Trump acquitted
But the US Congress has covered itself with shame, as far as I’m concerned.
A friend of mine likes to say, “No matter how cynical I get, it never seems to be cynical enough.” That’s the way I often feel, too. And it’s the way I feel today.
This entire episode was a proceeding that was obviously unconstitutional. Lawyers can find arguments for anything – that’s their job – but some arguments are bad ones, and anyone who said this was constitutional is just rationalizing what he or she wishes were so. That five Republican senators managed to do just that is bad enough, but since there were actually seven Republican votes for conviction – Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, and Toomey – that means that two of them, Burr and Cassidy, managed the neat trick of voting “guilty” in a trial that they think is unconstitutional.
That kind of mental gymnastics is worthy of today’s politicians. Or maybe politicians have always been like that.
The case for voting “guilty” was tremendously weak, but that was no impediment to every single Democrat senator casting such a vote. I guess that’s an example of the Democrat way of unity and healing.
I like the title of the post by William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection that I linked earlier: “Trump Acquitted – Nancy Pelosi Becomes First House Speaker To Bring Two Failed Impeachments.” I would add the following to that title “Both of Which She Knew Ahead of Time Would Fail.” It is my fervent hope that the overwhelming hypocrisy of the Democrats that was revealed in yesterday’s presentation by Trump’s legal team will come back to bite Pelosi and company politically, but past experience tells me that’s unlikely.
The Legal Insurrection post also helpfully lists the political situation of the 7 who voted for Trump’s guilt:
Burr – not running for re-election
Cassidy – just re-elected
Collins – just re-elected
Murkowski – up for re-election in 2022
Romney – up for re-election in 2024
Sasse – just re-elected
Toomey – not running for re-election
A special note on Romney – I think he had already burned his bridges with the Utah electorate and would have been primaried in 2024 anyway, even without this vote. That’s if he ever wanted to run again in the first place. I’m not sure, because it seems to me that he hates Trump so much that I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney’s main motive for running for the Senate in 2018 was just to take revenge on Trump. Mission accomplished.
So far in this whole sorry business, two senators who have impressed me are Rand Paul, who earlier led the fight to declare the trial unconstitutional, and Lindsey Graham, who was more than ready to bring in a long line of witnesses for the Trump side if the Democrats insisted on calling witnesses.
It is glaringly obvious that the Democrats have no reluctance to further anger and alienate the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In fact, they seem eager to do so. Apparently they don’t think they’ll have any need for them in the future.
McConnell deserves to be raked for his comments after this farce was over.
Take a look at: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/trump-impeachment-trial-day-5-468985
… beginning at the paragraph that starts “The trial ended with several unresolved mysteries…” and continuing for several paragraphs.
In other words, THEY DIDN’T BOTHER TO HAVE A TRIAL (presentation of actual evidence, etc.), apparently.
McConnell deserves to be raked for his comments after this farce was over.
It’s an indicator of the self-centered insularity of the Capitol and McConnell’s indifference to his own constituents. Kakistocracy is now.
Art Deco,
Yep, exactly. Could have said nothing but no can’t do that. Of course Trump was Ok enough for McConnell’s wife to be in his cabinet his entire term.
But the US Congress has covered itself with shame, as far as I’m concerned. –neo
As well as “National Review.”
I realize I’m late to the party by the standards of many here, but I’m rather annoyed with the boys at NRO, who backed this power-mad act of Democrat vindictiveness which was plainly unconstitutional, yet “National Review” pretended to the moral high ground that they were standing up for the Constitution and their Grand Principles.
Bah.
A pox on the lot of them.
If Graham was correct that there are FBI agents who would testify that they knew the riot was planned in advance, then McConnell and the other GOP Trump haters knew that, as did Schumer and the rest of the Democrat Cretins.
Yet, they proceed with their sham, and then bleat their “holier than thou” postmortems.
The Never Renew – Mouthpiece of the GOPextinct. No clicks, no views, maybe they can learn to cod.
Huxley: After a couple of kick-him-while-he’s-down issues at the end of 2020, I canceled my subscription to NR. It was cathartic. And it got even worse after that, with Williamson’s “Cletus” piece.
Watt:
So, you “canceled your own goddam subscription.” Good for you!
https://www.amazon.com/Cancel-Your-Own-Goddam-Subscription/dp/0465002420
I wonder what William F. would make of our brave new world.
Democrat leadership are now implying that by acquitting Trump,
Congressional Republicans are now responsible for any future domestic terrorism.
If they can’t disqualify Trump, next best is slandering those Senators who voted to acquit.
“It is glaringly obvious that the Democrats have no reluctance to further anger and alienate the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In fact, they seem eager to do so. Apparently they don’t think they’ll have any need for them in the future.” neo
Since in future elections they can now manufacture as many votes as needed, of what electoral concern could those 75 million people be?
Societal stabiity in a representative republic is unsustainable when half a society’s voters are effectively disenfranchised. Democrat leadership, while criminal is not stupid, so they have to know this to be so. In which case, they have to be anticipating societal unrest on a massive scale. Demonstrated by a barbed wire ringed Capitol.
The prepatory labeling of armed conservative protestors as “domestic terrorists” strongly implies that they intend to use deadly force against any armed protestors. And that will be the trigger wire for civil war. Tragically, democrat leadership, while not stupid is blind to the political dynamite with which they’re playing…
Me? I try to become more cynical every day but lately I just can’t keep up.
I have a different take on this. The Democrats establishment wanted this over as it was not working out well for the Party. They after much effort just got unstuck from the “tar baby” the Progressives had grabbed onto.
Then Mitch, knowing he himself will never run for office again, grabs a second “tar baby” and runs full on into the Dems pack ‘o jackals to get them stuck prosecuting, now citizen, Trump, again.
More circuses ahead and more self-destruction for the Progressives and their Never-Trump boot lickers.
Cletus Williamson, Tammy Fae and Jim French, Wretch Lowrey, what is there to miss? They can all get aboard the good ship Lincoln for a three hour cruise.
“Tar baby” and “briar patch” are white supremacist dog whistles (or something). Off to the reeducation camp! 🙂
Gotta say I gave up on the National Review about the time WFB left, it’s basically been a place for GOPe consultants and wannabe ‘public intellectuals’ to hang their hats between election gigs and ‘pubbies administration gigs. Self-serving shadows of the Democratic intellectual stable, without having anything of importance to say since the turn of the century….
Om,
I prefer not to burn with regrets in the camp.
Then Mitch, knowing he himself will never run for office again, grabs a second “tar baby” and runs full on into the Dems pack ‘o jackals to get them stuck prosecuting, now citizen, Trump, again.
geoff+b:
Are you saying that was a cunning plan on McConnell’s part?
Nancy Pelosi should give up her Trump jones and do something about her district in San Francisco. I’m not there any longer but I follow the news really closely and the natives are restless. People are leaving because of the draconian lockdowns that have decimated the tourism industry, restaurants, theaters, arts — everything and the homeless are camping all over the city. Of course the rents are way too high also and that’s partly the result of idiotic fiscal policy. The rents are plunging which is the only good thing there. The homeless threaten people daily and many are mentally ill or addicts. I have compassion for these people, I’ve known addicts, but the best policy is not to coddle and enable but to make it difficult to continue their addiction. The city gives out needles which were supposed to be returned, but rarely are and instead litter the sidewalks, playgrounds and parks. Crimes rates are going up with the insane DA Chesa Boudin who lets out criminals to do their crime once again. Yes, there is still beauty there, still parts of the city not entirely overtaken by tents but even there you might see a person crawling on the sidewalk in the middle of the day — obviously mentally ill. It is heartbreaking and disturbing. She has done nothing! NOTHING!
Meanwhile we all suffer with this idiotic trial. I had my misgivings about Trump in the beginning, but he’s proven to be an excellent leader and actually, when all is said and done – a good man. Flawed, but we are all flawed. He’s done a lot for the country and is being treated like a dog. Melania was treated likewise and never even graced a Vanity Fair magazine cover. It’s disgusting. History will not be kind to the people who put the country through this. If the country survives and I am no longer sure that it will.
Acquitted … not acquitted …. doesn’t matter . The Dems will hammer it home … the only President to be “impeached TWICE.”
I’d say the majority of the voting public has no knowledge of the impeachment process and think Trump/Repubs went down in flames over this whole deal.
Gerard beat me to the punch.
Cynicism is the proper filter on politics because it’s accurate: they’re almost uniformly exceedingly cynical, amoral people. Assuming good faith is an error.
And Rand Paul is the goods. I admire his courage to stand up for what is right, consequences be damned.
Huxley asked, “Are you saying that was a cunning plan on McConnell’s part?”
Not on McConnell part, Trump’s plan. And not likely the DOJ but more likely some Progressive State AGs are fool enough to give DJT a public platform to destroy them all live on streaming TV. Ratings through the roof.
Of course if they had succeeded in the impeachment it would be open season on Trump supporters. It already is, but the situation would worsen. Trump supporters or people who have even slightly conservative/libertarian or questioning views are on alert for cancellation now. I can only imagine it would worsen as the left would feel emboldened and righteous. There are still anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 troops in DC, which scares me. The idea of a national emergency from “white supremacists” (who don’t even have to be white) and “rightwing extremists” would have gotten more of a hold. As it is, we are in dark times but thankfully the acquittal is one substantial victory.
As well as “National Review.”
The mask has fallen off at NR. Stick a fork in them. They either close up shop or they live out their days as another one of Pierre Omidyar’s toys.
I’ve read Sen. Burr’s statement. He says that he voted against the constitutionality of the trial, but that since the Senate voted to go forward, that established the precedent that it was constitutional, and his duty was to consider the evidence. So now the Senate determines what’s constitutional. — He’s already been harshly rebuked by the Chairman of the NC GOP. I wouldn’t be surprised if a formal censure vote follows. He’ll be an ex-Senator in two years. Maybe he’s angling for a nice job at a Washington think tank.
I gave up on National Review a while ago. I like to read Dave Harsanyi, but he occasionally publishes elsewhere.
Maybe he’s angling for a nice job at a Washington think tank.
K Street here he comes.
geoff+b: “Trump’s plan. And not likely the DOJ but more likely some Progressive State AGs are fool enough to give DJT a public platform to destroy them all live on streaming TV. Ratings through the roof.”
I like the way you think. I can see it now, while they’re charging Trump with not protecting the Capitol, Trump’s team streams video of riots in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, DC, and many other Democrat controlled cities. They show that the mayors of these cities failed to prevent billion$ in property losses, many civilian casualties, and accepted hundreds of police officers killed and injured. Not to mention the disruption of traffic, threats to their citizens, and disruption of normal business for days at a time. The “insurrection” at the Capitol looked like a “Panty Raid” compared to the typical violence from ;last summer that VPOTUS Harris said would not and should not end. All this and more could be brought to light along with the offers, mostly refused, by President Trump to send aid to help stop the violence. Yes, bring it on.
The Democrats have no ability to see how hypocritical they are. They also can’t seem to understand why open borders, higher taxes, higher energy costs, shipping jobs to China, and the hollowing out of the middle class don’t appeal to middle class voters. Old Joe has done bang up job of forcing all these policies down our throats. The pain will soon begin.
it’s basically been a place for GOPe consultants and wannabe ‘public intellectuals’ to hang their hats between election gigs and ‘pubbies administration gigs.
No, they’re all word-merchants, and, in contrast to what was the case 30 years ago, boring word merchants. They’ve had some academicians over the years. Victor Davis Hanson continues to publish in NR, but him aside, those people are no longer on the contributors list. Engaging writers without academic berths have disappeared due to attrition and been replaced with break-the-snore-barrier characters like Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert ver Bruggen. Mark Steyn was removed from the contributors’ list by the managing editor for – I’m not making this up – quoting an old Dean Martin joke in one of his columns (a joke mild enough to be broadcast on network television 50 years ago, when the ‘standards and practices’ office at each network had some teeth).
and his duty was to consider the evidence
Which evidently did not include understand what is meant, in legal terms, by ‘incitement’.
After I left the Left, National Review became my guide to the bewildering new world of conservatism. They weren’t crazy, they had some intellectual heft and good writing, and I knew who William F. Buckley was.
I read WFB’s “God and Man at Yale” in high school, because I thought I should read more than one side. I still believe that.
WFB was close to a god in his own right. He was one of the most accomplished people I can think of. He wrote 50 books, kickstarted a new conservative movement in the US, founded National Review, starred in an important political debate TV show, sailed at a serious level, and played piano and harpsichord very well too.
I recall Kurt Vonnegut expressing bewilderment at how WFB could do so many things so well and still be one of the happiest people Vonnegut knew.
I had a good run with National Review. I don’t regret it. I still support much of what I learned from NR. It’s sad they’ve not been able to keep up with the times.
You might want to consult Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary with regards to a lawyer: One skilled in circumvention of the law and also liar: A lawyer with a roving commission. That pretty much says all that needs be said.
“Regardless of what you think of Trump, the fact is a large portion of the managerial class is insane. They can no longer differentiate between their partisan fever dreams and reality. You see that in this 538 post. The person who wrote that is living in a fantasy world.
We simply cannot have a stable society where a large portion of the ruling class is suffering from severe mental illness.”
https://gab.com/TheZBlog/posts/105726708036846574
One of Trump’s defense attorneys says his house and his law firm are under attack, literally. Windows broken, spray paint at the house.
@Kate:
No surprises there. Just wait for Season 2.
For all the fear around here of the Left taking over, I’m afraid of the incompetence and emotional weakness of the white managerial class.
Look at the Democrats on impeachment witnesses. It seems as if calling witnesses is an idea that literally got started on Twitter just recently, the Dems ran with it, won the vote to call witnesses, and only then realized “Oh, crap! That means Trump can call witnesses too!”
Or look at McConnell. He could have come out strongly against impeachment right away and possibly killed it, but instead allowed the delusion Trump might actually lose in the Senate take hold. Then he votes to acquit, but you know he gave the high sign to “convict” votes like Romney and Sasse to “vote their conscience.” Then he publicly endorses criminally prosecuting Trump for actions taken as President. Making the exactly wrong political decision so consistently is stupidly impressive.
I said this to someone the other day: My fear isn’t Leftist tyranny. It’s some monumental disaster, like China invading Taiwan and kicking the U.S. Navy’s ass in the process, opening the door to a no-fooling genuine fascist coming to power.
Granted, I would probably enjoy SOME of the things that fascist did but not enough to sacrifice the freedom of future generations.
Mike
Why do I have a sinking feeling this is only round 2 of many more rounds to come. They will not stop.
The Dems have to only win 1 round with a knock out! Trump has to win every round.
GvdL: “I try to become more cynical every day but lately I just can’t keep up.”
My understanding is that the Babylon Bee has been wrestling with that exact problem for many months now. 🙂 🙂
“One of Trump’s defense attorneys says his house and his law firm are under attack, literally. Windows broken, spray paint at the house.”
And of course, if they fought back in any way, it would be VICTIM who was prosecuted. Let us pray: “Dear God, PLEASE let me be on a jury so that I can hold fast and protect the righteous person who fought back and made an evil leftie Prog pay a heavy price. Amen.”
“Trump has to win every round.“
Trump got the ball rolling but it’s going downhill now. There’s nothing they can do to Trump that won’t speed it up.
It’s amazing to consider that if they’d just given Trump his wall and a few other symbolic victories, they probably could have gotten him to sign on to a bunch of uniparty wishlist items and demoralized the populist right for a generation.
Mike
Several months ago Scott Adams said something to the effect that any government that makes it legal for its spooks to spy on their citizens eventually will be controlled by them. These erratic decisions by so many of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Is it better to believe our elected leaders are incompetent or to think they are being manipulated?
I think the time comes to impeach and take her out of the speaker of the house as she is clearly the force behind this mess.
She was from day one had a problem and she should be pushed out of the house when she publically and on the media cuts the speech of the president paper…..
It was impolite action unprecedented and very wrong protocol behaviour in the house.
Whatever does not kill me, makes me stronger. Never attack a king unless you can kill the king.
Today has been a special day because the idiots who put this farce together have done nothing but strengthen the conservatives. This predicted outcome has become a Trump Victory and the weasel RHINO’s were too damn dumb to understand what has happened.
This is the best news I have seen since early November when they stole the election and now the idiots will have to live with the strange, convoluted dream team they have put in power. I am seeing massive buyer’s remorse as the new guys actually try to do something rather than hating on Trump.
Perhaps so real good stuff will come out of all this stuff and Trump will be a player however I think he might be, in the future a King Maker rather than trying to win the Presidency once more but who knows, the conservatives are still in the game.
The other point should be considered that this subject and the story of impeachment all done to cover their As* and they have noting promising to American people.
During Trump time they all run full sliders about Covid-19 and how the president failed to do any good……..Now after they get to put their As* down so they went silent also MSM all through under the carpet the number of American indicated ore the number of American dying each day.
This one matter but what they plane to give the Americans.
Let watch them and hold each one to his wards when he runs for the job…….
“The Democrats have no ability to see how hypocritical they are. They also can’t seem to understand why open borders, higher taxes, higher energy costs, shipping jobs to China, and the hollowing out of the middle class don’t appeal to middle class voters.” J.J.
To engage in hypocrisy is to sacrifice one’s integrity. Democrats repeatedly demonstrate that to be a price they are willing to pay in pursuit of their agenda.
However it’s not that they don’t understand their policies lack of appeal to middle class voters. It’s that those policies are essential to the advance of their agenda and now, without electoral cost.
A greatly reduced middle class is decidedly in their favor. In fact, it’s a necessity if the Great Reset is going to succeed in the fundamental transformation of America.
Someone should put together a running cost of all this crap the Dems have spent of the taxpayers money to get rid of Trump going down the rabbit hole … the collusion crap … Impeachment 1 … impeachment 2 … cost to economy to shut down … everything!
The taxpayers aren’t the sharpest crayons in the box but when you get in their pocket they seem to wake up. I know I do!
M. Bunge: “It’s some monumental disaster, like China invading Taiwan…..”
China will not invade Taiwan. Taiwan would make them pay too steep a price. The massive Chinese dams are their weak point. Take them out and millions drown. Not to mention the loss of hydro power. The Chinese are willing to play a longer game. They are working on getting inside Taiwan’s politics, while flexing their military muscle to keep the attention away from their political maneuvers. In the meantime, Taiwan is extremely valuable to China as a source of investment and technology. The Chicoms are willing to wait until the island’s politicians are in their control.
At least that’s the way one China expert (Michael Pillsbury) sees it.
Of course, good old Joe might well do things that will drive Taiwan’s politicians into the arms of the Chicoms. Yes, he and his “team” are capable of such.
Poor Nancy’s pissed. She considers an acquittal a “slap on the wrist.” How about enduring 4 plus years of attacks and accusations, plus the previous acquittal. A lesser man would have been broken.
How about 33,000 emails that originated on Hillary’s private server? How about Swalwell’s relationship with a Chinese spy, and his tipping her off that the FBI was closing in on her? What about Diane Feinstein employing a Chinese spy for 20 years? And perhaps best of all, what about the Speaker of the House tearing up the Presidential State of the Union address? Any penalties for these “minor” transgressions?
Zaphod @ 9:11pm,
I agree that the writer of that 538 post is living in a fantasy world. He’s drunk deeply of the left’s kool-aid.
I disagree that “a large portion of the ruling class is suffering from severe mental illness.” That they’ve lost partial touch with reality is undeniable. Yet, from an historical perspective they’re behaving exactly like every ruling class eventually behaves. France just before their revolution. Russia’s Czarist ruling class. Cuba’s ruling class under Batista. The reaction to Venezuela’s ruling class that led to the election of Hugo Chavez.
Poular revolutions are invariably a reaction against insufferable conditions. Invariably, conditions brought about by the ruling class.
The activist left, the Xiden administration and the globalists with their planned “Great Reset” are beginning to impose the very type of conditions that have throughout history brought about violent revolutions. As the arrogance, hubris, historical ignorance and the lust to control others within a ruling class overcomes it, it brings about these cyclic events.
However accurate in its details the Fourth Turning theory may or may not be, there’s no denying that approx. 80 cycle:
1781 – Decisive Battle of Yorktown
1861 – Confederacy fires on the US garrison of Fort Sumter
1941 – Attack on Pearl Harbor
2021 – Death of the US Constitution
I call it … insanity … is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
I maybe could understand Dems continuing to go after Trump IF he was still in office. But he’s not and probably never will be. I guess the Dems can’t take that chance … and must bury him!
That they’ve lost partial touch with reality is undeniable. Yet, from an historical perspective they’re behaving exactly like every ruling class eventually behaves.
Geoffrey Britain:
There’s a fine Faulkner quote which conveys the truth that authorities lose touch with reality because they can no longer see what is obvious to those “below” them, especially when it concerns said authorities.
_______________________________________________________
… to the sheriff Lucas was just another n***** and both the sheriff and Lucas knew it, although only one of them knew that to Lucas the sheriff was a redneck without any reason for pride in his forbears nor hope for it in his descendants.
–William Faulkner, “The Fire and the Hearth” in “Go Down Moses”
_______________________________________________________
Which is how I’m coming to feel about my elite betters in Washington.
It is a cycle. I don’t believe Pelosi et al. have any idea how out of touch they are. They live in a self-reinforcing bubble and project what they deny about themselves unto us.
(I forgot how much the n-word appears in Faulkner. Do they still teach him in college? Did Oprah know what she was doing when she put a Faulkner novel on her book club list? Oh well, Faulkner is too hard for the 21st century anyway.)
Geoffrey Britain;
That 80 year cycle has a built in problem of selecting dates after the fact 1781, 1861, 1941 and then arbitrarily selecting 2021 as the date that ended the US Constitution. Significant historical events occurred in 1776, 1783, 1865, 1939, 1942, 1945, 1961, etc, Pretty weak theory, not insightful, but certainly gloomy-doomy.
“I call it … insanity … is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
I maybe could understand Dems continuing to go after Trump IF he was still in office.” jack
They do indeed do the same thing over and over again. But I don’t think they expect different results. I’ve little doubt that at this point they’re very happy with the results they’ve achieved to date.
I see the dems going after Trump with two goals in mind. To, if successful, disqualify Trump from any possibility of a future reelection. Secondly, to brand Republican Senators as closet insurrectionists.
I imagine they never had any substantive hopes of convicting Trump. But by bringing impeachment charges against him, they hope to gain the second goal as a result of losing their first goal. Its a virtual certainty that the MSM will incessantly beat that drum through 2024.
“It is glaringly obvious that the Democrats have no reluctance to further anger and alienate the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In fact, they seem eager to do so. Apparently they don’t think they’ll have any need for them in the future.”
Actually, I think it isn’t just they have no need for Trump supporters it is that they wish us to be gone.
I really cannot remember any politician’s supporters being demonized the way Trump supporters have been. So, as the now famous saying goes: “It isn’t Trump they are after it is YOU and Trump is just in the way.” I believe that to be very true.
om,
I don’t dispute the significance of other dates. If memory serves, the Fourth Generation Theory specifies that other dates apply to other countries, these are for the US. I find the dates I listed easily defensible.
The 1776 Declaration was strictly an assertion. England said otherwise. The Battle of Yorktown emphatically established “facts on the ground”.
The firing upon Ft. Sumter started our first Civil War and began our bloodiest conflict, which could only be settled through force of arms. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865 was more a case of relief that the madness was effectively over. Confederate soldiers were paroled on their word to cease fighting.
1939 started the war in Europe, meaningful for them but not for the rest of the world. The attack on Pearl Harbor drew America into and started the second World War, which involved all of the major nations. Neither the end of the war in 1945 nor the atomic bomb match the beginning of a 60 million death event.
I reviewed the major events of 1961 and can find nothing that even approaches the historical significance of the establishment of American Independence, the Civil War or WWII. http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1961.html
Yes, here at the start of 2021, that theory is certainly “gloomy-doomy”.
BTW, 2101 is essentially the theory’s next cyclic period of conflict. That date jogged a vague memory. A quick search unearthed it; SciFi Grandmaster and libertarian philosopher Robert A. Heinlein’s “Revolt in 2100”.
But no ‘prophet’ ever gets it exactly right and Heinlein was no exception, he got it exactly reversed, positing that the revolt in 2100 was against a theocracy with mainly secularists revolting.
He’s probably laughing from on high at the irony, in a dimension he never accepted the likelihood of existing. 😉
Geoffrey Britain:
Oh, lordly, not RAH worship.
It’s science
fiction, remember? Go ahead banish me to the outer reaches of the universe or the deepest pits of … Whatever. 🙂
1961 Cuban Middle Crisis: clearly insignificant. 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln. 1963 assassination of JFK. A grand “theory” of pick a number, 80, and fit events to it. Loopy IMO.
Defense attorney Michael van der Veen tells the truth to CBS News.
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/02/14/in-must-watch-clip-trump-attorney-michael-van-der-veen-citizen-destroys-media-n326804
Attorney van der Veen, again:
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02/13/trump-lawyer-van-der-veen-we-demolished-their-case-they-were-like-a-dying-animal-that-we-had-trapped-in-the-corner/
Both clips, Breitbart and Fox News, are worth listening to in their entirety. Mr. Van der Veen expresses forcefully what so many of us see happening to our country.
The MSM is doing its thing. On CNN yesterday it had some (R), I think the guy from California, saying that Trump barely got away just based on technicalities, and that “this day” the American people would remember forever as a failure of justice. Or something like that. I thought it was Jan. 6, 2021 that the American people would remember forever. Or was it Nov. 4, 2020? I’m surprised someone on The Left didn’t say Trump’s acquittal tainted Black History Month; or maybe they did and I wasn’t paying attention.
Neo, I think your last paragraph is exactly right. 2008: Democrats believed that the good people had finally won, the bad people were not destroyed but would no longer be in command, and presumably would reconcile themselves to being losers and slowly dying out.
2016: as in a horror movie, the bad people unexpectedly surged back, worse than ever, commanded by Satan/Hitler himself.
2020: Democrats decide the only sure path forward is to subjugate the bastards once and for all. No pretense of coexisting on equal terms. Everyone who isn’t terminally soft-headed knows that the talk of unity means “you will do as we say.”
Speaking of the soft-headed, though, I know several Democrats who really do get misty-eyed when kindly Uncle Joe–such a good-hearted man–talks of unity.
Actually, I think that this is on topic.
Stuck at home in lock down, TV is just total crap, so I find myself trolling through Youtube, looking for interesting and diverting things to watch.
Stumbled upon this extremely interesting, erudite, and very lucid analysis of the philosophical roots of our current political and cultural situation by Catholic Bishop Robert Barron titled, “Ideas Have Consequences: The Philosophers Who Shaped 2020.”
This exceptionally clear and straightforward analysis is well worth viewing.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To
Ben Sasse will never run for office again. He’ll go become a college president. I’m thinking St. Olaf or Carleton in Northfield, MN.
Regardless of the acquittal, the Democrats carried out a pretty effective smear job on Trump. You only have to look to Mitch McConnell’s post-impeachment remarks to see what the Approved Narrative now is — that Trump is responsible for ginning up the “insurrection” by his loud and “baseless” refusal to accept the legitimacy of the election results. Sadly, we are now left wondering whether (1) Durham will ever uncover the 2016 election scandals, (2) the 2020 election irregularities will ever be fully investigated by a commission or some other official body, and (3) whether we will ever learn the full truth about the responsible actors in the January 6 event.
The Senate Impeachment 2021 was the Hindenburg of gaslighting. Time will tell who got lit.
Apparently they Democrats don’t think they’ll have any need for them 74 million votes in the future.
And judging by that triumphant Time article, congratulating a cabal working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information, said Democrats really are convinced that said cabal shall righteously rule us forever henceforth. Regardless that those 74 million actually will have something to say about that form of rule.
Sen. Cassidy (R-LA) was unanimously censured by the LA GOP.
Not that it matters much, since he just got re-elected.
“It is glaringly obvious that the Democrats have no reluctance to further anger and alienate the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In fact, they seem eager to do so. Apparently they don’t think they’ll have any need for them in the future.” Neo.
The Democrats are fundamentally the Communist Party now, manifested in their collectivism and propaganda. That is why they do not care what 75 million kulaks think; they will be oppressed, squashed. It won’t take Biden/Harris 4 years to do the job.
Said J.J. at 11:39PM 2/13:
“China will not invade Taiwan. Taiwan would make them pay too steep a price.”
I agree. Having worked in Taiwan, I have a lot of respect for what they have done and their commitment to democracy. They would die before surrender, which Xi knows full well. Besides that, Xi is no dummy. Biden & Co. are in his pocket. Patience and spending a large amount of cash in and around the USA (but a tiny fraction of what a war would cost) will get him where they want to be without bloodshed.
The place I am deeply concerned about is the Middle East and Biden’s re-engagement with Iran. I have also done work in Israel and know a number of Israelis and I’m a strong supporter. The advances made under Trump with Israel and the Saudis and others are substantial, but very new. I fear the young alliances will falter due to lack of support by the Americans and the EU should things get hot – which they could very, very quickly.
@ Cornhead: I hope neither of those colleges receive him as president. They should be spared. Macalester perhaps?
“Murkowski – up for re-election in 2022”
If I remember correctly, in her last election Murkowski lost the Republican primary then ran as an independent and won the election.
I will be donating to the campaign of the next Republican to run against her.
Re: China/Taiwan…
J.J., Roll-aid: Are we writing off Hong Kong?
I admire their resistance, but don’t see much future for them as a semi-autonomous state (or whatever they have been), especially with Democrats running American foreign policy.
Geoffrey Britain, who must be halfway around the world from the rest of us, posted at 1:29AM,
“The firing upon Ft. Sumter started our first Civil War and began our bloodiest conflict, which could only be settled through force of arms. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox in 1865 was more a case of relief that the madness was effectively over. Confederate soldiers were paroled on their word to cease fighting.”
But, GB, the Democrats took over the South and kept it smothered for a century. There was no “Reconstruction” of the damage wrought by Grant and Sherman, none, just social vultures from the North called “carpetbaggers”. 500,000 men died to preserve the Union, more than in all other USW wars combined. The South was agricultural….how can one farm with mule and plow when the farmer is dead? The freed blacks were no economic or social strength, which is a reason the KKK was born, like it or not.
Was that worth it?
Re the comment from huxley on Hong Kong.
Yes, I am afraid to say HK’s absorption into the PRC is well beyond the point of no return. It was inevitable from the very start, only a matter of time. The turn over of HK by the British was in the late ’90s when the West was still in the “End of History” era. By the time the agreement’s term ended in 2047, the thinking was that even the Chinese would have evolved into their own version of a democratic socialism. It didn’t but it’s far too late to do anything about it.
om,
Recognizing Heinlein’s inadvertant prognostication does not equate to hero worship. Heinlein was as flawed as the rest of us.
The 1961 Cuban Middle Crisis was significant… for Khrushchev. It also led to the removal of nuclear ICBMs off our Florida coast, a significant achievement. Of importance yes, yet not of the historical significance of the events of 1781, 1861 and 1941.
2021 and 2101 will either confirm the theory or relevate it to history’s dustbin.
The 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln was most impactful in leading to the evils Cicero mentions above. Lincoln’s major contributions, the preserving of the union and ending of slavery were accomplished before his death. Reconstruction in the South simply doesn’t measure up in historical comparison.
The 1963 assassination of JFK significance simply doesn’t measure up either.
“A grand “theory” of pick a number, 80, and fit events to it. Loopy IMO.”
The number was not randomly chosen, rather they are objectively, the most historically significant of dates. We all have our opinions, what counts is the logic and reasoned consideration that is employed in reaching our opinions. I’ve stated my case, let each reach their own conclusion regarding the issue.
Ben Sasse as president of Macalester college. That’s funny and appropriate. Except I don’t think they’d have him.
Suzanne Rivera, a Latina, is the current pres. She celebrates Black History month in the first sentence of her web site message. Although she seems to make the massive faux pas of talking about all the mental health services she is providing to the BIPOC and LGBQWERTY community. Gasp.
Cicero,
“Geoffrey Britain, who must be halfway around the world from the rest of us…”
That reminds me of Rabbi Shlomo’s observation; “When you’re one step ahead of the crowd, you’re a genius. When you’re two steps ahead of the crowd, you’re a cackpot!”
I think it less a case of genius but of human nature. When exposed to an idea that disrupts our mental paradigms, a knee jerk rejection of that disruptive idea is the norm.
“But GB, the Democrats took over the South and kept it smothered for a century. There was no “Reconstruction” of the damage wrought by Grant and Sherman, none, just social vultures from the North called “carpetbaggers”.”
That is certainly true and I’m fairly confident that had Lincoln lived, he would have done much to ameliorate the harm that was done to the South. Nevertheless, how is that comparable to the historical significance of a conflict that resulted in 500,000 deaths? Of one in four males lost in a population?
“The South was agricultural….how can one farm with mule and plow when the farmer is dead?”
That certainly was a factor in the south’s slowness in recovery.
“The freed blacks were no economic or social strength, which is a reason the KKK was born, like it or not.”
I can’t agree that freed blacks lack of “economic or social strength” had anything to do with the rise of the KKK. Racism needs no justification. As hate exists without reason. The ‘justification’ that racists offer for their racism is a rationalization without substance.
You ask, “Was that worth it?”
Absolutely. Slavery was and is an abomination. A mortal threat to “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. I believe it to be a truism that, the greater the evil, the greater the sacrifice required of good to overcome it.
Perhaps just as importantly, certainly from a strategic geopolitical perspective, a balkanized America could never have prevailed in WWII.
Goeffry Britain:
As you are won’t to say, you can’t argue a person out of an irrational argument. Why not 79.125 years instead of 80.00? Fitting data to a test after the fact is called “cooking” the numbers. It is generally considered unethical and unreliable.
Interesting that you consider the Cuban Middle Crisis only had significance for Nakita. Ever hear about the consequences for the basing of nuclear missles in Europe, including Turkey? Those were significant IIRC.
So the assassination of JFK was insignificant. Was 9/11/2001 insignificant? The Gulf of Tonkin, The Bay of Pigs? Do tell, or stop digging that hole you’ve made. 🙂
Geoff B: “A greatly reduced middle class is decidedly in their favor.”
The Curley effect gone nationwide.
huxley: “Faulkner is too hard for the 21st century anyway.”
Nevertheless he was a significant influence on Shakespeare.
“The Curley effect gone nationwide.’
Except that in this instance it isn’t getting the opposition to move to another polity but getting them erased from being able to have any effect while still being under the control of the Curley’s.
But, GB, the Democrats took over the South and kept it smothered for a century. There was no “Reconstruction” of the damage wrought by Grant and Sherman, none, just social vultures from the North called “carpetbaggers”. 500,000 men died to preserve the Union, more than in all other USW wars combined. The South was agricultural….how can one farm with mule and plow when the farmer is dead? The freed blacks were no economic or social strength, which is a reason the KKK was born, like it or not.
Was that worth it?
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 1929, the states of the ‘southeast’ (10 of the 11 states which seceded, plus West Virginia and Kentucky) had in sum a personal income per capita about 52% of the national mean. That’s depressed compared with the north, but (see the Maddison Project) suggests a per capita product just shy of those of Sweden and Germany and exceeding those of Norway, Finland, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.
The South in 1920 was more agriculturally oriented than the rest of the country. There was much else going on, however. Tennessee at that time had the real income levels nearest the regional mean. Of the heads of households in Tennessee who in the 1920 census listed an occupation other than ‘laborer’, 48% were working outside of the agricultural sector.
I’m not getting into the 80 year argument but it reminds me that there is something to say about one generation influencing the next generation’s behavior that is mostly out of reach of historians. There are so many references in every day conversations to parent and grand parent experiences. And grand parents often talk about their childhoods and about their parents. And those stories that we hear (especially as children) have a profound effect on how we view and interpret the world around us.
Snow on Pine,
Thank you for that link to Bishop Barron’s very clear explication of leftist’s thought.
I found it to be, in its clarity, a tremendous lecture in illuminating the foundations and premises of the left’s ‘philosophy’.
That said, I only have one area of disagreement with the Bishop, when he asserts that Catholicism stands foremost in its opposition to the left’s philosophic precepts. I would amend that to assert that it is Christianity’s judeo/christian premises that stand foremost in opposition to the left’s philosophic precepts.
Prior to the ordination of Pope Francis, I would have agreed that Catholicism was the least fractured organization that opposes the left’s philosophic premises but I no longer believe that to be true. Conservative Judaism and some Christian sects are now the foremost religious objectors to the left’s philosophic premises.
I look forward to exploring more of Bishop Barron’s thoughts.
Huxley asked, “Are you saying that was a cunning plan on McConnell’s part?” I say that Mitch perpetrated a cunning stunt on Nancy Pelosi, who is a stunning c…
the impact for turkey was neglible, some twenty years later, reagan showed by the pershing deployment, one could challenge soviet blackmail, of course the soviets through the nuclear freeze front organizations, like the council for living, that our usurper president was affiliated with, did try to agitate surrender,
the difference in 1963, was as much the incompetence of the security forces, and the dezinforma that began with joesten and buchanan, and ended with oliver stone, max holland fleshed out the path, that mitrokhin had pointed out, the revelations that fiorentino aspillaga had relayed to brian latell, that paralleled independent research that gus russo had conducted, re oswalds connection to cuban regime elements, the late general jose abrahantes, and fabian escalante,
FOAF:
In the quantum world he was. 🙂
Furthermore for those who think we could have lived in a nation half free and half slave, consider what happened in the succeeding 70 years under jim crow, ending with brown v board, one could add the decade of ‘massive resistance’ but lets go for round numbers,
the Cuban missiles crisis served notice on us, as an foreshadowing of the Brezhnev doctrine, that Soviet controlled nations could not be reclaimed one might argue that grenada through direct intervention, and nicaragua through proxy forces reversed that to some degree, the latter was reimposed largely through chavez’s intervention, as well as the faults of the successor regime,
from chamorro through aleman,
James S:
I believe the answer to all 3 is “no.”
There was news that Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump spoke yesterday. Today, Graham said that K. Harris could be impeached if the GOP takes back the House. So:
Here’s the deal. Donald Trump runs for the House of Representatives in 2022 from some solid Republican district. He wins, and the Republicans take back the House, overwhelmingly. Mirabile dictu, the Republicans also take the Senate. Meanwhile, the House elects Donald Trump as Speaker. The House impeaches Harris, the Senate convicts** . . . and Donald Trump is President again!
**I haven’t quite figured this one out yet, but I’m working on it.
The vote was 57-43, which means Leahy voted. The guy who was supposed to be presided over the trial voted on the guilt of Trump.
CapnRusty-
Mirabile dictu is just right for your scenario.
Nevertheless [Faulkner] was a significant influence on Shakespeare.
FOAF:
I couldn’t believe Andrea Mitchell and Jennifer Rubin pulled that stunt on Ted Cruz.
First, one of the worst online self-humiliations is to correct someone when you’ve got it wrong yourself. Check and double-check.
Second, love him or hate him, Ted Cruz is One Sharp Debating Dude. Don’t go into the arena with him, unless you’ve got your case cold, as in dry ice.
Third, what’s with Mitchell and Rubin? I read Macbeth in high school and knew better. Mitchell had an English degree from UPenn and Rubin was first in her law class at Berkeley.
It goes back to the (real) Faulkner quote I posted about the Southern black guy, Lucas, who understood in the social scheme of things he was a n*****, which he and the sheriff understood, but the sheriff was no better, if not worse, but only Lucas knew that.
Mitchell and Rubin just assumed that Cruz was being stupid, because they half-remembered some Faulkner to the contrary, Cruz was a conservative and they’ve been living a bubble for ages reinforcing their presumed superiority over Cruz-types.
Rubin went even further to observe, ““it says volumes about [Cruz’s] lack of soul. That’s Any Thinking Person.”
Volumes might be saying something about Rubin. But only we know that.
Cap’nRusty,
The unlikeliness of that scenario aside, the Speaker of the House is third in line. Impreach Harris and her VP becomes Preident. Impeach Harris as VP and Xiden remains as President and nominates a new VP.
Lee+Also,
Good point. Not surprising at all in a Star Chamber ‘trial’.
huxley,
What would Rubin know of a soul? She sold hers long ago for her 30 pieces of silver.
**I haven’t quite figured this one out yet, but I’m working on it.
CapnRusty:
Do you take PayPal? I’ll chip in…
om,
I see the King’s minions made a math error but due to the King’s benevolence the Tri-Cities can now move to phase 2.
We have such a wonderful King!!!
Griffin:
Minions and math? Almost as likely as minions and science. Nonetheless it’s long overdue to be in Phase II.
How do you get to Phase III or Phase Free?
Our Governor (King Jay) is an idiot.
the Democrats have no reluctance to further anger and alienate the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In fact, they seem eager to do so.
There is no reluctance because there is so much contempt. In their minds, they, the elites are “correct” and any and all Trump voters are wrong, stupidly wrong, and deliberately evil. So it’s actually good to anger them, the stupid evil ones.
Sort of like Spiderman talking and insulting the bad guys as he beats them up, with his verbal barbs maybe making the bad guys do something … stupid.
Breaking windows and doors to storm the Capitol is the kind of stupid thing Dems think almost all Trump supporters want to do, are willing and ready to, are evil enough to do – and only fail to do because they’re so stupid.
All the terrible things the Dems claimed Trump was going to do, which he didn’t do, proves to them how stupid / incompetent Trump is. The same non-actions prove to normal folk that the Dems were wrong about claiming what Trump wanted to do.
Dems refuse to even think that they could be wrong.
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Biden got elected by tainted votes.
Doubtless the link is truncated but you can find the link if you care. Point is, they admit incompetence
@julie_kelly2
The ?@nytimes just retracted its January 8 report that claimed Brian Sicknick was killed by a Trump supporter using a fire extinguisher. Not only is the original story untrue, they lied about the anonymous sources linked to the story. My update here
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/14/the- … ick-story/
I am so completely disconnected from the MSM that I’m shocked when I see small bits in YouTube etc.
The Trump lawyer being interviewed is that sort of shock. Dems have convinced themselves of something desperately nonexistent.
om,
Apparently it will be almost impossible to get to Phase Free but I’m sure someday he will just arbitrarily change the criteria like he has done before because SCIENCE!
Nancy Pelosi Becomes First House Speaker To Bring Two Failed Impeachments.”
Let see the hypocrisy of this woman and wasting the time with her hatred to Trump administration
Opportunity cost‘ was too high to impeach Bush
So how does one score the acquittal?
A serious black eye for the Dems or a good enough “Big Lie” smear of Trump and a wedge to split Republicans?
Democrats did not achieve their maximal objective of convicting Trump but they can claim a double asterisk on his presidency and continue their simmering defamation of Trump and his supporters.
Still, I was surprised at how quickly this impeachment melted away.
If Trump and his team felt that the Senate trial was unconstitutional why didn’t they go to the Supreme Court? I don’t know if was or wasn’t but wouldn’t that be the best way to proceed instead of having the Senate vote on whether or not it was constitutional?
What would they bring to SCOTUS ? Until convicted, Trump wouldn’t have suffered any “harm”, so they likely wouldn’t hear the case.
The only thing that would matter would be if they convicted him. Then Trump could appeal to SCOTUS to say the entire affair was unconstitutional. But since he’s already out of office, their “conviction” would be of no value. When and if he tried to run for office, either Trump or whatever state refused to take his paperwork to run would then have something to take to SCOTUS and when I believe is the first time that they would seriously entertain the case. At that point, it would be a serious constitutional question – does the Senate have the constitutional authority to deny a private citizen the ability to run for president?
deadrody if the entire affair was unconstitutional why couldn’t they bring it to the Supreme Court to squash if before hand?
“Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.”
Robert F. Kennedy
@mattsky:deadrody if the entire affair was unconstitutional why couldn’t they bring it to the Supreme Court to squash if before hand?
The Supreme Court almost certainly would have refused to hear it, and would have no power to bind Congress to respect its ruling even if they did.
Remember that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court even gets to rule on constitutionality. The Court assumed that power but it is not in the text of the Constitution and so it is not clear how far that power extends if the other, equal branches of the government disagree.
On the other hand, impeachment is in the very text of the Constitution as a power Congress has to use or misuse at it sees fit. If the House abuses its power by an unconstitutional impeachment, only Senators can prevent it by refusing to convict.
The Senate is the proper and only place to make the constitutionality argument; impeachment is not a criminal or civil trial and the courts have no business in it anyway.
Remember that sometimes judges are impeached. Pretty convenient if judges had the power to declare impeachment unconstitutional…
King:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/politics/2021/02/13/nancy-pelosi-mcconnell-trump-second-impeachment-king-sot-vpx.cnn
Frederick writes “Remember that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court even gets to rule on constitutionality. The Court assumed that power….”
John Marshall issued the edict that SCOTUS had that power. He was the first ever Chief Justice of the new SCOTUS, and it has been stare decisis ever since, 1803 I think it was.
Returning to the National Review theme — Instapundit links a Jonah Goldberg critique at No Pasaran!, then adds his own dismal assessment.
_____________________________________________
No one [speaking of Jonah Goldberg] has disappointed me more over the past four or five years.
–Glenn Reynolds
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/432424/
_____________________________________________
I still give Goldberg credit for his books, “Liberal Fascism” and “Suicide of the West,” but otherwise, such a disappointment.
Related:
Dershowitz – “The Person or the Constitution?: Falsely Charging McConnell with Inconsistency”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17071/impeachment-constitution-mcconnell
Key grafs (of many):
“But it is CNN and the other media that failed to understand the distinction between defending the Constitution and defending the person.
“McConnell taught the American people a civics lesson by explaining that the Senate had no constitutional authority to place a former president on trial, even one who had been impeached while still serving in office. In doing so, he echoed a constitutional argument I have been making from the very beginning of this unconstitutional power grab by the Democrat-controlled Congress.”
huxley,
Johan Goldberg interviewed Rob Long on one of his podcasts (I think, “The Remnant”). At one point Goldberg talks about his writing, and the difficulty of writing for a living, and his entrapment (real or imagined) in being middle aged and supporting a family in very expensive New York. In his youth his dream was to write fiction; novels, TV, movies… Due to his family connections (mother and father), his earliest opportunities were political commentary. He developed the skill to write a certain number of interesting words on a topic under a deadline and more and more of that type of work came along. Now it’s very difficult to extricate oneself due to mortgages, tuition bills… and pursue that original passion.
That doesn’t necessarily explain his disappointing behavior, but I can connect dots from his description in that podcast to what may be going on. His heart was never in politics and he grows more bitter as he is “forced” to do work he is not passionate about in order to keep the debt collector at bay.
@ Fredrick,
You make some generally useful observations. But recall that in the specific instance the unconstitutionality claim was not made with regard impeachment of a public official per se, but about a legislative branch prosecution and trial of a private citizen: in essence as Dershowitz asserted, a Constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.
Thus: either an illogical absurdity and extra-legal political farce with no pretense to the force if law, or an unconstitutional and prohibited act of attainder.
My guess is that the progressives’ excuse would be that their prosecution squeezed through the cracks because they were prosecuting him for acts committed while in office, and that they were not imposing a corruption of blood penalty … or some nonsense like that.
Of course neither reason can stand the slightest scrutiny. If the latter, then the full judicial power is not vested in the judiciary and Congress could prosecute private citizens and administer lesser penalties than eternal and hereditary taint at any time they chose. If the former, the cause of action is rendered moot as he is no longer in office.
In fact, I see no reason why, using the reasoning of the Progressives in Congress, that they could not impeach Trump, another dozen times on the same charges if they wished. Impeach him every month or two until you get the result you want. What can “double jeopardy” or an “acquital” possibly mean to such a crowd?
Our political class has become increasing and homicidally morally deranged by their hatreds; if they were not already, many of them, mentally ill or deeply emotionally disturbed … as I have been claiming is the case for some years now. That claim has been based on a cluster of psychological and moral pathologies which I think is revealed by their peculiarly chosen language of political aspiration ( the collectivist’s fantasy that collectivism will cure their alienation problem and cure their personal pathologies caused by judgmentalism/capitalism) , and the admitted personal dreamland space, beyond the reach of reason, where their convictions were first spawned.
Rufus, that’s an interesting and useful gloss on Goldberg. It goes to show that there is often more going on in someone’s head than we know.
As far as the acquittal goes, I now think that it actually would be best if Trump were to refrain from running for office, at least high office, from here forward – he’s always been a polarizing figure, I guess one could say, but the level of lightning that he would draw in 2024 would inevitably be thermonuclear. I really don’t think we need that. I would prefer to see him help with succession planning, building the bench, so that in 2024 and beyond we could have a healthy populist-national-conservative party of some sort that needn’t revolve around one man, however intense his devotion to the cause. I feel that as far as Trump’s post-election operation went, the wheels seemed to come off badly in those two months or so. That, to me, counts as a significant demerit in his column.
I really don’t know what to make of the seven Rep senators who voted to convict. Some of them at least have positions that I can respect, I suppose. But it is really remarkable to me that not a single Dem had reservations. I seriously wonder whether at least some of these seven should be caucusing with the Dems going forward.
@Cicero: it has been stare decisis ever since, 1803
That’s a 12 year gap between 1789 and Marbury vs Madison… it’s complicated by that the text of the Constitution allows Congress to determine Supreme Court jurisdiction in all but explicitly named situations. A power which Congress has never used, but might if the Supreme Court got unreasonable aggressive with it.
@DNW:Constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.
The only thing they were going to do to Trump is forbid him from holding future office, which impeachment allows. So I really don’t see that the impeachment was really a bill of attainder. Bills of attainder traditionally seized property and/or resulted in execution.
In any case I think the only Constitutional remedy must and can only lie with convincing enough Senators that is is unconstitutional, for the reasons I gave above: the impeachment was sticking to the text. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Had they really brought and imposed a bill of attainder that would seize all his property or imprison or execute, then there would be scope for the courts to say it could not be enforced, and an honest executive branch should refuse to carry it out…
At one point Goldberg talks about his writing, and the difficulty of writing for a living, and his entrapment (real or imagined) in being middle aged and supporting a family in very expensive New York.
Rufus T. Firefly:
In my youth I was enthralled by many of the public intellectuals on tap, as it were, in the 60s/70s. It wasn’t until I had been out in the world a while, when I realized that unless these writers had nailed down a spot in academia or were independently wealthy, that they were all dancing pretty fast to pay the bills.
Eventually when I read the magazine articles or biographies about their lives, I caught glimpses of the pressure they were under and the books they wrote for the money.
@huxley:It wasn’t until I had been out in the world a while, when I realized that unless these writers had nailed down a spot in academia or were independently wealthy, that they were all dancing pretty fast to pay the bills.
Probably it’s best to think of public intellectuals as analogous to actors. We shouldn’t believe actors are their characters and we shouldn’t believe public intellectuals actually believe their opinions.
Robert Pirsig, author of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” was an exception. ZAMM was a smash bestseller and Pirsig lived frugally enough that he didn’t have to write sequels to ZAMM or do lectures and talk shows.
Pirsig wrote one more book, “Lila,” which was connected to ZAMM, though not a prequel/sequel.
That was all he wanted to say, he said it, and lived a quiet life. An admirable fellow.
Frederick:
The bill of attainder argument rests on this reasoning.
@Neo:on this reasoning.
Not seeing reasoning at the link. They’re pointing to bills of attainder, which they concede included “the death penalty, banishment, and the confiscation of property”, but the sole connection to impeachment is their question “to bar Trump from office, what could be closer to “banishment”?” which is just silly. Banishment means something very different from “barring from office”, which the Constitutional text explicitly allows.
@huxley:Pirsig wrote one more book, “Lila,”
I read both and found them engaging reading but nothing in there worth going back in again for. “Zen” had “set up a term, refuse to define it, and then relate everything else to it”. “Lila” had an interesting presentation of the etymology of “right” which once you start looking for you see it everywhere: “dextrous”,”adroit”,”orthodox”,”normal” contrasted with “gauche”, “sinister”..
Etymology can give you some clues into how some people may have once thought but I don’t think you can take it farther into how people do or should think. You end up in Sapir-Whorf territory which I don’t think even they believed in.
As mentioned above by several commentators, the “impeachment” will likely continue. No doubt the Democrats fervently believe it’s good for them politically, i.e., that it will enable them to misgover—to misrule—with impunity.
And so the vitriol, the defamation, the lies, the hypocrisy, the hatred, the slander and vilification are not likely to end….until “victory” is achieved:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/having-lost-impeachment-trial-dems-now-considering-14th-amendment-disqualification-against-trump/
They don’t like to lose, and they’ll punish their opponents to the very end. (Because they are, of course, the moral party, the “party of the people”…)
Moreover, it makes terrific theater, keeps the hatred of their “deplorable” opponents at fever pitch and thus serves as a most effective DISTRACTION, meant to conceal and cover up all the damage that “Biden” and his phonies (i.e., the Democratic Politburo) are doing and will continue to do to destroy the country as effectively and decisively as possible.
There’s a reason why they knew they would have to steal this election.
Frederick:
For example:
More at the link – Starr’s remarks, for example.
And then of course there’s the unconstitutionality of trying a private citizen in the first place.
@neo: I guess to expand a little bit on what I’m trying to say, that the Democrats
a) called it impeachment, and not “bill of attainder”
b) used the forms and procedures of impeachment, not those for bill of attainder
c) called for the outcomes allowed for impeachment, not those for bill of attainder
So, unless a source can show that at least one of a), b), or c) is actually not true I’m not going to agree that they were secretly doing a bill of attainder and thus were not acting constitutionally.
What they did was stupid, and small-hearted, and pointless, and unfair, and maybe it wasn’t constitutional on the grounds that Trump wasn’t in office anymore and could not be removed (I’ve seen that argued based on the “and” in “removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office”) but again I think only the Senate can remedy that–and did by failing to convict.
But I can’t see that calling it a bill of attainder adds anything but confusion to the discussion. It wasn’t that any more than it was corruption of blood….
Frederick:
I’ve read ZAMM and Lila at least three times each. Your mileage may vary.
I would not reduce ZAMM to etymology. I read Pirsig for the journey and the insights, not for a system of truth.
BTW, Sapir-Whorf has recently recieved a shot in the arm from Daniel Everett’s work with the Piraha tribe and their language.
__________________________________________________
Pirahã doesn’t have words for number or color. Counting is so unnecessary in tribal Amazonian life that the words used to count never evolved. Color words haven’t evolved either, although the Pirahã do describe color using analogy: instead of the bird’s tail was red, they say, the bird’s tail was like blood.
One must wonder if these limits on language produce limits on thought. Can the Pirahã truly see red, in the abstract? Or do they simply see a color that resembles blood? Perception of color is difficult to measure empirically, but numbers aren’t as difficult. Research has shown that, if given a pile of ten pebbles to the left, and eleven to the right, the Pirahã can tell you which pile has more pebbles. However, if the pebbles are removed, they are not able to recall which side had more pebbles before they were removed. The words ten and eleven serve as semantic placeholders in our memory; it’s much easier to remember the word “ten” than to remember the appearance of ten pebbles. Without these placeholders, the Pirahã struggle to generalize the concept of number.
This observation provides strong evidence for the concept of linguistic relativity, often known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis states that language shapes or even confines thought, and therefore, the lack of a word might result in the inability to grasp the concept denoted by that word. The Pirahã certainly seem to have trouble grasping the concept of number. They requested that they be taught to count, since they feared they were being cheated in trade with other tribes. However, after eight months of lessons with linguist Daniel Everett, the Pirahã discontinued their instruction, since they felt that they were incapable of learning numbers. Not a single student had learned to count to 10, or even to add 1+1 (Source 2).
https://rostovreview.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/piraha-linguistic-anomaly/
@neo: I see we crossed. So…
a Missouri law disqualifying former supporters
A law. Not an impeachment. If they passed a law naming Trump and saying he was barred from this and that, I’d accept this as an example. But they didn’t do that.
the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act
Again, a law, not an impeachment. If they passed a law targeting Trump I’d agree.
an attempt to pay no salary or compensation to federal employees who were suspected of subversive activity
Your source does not say what this was, but I looked it up. It was an appropriations bill that defunded the salaries of named individuals. Appropriations are just like laws. So again, if this had happened then it would be like a bill of attainder.
the unconstitutionality of trying a private citizen
My copy of the Constitution must be out of date, because I don’t see that clause in there. I can grant you one can make an argument that it should work that way, but you haven’t. It had been done before though. In Trump’s case he WAS impeached while he was in office. The trial took place later, true. At any rate former officials have been impeached before, though I grant you there’s an argument to make.
More from Dershowitz:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16935/senate-trial-trump
@huxley:Sapir-Whorf has recently received a shot in the arm
Do you know how many languages have no words for “yes” or “no”? Probably about half the people alive today have a mother tongue with no words for “yes” or “no” (these aren’t obscure languages). And yet these people are able to grasp the concepts of affirmation and negation.
(This for me was one of the most surprising facts about language.) What about a language with no word for “run”, would those people unable to send anyone to the track events in the Olympics?
It may be easier or harder to express concepts in words but people can cope. Mathematicians and physicists grapple with concepts for which there aren’t words until they invent them…
As for the tribe you speak of, if this is true of them, it may be that the conceptual block they have is why they don’t have the words, and not the other way around.
@Berry Meislin:More from Dershowitz:
His argument hinges on the impossibility of the trial being held while Trump was in office. And indeed it wasn’t.
The actual impeachment of course was done by the House while Trump was still President.
So like I said, you can make the argument, but two things still follow:
a) If it isn’t constitutional, who provides the remedy? Can only be the Senate, for the reasons I gave. If you say “the courts” then courts could protect judges from impeachment at will…
b) Even if it isn’t unconstitutional, it’s not a bill of attainder, for the reasons I already gave. Bills of attainder follow a different process and have different outcomes and are explicitly unconstitutional. Impeachment is explicitly constitutional…
Might be instructive to consider the other guy impeached after he left office, William Belknap:
a) He submitted his resignation before the House impeachment vote, so was not in office anymore. (Trump still was when the House vote was held.)
b) The Senate voted that Belknap could still be impeached and tried. (Like I was saying, they’re the only ones who can provide a remedy, and a similar vote was held for Trump which passed with a majority but not a supermajority–and since this wasn’t the trial itself there’s nothing says a supermajority has to agree.)
c) The Senate did not convict. (Just as with Trump.)
So I’m not sure that thing aren’t working as designed, even if they clearly aren’t always working as intended.
Do I need to come out and say that both impeachments were horribly unfair to Trump and obviously a pretext to vent the spleen of the House majority? I guess I do… but that doesn’t mean anything unconstitutional happened here. Just things that are wrong.
Johan Goldberg interviewed Rob Long on one of his podcasts (I think, “The Remnant”). At one point Goldberg talks about his writing, and the difficulty of writing for a living, and his entrapment (real or imagined) in being middle aged and supporting a family in very expensive New York. In his youth his dream was to write fiction; novels, TV, movies… Due to his family connections (mother and father), his earliest opportunities were political commentary. He developed the skill to write a certain number of interesting words on a topic under a deadline and more and more of that type of work came along. Now it’s very difficult to extricate oneself due to mortgages, tuition bills… and pursue that original passion.
He actually worked as a documentary producer affiliated with PBS in some way, then had some sort of position at AEI, then was tapped to found NRO in 1998 (when he was out of work and broke). His wife is in a word merchant occupation as well.
IIRC, Goldberg lives in DC (also a high rent district). NB, Goldberg was (a while back) on salary at National Review. He admitted that he never visited the Washington office, reporting to the New York office and mostly worked from home. As we speak one of the consequential editors of NR lives in Salt Lake City and another lives in Orlando. One reason for him to live in DC was that his wife had a PR job there. One reason to live in New York is that his elderly mother is there and he is her only surviving child (his wife’s parents are deceased). I doubt he needs to live in a high rent district to work at what he does.
But, yes, path dependency bedevils you.
Do you know how many languages have no words for “yes” or “no”?
Frederick:
Do you know that Everett’s work on the Piraha has become a genuine controversy in linguistics circles and part of a serious counter-attack on Chomsky’s Universal Grammar?
I didn’t say the Piraha proved Sapir-Whorf nor that S-W is the only explanation for the Piraha.
“…and maybe it wasn’t constitutional on the grounds that Trump wasn’t in office anymore and could not be removed.”
Except, not “maybe”:
The overarching point, which I believe Dershowitz (and others) is making, is that “it wasn’t constitutional on the grounds that Trump wasn’t in office” PERIOD.
This would, presumably, be based on the text (from Article 2 Section 4, quoted below), which says explicitly:
“When the President of the United States is tried….”—that is, forget about “removal” here (even though, yes, the term is used) because it’s a secondary issue.
(Quotes below from: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text)
Article 2 Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
The following—from Article 1 Section 3: “The Senate”—referred to in the comments, if quoted WITHOUT the context (“When the President…”) explicitly provided above, gives (perhaps intentionally—though in the case of the Democrats, NO DOUBT intentionally) an incomplete and therefore distorted picture of what constitutes “impeachment” (and this, I assume, must be why Dershowitz is claiming with full confidence that the whole procedure is, from the get-go, Unconstitutional):
Article 1 Section 3: “The Senate”:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
In other words, this last quote should not—CANNOT—be used on its own when making a complete and truthful argument.
One might wish to accuse Dershowitz (and others) of being an “Originalist”; or, as has been pointed out by others, one may perhaps wish to argue that “the President” can refer to a person who is not CURRENTLY the President (though how a person who is not currently the President can be “removed” from office might involve some impressively creative legal gymnastics); or perhaps one may wish to argue that “the President” CAN TRULY refer to the person who held that position just a short time ago…
…or one may wish to argue that “the President” is “whatever I define it as being”.
Dershowitz “calls it as he sees it”, as he reads it, as he understands it.
As it is written.
Trump impeachment trial: House managers speak after Senate acquittal https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2021/02/13/trump-impeachment-trial-house-managers-speak-after-senate-acquittal/4478120001/
Words like constitution, and attainder mean whatever the left says they mean. It’s a very useful tool, as I read above. Sad but useful. So that’s that! (sarc)
Lewis Carroll and George Orwell mentioned it IIRC. Pirsig had a discussion about words and sophistry as well.
Does not Orwell’s concept of Newspeak presuppose something like Sapir-Whorf?
@Sells:Does not Orwell’s concept of Newspeak presuppose something like Sapir-Whorf?
Yeah, it did, which lessened the book a bit for me. Like psychoanalysis, most educated people more or less assumed it was more or less true. Reading it now is a little jarring, like when the characters in Jane Eyre keep talking about phrenology.
“… like when the characters in Jane Eyre keep talking about phrenology.”
You got an audible chuckle from me with that one, Frederick. I will, of course, steal that line.
A lot of humans thought I was clowning around in 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019, when I told them that if they kept up their human shenanigans with me, I would “up the difficulty” on them.
Enjoy 2020 and 2021 while it lasts.
Yammer the clown takes off the makeup, orange hair, and red nose. He’s serious now! 🙂
A more recent take on the “science” of phrenology was “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould, made famous for the theory of puncuated equilibrium (don’t recall his coauthor).
Going off only slightly on a tangent to the constitutionality of impeaching/trying a President or other official no longer in office: one of the justifications for doing so has been, “He can get out of it by resigning, not fair!”. However Nixon resigned when it looked like he was destined for impeachment and conviction, and everyone thought that was the proper outcome at the time. Not even Democrats were screaming, “NO, WE HAVE TO IMPEACH AND CONVICT HIM #&%^&#!!!” I do not recall anyone even bringing that up. In short I believe the current arguments attempting to justify the trial of Trump after he left office are partisan sophistry.
I’ve always thought that Sapir-Whorf made a lot of intuitive sense.
You learn your mother tongue, and are raised in a particular culture, whose particular language is preoccupied with and conveys certain cultural norms, certain preferred ways of looking at the world and describing it, and which also supplies you with a very specific group of topics of primary concern, which are usually uppermost in your culture and mind, and this particular language and culture—as opposed to all other alternative languages and their cultures–shapes and constrains how and what you routinely identify, perceive, think of, and deal with; the constituents of the world, whether the world of a herdsman outside of Ulan Bator, of an Australian Bushman, a small traditional farmer in the Italian countryside, an Eskimo, a painter in Paris, or an executive in New York.
That language supplies you with a very specific toolkit or set of eyeglasses—some toolkits and sets of glasses much more effective than others–with which to encounter, identify, think of, and to deal with what you perceive as the world of things and people around you, and how it functions.
It thus seems very reasonable to believe that that particular shaping, those specific categories, and those specific constraints—that toolkit and that particular set of eye glasses–has a decisive effect on what you primarily perceive, (even on what you can perceive) and how you think about and deal with what you perceive; your habitual categories and patterns of thought, your view of the world, and how you focus on and apply the specific tools that your language supplies to deal with that world that you perceive.
It appears that those on the Left believe that Sapir-Whorf is true, because they are trying to control and constrain language, in the belief that by doing so they can constrain and channel thought and debate and, thus, have some control–perhaps almost decisive control–over action.
I’ve always thought that Sapir-Whorf made a lot of intuitive sense.
Snow on Pine:
Likewise. There is a weak version and strong version of Sapir-Whorf:
_______________________________________________________
* The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists.
* The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
_______________________________________________________
I don’t see how one’s language wouldn’t have *some* influence over one’s thoughts and decisions.
For instance, microaggression wasn’t a word until a black Harvard psychiatrist, Chester Pierce, made it up in 1970. It’s gradually come into common usage. Now laws and lives are changed because of it.
Interesting article
The Big Lie
Eli Zaretsky
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/february/the-big-lie?utm_campaign=20210216blog&utm_content=20210216blog%20CID_be5157192b1a9e7db2d77dc3b188d32c&utm_medium=email&utm_source=LRB%20email&utm_term=The%20Big%20Lie
I think this might be a bill of attainder.
Doesn’t punish with prison, banishment, death etc, but it is a law needing to be passed by both houses and there exists only one person on earth to whom it can apply.
An extraordinarily small-hearted waste of time, and I would want to know the name of any Republican who in any way helps move it forward.