditious violent take over of the government where all people involved must be sought out, detained and prosecuted because … this is much, much different …. because the other Antifa Leftist rioting, looting, etc was not the same …. because …. we say so.
Now shut up and bend the knee.
We shall see if Representatives Biggs or Gosar have signed such a statement.
I agree that Trump didn’t intend for the riot to happen but in my view he bears responsibility in the same way a person who picks up a gun he knows is loaded and intentionally points it at someone bears responsibility for anything that happens afterward. Given all of his histrionics preceding the riot and failure to forthrightly deal with it afterwards, I don’t think impeachment is unreasonable or a “deranged overreaction.”
Gosh I have to step in here. The “gun” thing is a very weak analogy. Trump has held skads of rallies without incident with the same kind of rhetoric. There were tens of thousands of people at this rally that did nothing. It’s pretty obvious that the minute portion of those who did cause the riot (number as yet unknown) had their own agenda. That’s not on Trump.
Damn. damn, damn. Okay, instead of investing energy into recalling Biggs and Gosar, I will invest energy in defending the ten Republican’s Representatives who supported impeachment, and the (hopefully 17+) senators who vote to convict. I can also work in the primaries against Biggs and Gosar. (They are in R +15 and R +21 districts.) Gosar’s district includes Ash Fork, Seligman, Chino Valley and Cottonwood, all about an hour away.)
Even if they did it would appear to be unenforceable, because Unconstitutional.
I have defended Trump for four years–until the post election fiasco. (I am sure there was fraud but doubt it changed the outcome though that is of course possible.) I also value realism in politics. And I absolutely did not think there was any chance whatsover that the senate would fail to certify, thus making any individual move to do so nothing but a grandstand play. Does that mean there is a problem with my character? Maybe Cotton realized that tilting at a windmill was less important than a peaceful transition and an orderly investigation of the election process. Now, partly thanks to Trump, we will get neither since the Republicans in the senate will not have subpoena power. To put it briefly: if you think as I do that Trump is as done as Nixon was (rightly or wrongly) why is it a show of character to commit political suicide for his lost cause?
Yes. I will correct.