The Case for a Swift Impeachment

Prominent legal scholars who rarely agree on anything else make the case for a swift impeachment process.


Prominent conservative legal scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen, a leading academic expert on impeachment, rarely agrees on much of anything with famous liberal Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe. Impeachment is just one of many constitutional issues on which they have major differences. In 2018, Paulsen published a Harvard Law Review essay forcefully criticizing Tribe's book on impeachment, coauthored with Joshua Matz (Tribe and Matz responded here). But Paulsen, Tribe, and Matz are on the same page when it comes to advocating a swift second impeachment process for Donald Trump.

Here's Paulsen, in an article published yesterday in The Bulwark:

President Trump should be impeached and removed from office immediately.

He has, without doubt, committed acts constituting "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" within the meaning of the Constitution's impeachment standard. He has attempted to preserve himself in office, notwithstanding his defeat for reelection, by seeking to subvert the results of a series of popular democratic state elections—a terrible attack on our constitutional republican government…. Over the course of an hour-long phone call last Saturday, he essentially threatened state election officials in Georgia, seeking to intimidate them into "finding"—manufacturing—sufficient votes for him to corruptly overturn the official, verified count of a freely and fairly conducted election….

Trump incited a mob to march on the Capitol and disrupt Congress's official counting of electors' votes for his opponent. His remarks and tweets fairly can be read as efforts to incite imminent lawlessness, insurrection and violence—including even attacks directed against his own vice president….

If Trump's misconduct is not impeachable, nothing is. If this is not the legal and moral occasion for exercise of the power to impeach, convict, remove from office, and disqualify from future office a president, then there is never such an occasion….

Constitutionally, Trump can be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed in a day or even a matter of a few hours—literally overnight….

What's the point? Won't Trump be gone in two weeks anyway?

The point is preservation of the Constitution. The point is preservation of constitutional government. The point is decisive and emphatic repudiation of any leader, or pretender, who would seek to usurp power and overthrow the democratic and constitutional processes of free government.

The point is also to disqualify such a would-be usurper from ever seeking to become president again. The Constitution specifies that "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…" A failure to impeach and convict President Trump means that he could run again in 2024, raising the specter of a coup-plotting former president waiting in the wings and attempting to foment further insurrections.

Tribe and Matz make similar points  in an op ed published on the same day in the Washington Post:

As the House of Representatives takes the extraordinary step of considering a second impeachment of President Trump during his final days in office, two questions loom large: Did Trump commit impeachable offenses? And does it make sense to impeach even though the Senate may not try and convict him before he leaves office on Jan. 20? The answer to both questions is yes.

Trump spent months convincing his followers, without factual basis, that they were victims of a massive electoral fraud. He summoned them to D.C. for a "wild" protest as Congress met to certify the election results. He then whipped them into a frenzy and aimed the angry horde straight at the Capitol. When Trump's mob breached the building, he inexcusably dawdled in deploying force to quell the riot. And when he finally released a video statement, it only made matters worse….

The article of impeachment circulated Friday by Democratic Reps. David N. Cicilline (R.I.), Jamie B. Raskin (Md.) and Ted Lieu (Calif.) accurately captures the gravity of Trump's misconduct. It situates his action within his "prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election." And it recognizes the terrible damage that Trump, through his incitement, inflicted on the nation as a whole…

That's true even though Trump will leave office in just 12 days. The Constitution entrusts the House with "the sole Power of Impeachment," and the Senate with "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." For good reason, the House and Senate have traditionally exercised those powers with considerable due diligence, deliberation and process.

But the Constitution does not require slow motion at times of crisis, especially when the nation witnessed an impeachable offense in real time. Here, holding protracted hearings would be a foolish undertaking, akin to playing a sonata on the decks of the Titanic. The House can and should act with dispatch.


I would add that concerns about the due process are mitigated by the fact that impeachment and removal does not require anything like the same degree of due process as is necessary for a criminal or even civil trial, which threatens to deprive the defendant of fundamental human rights to life, liberty or property. I expanded on this point in a piece written at the time of Trump's first impeachment:

In criminal cases, there is good reason to avoid conviction unless the charge against the accused is an offense clearly delineated by law, and guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason why is that the defendant stands to lose her liberty or property—or even her life. By contrast, the risk facing an impeached president is removal from a position of enormous power [and being barred from holding such a position in the future].

Unlike unjust deprivation of life, liberty, or property, removal from power doesn't violate anyone's human rights. When real human rights are at stake, it may make sense to allow ten guilty people to go free, in order to save even one innocent from conviction. When it comes to positions of power, almost the opposite is true: Removing ten "normal" politicians is more than justified if that is the only way to get rid of one who engages in grave abuses of power.

In a case where the facts are clear and indisputable, like this one, it need not take more than a day or two for the House to debate and vote on impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct a trial in which both sides have sufficient time (perhaps several hours each) to present arguments and evidence.  That may not be enough to send a man to prison. But it should be enough to remove him from a position of power.

Finally, it is important to move decisively against Trump in order to deter future presidents from comparable misconduct. Too many times over the last century, we have allowed presidents to get away with grave violations of the Constitution and horrific abuses of power, without suffering any significant repercussions. I gave some examples here:

All too many past presidents have gotten away with horrific illegality and abuses of power, such as FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, Woodrow Wilson's massive violations of civil liberties, and—most recently—Obama's starting two wars without congressional authorization, and Trump's cruel family separation and travel ban policies…

This history—including his own previous impunity—may well have emboldened Trump into thinking that he could get away with doing whatever he wanted. And if we let the impunity continue, it could easily embolden future presidents, some of whom may be less inept than Trump was in their efforts to subvert liberal democracy.

For all these reasons, I too favor a swift impeachment process, though subject to the prudential caveats I noted here.


NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: January 9, 1919

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The case against: wars are bad. Cold wars are also bad.

    Short of that, several decades of enmity and hatred with periodic eruptions of violence are bad. Cleaving America in two is bad.

    1. We will become a Northern Ireland if he is impeached a week before he leaves office. We will be at each other’s throats (hopefully without gunfire, but maybe not) for the rest of our CHILDREN’S lives — assuming the republic even survives.

      And we could shatter into five or six countries like Yugoslavia did, and then start fighting wars with each other. Great fun…

      1. But they’ll have so many good opportunities to point fingers! Every attack, every casualty, they’ll be able to hold their heads high and proclaim their superior virtue.

        1. Not when their friends start getting killed.

          This sort of thing gets really ugly, really fast.

          Belfast wasn’t a fun place to live during “the troubles.”

          1. Dr. Ed 2 is really worried about impeachment because he’s confident Trump supporters will start killing people as a result.

            Remember, he’s *defending* Trump and Trumpistas!

            1. That’s like saying Biden supporters were burning our cities all summer.

              1. No, of course it’s not. But I get that you don’t understand that. You’re a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

              2. The difference is that the folks setting fires support neither Biden nor Trump while the Capitol interlopers are solid Trumpists. It’s easy to forget that not everybody is on one side or the other; there’s a third side and probably a fourth and fifth.

                1. All BLM donations went to Act Blue. Act Blue is a part of the Democratic machine.

                  Kamala defended, encouraged and demanded that the riots not stop. Biden never once condemned a single one.

                  None of that excuses what Trump did, but your notion that BLM people don’t support a Biden is nonsense. They elected him.

                  1. “Kamala defended, encouraged and demanded that the riots not stop. Biden never once condemned a single one.”

                    Why do you people keep publishing easily
                    refutable lies?

                    As for who elected whom, it would be my guess that few BLM people voted for Trump, those who voted probably voted for Biden.
                    But, few treasonous batard wingnuts voted for Biden. It would be Trump that received the KKK/white nationalist Mr Ed vote.

                    1. There are more charges in today’s news. The Wall Street Journal:

                      “White House officials pushed Atlanta’s top federal prosecutor to resign before Georgia’s U.S. Senate runoffs because President Trump was upset he wasn’t doing enough to investigate the president’s unproven claims of election fraud, people familiar with the matter said.

                      A senior Justice Department official, at the behest of the White House, called the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak late on the night of Jan. 3. In that call the official said Mr. Trump was furious there was no investigation related to election fraud and that the president wanted to fire Mr. Pak, the people said.

                      Mr. Pak resigned abruptly on Monday—the day before the runoffs—saying in an early morning email to colleagues that his departure was due to “unforeseen circumstances.”


                    2. Why do you people keep publishing easily
                      refutable lies?

                      I assume that’s a rhetorical question; I think we all know why they do it.

                2. “The difference is that the folks setting fires support neither Biden nor Trump while the Capitol interlopers are solid Trumpists.

                  Not necessarily — the dynamics of a riot are really complex and motives often really tangential (at best) to the purported issue.

                  You’re assuming that all the people who went into the Capital were sober — I’m not. Likewise that they were sane — I’m not. When you go a couple standard deviations from the norm, you’re going to get a Mother Teresa — and a Charles Manson.

                  Whenever you get a crowd of that size, it is statistically likely to have all kinds of things including people with outstanding warrants for murder.

          2. It will be very sad for everyone if leftist elites have to learn that the hard way. I wonder what course they will choose?

            Once again, I would like to urge them to choose to act like Americans and de-escalate and be peaceable.

            1. “It will be very sad for everyone if leftist elites have to learn that the hard way.”

              Very worried about enmity and division this guy.

              Like I said, can’t be too hard on the guy, it’s clear he doesn’t really know/value those ideas. They’re just things his side is saying now.

              1. “His side” is urging de-escalation and peace then.

                Good Leftists like you continue the attacks.

                1. No, they’re not. They’re right here arguing that if Trump’s long history of incitement of enmity and the awful results are dared to be addressed there will be increased enmity and awful results from his followers. And you’re at the head of that parade, all the while waving a ‘no emnity’ flag you obviously just hastily knitted together after Wednesday.

                  1. ” They’re right here arguing that if Trump’s long history of incitement of enmity and the awful results are dared to be addressed there will be increased enmity and awful results from his followers.”

                    This sort of thing is pretty common, and I’m fed up to here with it.

                    How can we be arguing that, when every day we deny that Trump is inciting anything?

                    Look, if I, say, argue that affirmative action is just racial discrimination, and thus prohibited by the 14th amendment, and you say, “Look at Brett arguing that the 14th amendment mandates racism in hiring!”, you’re lying. That you think it’s racist not to engage in affirmative action has nothing to do with it, that’s not what I argued.

                    Similarly, nobody but nobody here is arguing that ” if Trump’s long history of incitement of enmity and the awful results are dared to be addressed there will be increased enmity and awful results from his followers.”

                    We’re arguing that you’re hallucinating that long history of incitement.

                    1. Two things:
                      “[] I […] argue that affirmative action is just racial discrimination, and thus prohibited by the 14th amendment.” The respons is that you don’t understand the 14th Amendment, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement. No surprise. Just add more things to the infinite number of things you don’t understand, always remembering that not all infinities are equal. Some infinities are more equal than others.

                      “We’re arguing that you’re hallucinating that long history of incitement.” If you don’t recognize Trump’s long history of incitement, you have your head up your ass. Or, you don’t know your burro from your burrow.

                    2. Brett, you’re an attorney, right?

                      What’s the *legal* definition of “incitement”, as restricted by SCOTUS? Isn’t the word “imminent” in there somewhere?

                      You’re using such a broad definition of “incitement” that it includes what every politician does. Even your local high school cheerleaders “incite” people to cheer for their teams.

                    3. Brett, you’re an attorney, right?


                    4. Sorry Brett, I actually was responding to StellaLink_the dog and this: If you don’t recognize Trump’s long history of incitement, you have your head up your ass.”

                      ALL politicians “incite” — right on down to the local mayor who tries to incite people to shop downtown instead of on Amazon. They “incite” people to vote for them (and their party), to support their political agenda, to show up and cheer at their rallies, etc.

                      Every Democrat (or Democratic) from Dog Catcher on up has done this, it’s what their job *is*.

                      My point is that there is a legal definition of CRIMINAL incitement and Trump hasn’t crossed that line. Giving a rousing speech and getting people chanting “Democrats Suck” (or “Republicans Suck”) is Constitutionally protected.

                      Now standing on the front lawn of the building and shouting “take the building, boys — break down the doors, kill the cops” — that would be incitement, but Trump didn’t do that….

                    5. “The respons is that you don’t understand the 14th Amendment, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement.”

                      Seems like he understands it pretty well.

              2. What the guy serves is arrest and prosecution. The rest is BS feel-goodism

      2. I don’t think so. These Trumpers have no ideology or issues they care about, they just follow Trump. Seeing him rebuked so badly may deflate him a bit. But they will go away with Trump out.

        1. Indeed, you can see that. They literally threaten civil war if their cult leader is impeached. The GOP be damned, conservatism be damned, the hill they want to die on (well, they’d like to kill on) is named solely King Trump.

          1. Trump fans did not become Trump fans with sound judgment, adequate education, sensible conduct, and strong character. They haven’t stuck with anything worthwhile in their lives and there is no evidence they are going to change that. They chose quick pocket money over an education. They stuck with declining industries and dying towns against all evidence. They cling to ignorance, superstition, bigotry, guns, and backwardness.

            I see little reason to worry about them. Just await replacement.

              1. Prof. Volokh appreciates your service, Dubz. Guys like you are just about all he has left.

                Well, that and his censorship button.

                I am content.

          2. Trump did to the GOP what FDR did to the Democratic party — he re-aligned it.

            One of two things is going to happen — either it will stay realigned as the Party of Trump, or it will shatter like the Whig party did. Do not forget that the Republican Party arose out of the wreckage of the Whig party.

            There already is talk of forming a “Patriot” party, and do not forget that both Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) are not members of any political party (but caucus with the Dems).

            This is no more about Trump than WW-II was about Patton or Eisenhower. Impeaching him a 2nd time is like impeaching us — don’t ask us to take it favorably…

      3. Not sure about becoming Northern Ireland, but making Trump into a martyr, which a quick impeachment, or any impeachment with so little time left in office would do, would leave his supporters angry and irreconcilable. Given that they have 75 million strong base, it is in my opinion best just to let him twist in the wind, in silence, oblivion, for him. for the next 11 days. The alternative would be very ugly for a long, long time.

        1. “The alternative would be very ugly for a long, long time.”

          I don’t think so. The typical Trump Sucker, like Trump himself, has a very short attention span. Like the birthers and the 911 truthers and the anti-vaxxers and the flat earthers, et al, in short order they will rediscover online porn and cease to be a problem.

          1. I don’t think so. Much as Howard Dean’s supporters became the Bernie Bros, the Trump movement is far bigger than Trump himself.

    2. Watching Trumpistas lament enmity, division and hatred is like watching those circus acts where an animal is put into human clothes and trained to perform a human like task: you can see the animal is smart enough to realize it’s for some reason they can’t grasp important to go through those motions, but it’s so obviously unnatural to them at the same time…

      1. You hate 70 million other Americans enough to dehumanize them.

        1. She already has — that’s the scary thing.

        2. Pathetic. Again, parrots can say things, but they of course don’t mean it. Hate and dehumanizing is your bread and butter.

          1. And again with dehumanization. You must be one of The Good Guys. Dehumanizing people is what The Good Guys do.

            Of course, I do not speak that way about people. Good Leftists like you say the other side are like trained animals.

            1. I see similes escape you. That’s a common loss among Trumpistas, along with principles, a sense of decency, logic…

              1. We’re all “trained animals” in your eyes.

                1. Look at yourself, you couldn’t go a couple posts before you started doing what you were decrying. It’s because you *don’t get/value* what your saying. It’s transparent and that was my point about the trained animal. You’re just really bad at argumentation. You’re a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

                  1. Queen. What was your sex at birth? What is your race?

                    1. On the internet, David, nobody knows you’re a dog.

                      Likewise, nobody knows you’re not.

                2. ” We’re all “trained animals” in your eyes. ”

                  Your whining has become tiresome. Try making something worthwhile of yourself, clinger.

          2. False. It has been shown that parrots do associate what they say to meaning. They don’t just say stuff randomly.

            1. Molly — Agree with that. My sister owns an African Grey which greets folks when they arrive, “Hello, come in.” When it gets tired of having them around, it sort of suggests they leave, “So long. See you later. Bye.”

              It wasn’t taught to do that.

              It was taught to respond to questions, Like, “What’s a dog say?” “Arf, Arf.” “What’s a pig say?” “Oink, Oink.” “What’s a cat say” “Meow.” But sometimes it switches the answers, so maybe the dog says, “Meow.” And after it does that, it laughs.

              The parrot is very good at laughing. The most startling thing I saw it do, was a time when a room full of people listened carefully as one of them worked toward a good punch line. He delivered the line, and the bird was the first in the room to laugh, just a split second ahead of uproarious laughter from everyone else. I don’t think for a moment the bird got the joke. But you couldn’t know that from its response. I think it was sharp enough to see a laugh coming, maybe by facial expressions, or everyone inhaling at once, or something. People were stunned.

              1. Great pet anecdotes, thanks.

              2. My bird laughs at jokes also. I do think they can read the reactions of people and know that the laugh sound is appropriate.

            2. Sorry, but I did not intend to flag this comment. It is not abusive. And I don’t know how to “unflag” it.

              The truth about parrots is that some of them merely mimic human words, and then some like the African Grey can carry on a simple conversation.

          3. Is it common among Comsymps not to grasp the difference between similes and metaphors?

            1. “Watching Trumpistas lament enmity, division and hatred is like watching those circus acts”

              That’s a simile, dumbass.

        3. Ben, lamenter of dehumanization: “You hate 70 million other Americans enough to dehumanize them.”

          Ben, promoter of dehumanization: “What’s actually inside Post and Somin and the some of the others? Humanity? Anything?”

          Within minutes! But look, it’s only a self-contradiction is you think he meant the first one at all. He didn’t. He’s a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

          1. You should get a dictionary and look up some of those words.

            1. You’re a flailing loser, Ben. You will spend the rest of your life complying with the preferences of people like me.

              This is as it should be. This is as it will be.

              Amen, sayeth the Reverend.

          2. Queen. I don’t think dialogue is possible. If you have an upstairs bedroom, I will enjoy Biden forcing you to house a homeless Democrat addict.

      2. Dang Queenie — the hatred in you is intense. Calm the fuck down.

          1. I would call her more than a putz, but hey …

    3. Ben, at one time I would have found that a persuasive argument. The problem with it is that the people who stormed the Capitol on Wednesday did so out of a massive sense of entitlement. Their guy lost the popular vote and the electoral college vote, but hey, they’re entitled. In other words, they’re spoiled brats who need to be treated like spoiled brats. As is their ringleader Trump.

      So how do you deal with spoiled brats? Not by letting their ringleader get away with it, that’s for sure. By the way, prior to Wednesday I would have expected that any mob trying to storm the Capitol would have had massive casualties. Maybe not giving them massive casualties was a mistake.

      1. You should be clearer. Do you or don’t you desire “massive casualties”?

        Trump got more than 70 million votes and a very large percentage of his voters are armed.

        1. I do not desire mass casualties, but the alternative of allowing armed mobs to disrupt democracy is even worse.

          As yes, Trump’s supporters are armed, though the overwhelming majority of them aren’t the wingnuts we saw Wednesday. But you know who else is armed? The army. And we have an incoming administration more than willing to designate the wingnuts as domestic terrorists and treat them accordingly. They might find that the feds have far more tools to terrorize them than the other way around. The last civil war did not end well for the rebels and that was with multiple state governments supporting the rebels, which would not be the case this time around. Do not start something you may not be able to finish.

          1. Keep telling yourself stories about how it will go. It won’t go like any story you make up. No one can guess how it would go.

            You win most bloodthirsty leftist so far though.

            1. I’m not a leftist, but what would you propose? That the country be turned over to armed mobs?

              1. I posted it in the Thursday open thread. It was long, but the gist of it was to act like an American and treat people like fellow countrymen instead of like enemies.

                1. That’s a fine idea and one I even agree with. The problem is that it doesn’t help us when you’ve got an armed mob trying to take over the Capitol, because the mob is not treating people they disagree with as fellow countrymen rather than enemies. And my bottom line is the country cannot be turned over to armed mobs. Spend a few minutes actually thinking through what a country run by QAnon and proud boys would look like; it’s not pretty.

                  I don’t want any bloodshed either, but I’m not willing to turn our democracy over to thugs. And if it ultimately takes force to protect democratic institutions, then so be it.

                2. Then you need to accept the truth that Trump lost, and there was not massive election fraud as he claimed.

                  If you care to raise up arms against our Government, then as a matter of fact, you are not my countrymen.

                3. I’m perfectly willing to treat (most of) them as fellow Americans. The thugs and rebels among them need to be arrested and imprisoned.

                  What I’m not willing to do is overturn the election because Trump voters are pissed off that he lost, and believe a lot of lies from Trump, Cruz, Hawley, et al about fraud.

                  Let the Trump voters act like Americans and stop threatening armed revolution unless they get their way. It sure sounds like that’s what you and Dr. Ed and Brett and others want. Because I don’t know what else you are asking for.

                  Dr. Ed can claim Trump won with as many capital letters and exclamation points as he likes. It’s still a fucking lie.

                  Look, this mob invaded the Capitol and got people killed. There is credible evidence some of them intended physical harm to legislators and even Pence. And they were not Antifa or leftists or whatever. They were right-wing thugs stirred up by a lot of rhetorical BS.

                  1. “Look, this mob invaded the Capitol and got people killed. There is credible evidence some of them intended physical harm to legislators and even Pence. And they were not Antifa or leftists or whatever. They were right-wing thugs stirred up by a lot of rhetorical BS.”

                    Is Bernie Sanders and the Democrats (Democratics?) responsible for the left-wing thug who shot up the GOP softball team?

                    Should Kamala Harris be held responsible for her “rehetorical BS” that, arguably, stirred up BLM? (Hint: Impeach Trump for his, and she’ll be impeached for hers…)

                    Should labor unions be held accountable for everything that some unhinged member does during a strike?

                    No, we have personal accountability in this country.

                    1. Is Sanders had given a speech to that guy and he hadn’t been mentally ill and also a bunch of different people and if people had been warning Sanders about his rhetoric for over 4 years you might have a point.

              2. “That the country be turned over to armed mobs?”

                Isn’t that what we did last June???

              3. Gosh, that is invective. It is a bombastic statement, or a rant.

        2. “Trump got more than 70 million votes and a very large percentage of his voters are armed.”

          This comment distills the essence of the Volokh Conspiracy.

          Prof. Volokh, bereft of self-awareness, lathers the gun nuts, superstitious dullards, and disaffected clingers. The other Conspirators support his efforts, mostly. The Republican-conservative-Federalist-Heritage-Koch world supports the Conspirators.

          The lathered gun nuts vote Republican and provide the daft, ugly comments at this White, male, right-wing blog. (They also storm our Capitol and plot to kidnap a governor or two; the Prof. Volokh studiously ignores that, and Ted Cruz’s conduct, and anything else he is not up to addressing.)

          These guys can’t win. One protester was shot and killed by law enforcement for being a belligerent dumbass. Another was trampled by her fellow losers. Another, perhaps, tased himself in the nuts. The marauding yahoos published selfies. They carried their cellphones — locations easily traced by people with degrees from non-religious schools — into the Capitol. Right-wing professors, right-wing elected officials, right-wing corporate executives are already being fired, arrested, and ridiculed.

          The assault on the Capitol was probably a high-water mark for the Volokh Conspiracy and its collection of shambling followers. You figure legitimate law schools are in the market for pointers from the discredited Republicans of Heterodox Academy? Better people will take it from here.

      2. And what would you say about all the other protests that happened in 2020, the police stations burned down, the large number of casualties, and public monuments destroyed, the small businesses destroyed?

        What about all them? Should they have “Massive casualties”. Should their “ringleaders” get away with it?

        Just curious here.

        1. I would say your usual what aboutism is completely misplaced. Whatever should have been done about those riots is not the problem facing us at the moment; Trump and his band of thugs is. And I don’t have to agree with every decision made by every mayor last summer to recognize that our current constitutional crisis needs to be addressed, and that includes calling Trump to account.

          To answer your question, I probably would have taken a much harder line against violence and rioting than did the mayors of Seattle and Portland. I disapprove of rioting no matter who is doing it. But just because that was mishandled doesn’t mean this has to be.

          1. If your fellow Democrats/leftists hadn’t spent the entire summer rioting you might have a leg to stand on — talk about whataboutism!

            1. I’m not interested in having a conversation with someone stupid enough to think it was the “Democrats/leftists” who were rioting.

              1. So, they were monarchists?????


                1. I’m not interested in having a conversation with someone stupid enough to think it was the “Democrats/leftists “ who were rioting.

                  1. So, not a SINGLE Democrat rioted this summer?

                    1. Did I say that?

                      Sure you could find Democrats among the rioters. You could also find Baptists and Catholics and atheists; people from both the radical left and the radical right; and probably even a few Republicans. But they weren’t rioting for any of those reasons, and if you honestly don’t get that, I can’t help you.

                    2. OK, Krycheck, so that I understand your statement correctly — as long as you view the case as righteous or think that it is important, political violence and rioting is OK, or can be overlooked?

                      It was not one incident this summer, but hundreds — with Democrat politicians NOT condemning the violence and a few inciting it.

                      And before you ask, outside of a just war, I condemn ALL political violence, ESPECIALLY by people that I agree with.

                    3. No, DWB, that’s not even close to what I said. Rioting is not OK. That said, as I’ve already explained to Armchair Lawyer, that something different should have been done last summer has nothing to do with what should be done now.

                  2. OK, who WAS rioting. Someone was….

          2. So, to review, you think there should’ve been “massive casualties” of the protesters during the 2020 Antifa riots? And that would’ve fixed the problem? Just so we’re clear here.

            1. Did I say that?

              1. So, you don’t think there should’ve been “massive casualties” in the protesters during all the 2020 riots? Just now?

                1. I think that with an appropriate show of force mass casualties may not have been necessary. Also that an appropriate show of force might have deterred the Capitol breach that we saw on Wednesday. However, had I been wrong about that, then yes, you do what is necessary to suppress a riot.

                  1. “You do what is necessary”

                    Like what Seattle did when Rioters took over several city blocks?

                    1. You know that what Trump did is indefensible so all you’re left with is changing the subject to BUT WHAT ABOUT

                    2. “You know that what Trump did is indefensible ”

                      Calling for a protest for a cause? Same thing that Biden and Harris have done? If your only view that what Trump did was indefensible is because it was Trump doing it then you don’t have good moral ground to stand on.

                    3. Ok so now let’s change the subject to Biden and Harris. It seems changing the subject is all you’re capable of. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy for a reason.

                    4. The cause, AL, is a pack of lies. And the methods called for were an assault on our government. Hard not to do that without violence. Within the riot were people with zip ties and molotovs. This was bad enough an assault on our republic (in a way the Floyd protests never did), but it was supposed to be worse.

                      You see the commenters here threatening violence? That’s where Trump has lead your side. And you don’t seem to care, so studiously are you fixed on the other side.

            2. And while we’re just being clear, you think it’s more important to talk about stuff that happened months ago rather than a current threat.

              1. 1. There’s no “current” threat. There is nothing currently going on in DC.

                2. Actions, and responses taken previously have an effect on actions taken later. If you happily tolerate “mostly peaceful” protests, you shouldn’t be surprised when they occur again, in a different location.

                1. 1. You haven’t been watching the news stories about how the people who breached the Capitol are urging that something similar happen on Inauguration Day. CNN has one near the top of its Web site right now. Further, until Trump leaves office, there’s no reason to think he won’t stick to form and continue to try to make trouble on his way out.

                  2, true up to a point, but as I said earlier just because something else could have been handled better doesn’t mean this has to be.

                  3. At any rate, you fairly consistently seem to think that the answer to any misconduct by Trump is to change the subject to something some Democrat said or did. In addition to being beside the point, it essentially means no one can be accountable for anything since you can usually find someone on the other side who did something similar. Well, the subject of this thread is Trump, period, full stop. Your argument would be like Ted Bundy defending himself by saying, “But what about Charles Manson?” Yes, Manson was a bad guy but that doesn’t let Bundy off the hook.

                  1. You do not understand the anger of those who have seen the very same people who have all summer defended/incited violence now turning around and condemning what turned out to be much less (but still criminal) violence the moment their political opponents do it?

                    You do not see how prior actions clouded the moral authority of today’s critics?

                    Not even a little?

                    1. I think that explaining something and justifying it are two different things.

                    2. No, they don’t.

                      They are the same as the college kids who call the police to report the theft of their illegal drugs. That happens more often than you might think…

                  2. 1. There is no current threat. There is nothing going on in DC. If you’re going to use the argument that there’s noise on the internet, you need to also include Antifa protests and responses to them, because there’s noise there too.

                    2. It’s more true than you think.

                    If you have a bunch of white people speeding through an area, then you shouldn’t be surprised to see a black person speeding through an area. If you do, and suddenly say “ARREST THAT BLACK PERSON FOR SPEEDING!” then the black guy is going to go as say “what about all those other people?” Same thing with other crimes.

                    3. Equality in treatment is CRITICAL here. You can’t treat the sides differently for what are essentially the same offenses, and have any pretense of legitimacy. You need fairness in treatment, otherwise you just reinforce divisions and conflict. If you convict side A for actions, but let side B by with a slap on the wrist, you create all sorts of resentment. That is really what this conflict is about, and has been for quite a while.

                    When you get that resentment, and people act out on it, and there’s further inequality in treatment, you make things worse, and push people farther and farther.

                    1. Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the judge that other people were speeding too and let us know how that works for you.

                      I haven’t said that the Capitol rioters don’t have resentments and grievances. Just that that doesn’t justify launching an attack on democracy itself. And that it’s not a defense that other people got away with things. If that we’re a defense our prisons would be empty.

                    2. “Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the judge that other people were speeding too and let us know how that works for you.”

                      It’s called selective enforcement. And when it’s done in a biased manner, it’s typically considered legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law. Which is…what’s going on right now.

                      “launching an attack on democracy itself”

                      Define launching an attack on “democracy itself”. Is it a “March on the Capital?” Is it “burning of police stations?” Is it “assaults on our elected representatives?” Is it “threats against our elected officials”? Is it “attempted arson of our federal courthouses?” or is it just and only “trespassing in the Capital?”

                      Just curious here.

                    3. Selective enforcement almost never works as a legal defense, but if you want to talk about it, did you see the Army deployed to defend the Lincoln Memorial to defend it when the BLM protestors showed up? I’m sure you can find it on google if you missed it. Co yeast that to the anemic protection given the Capitol when the insurrectionists showed up. It strikes me BLM has as much complaint about selective enforcement as you do.

                      But this isn’t about selective enforcement. It’s about you wanting to give Trump a free pass.

                    4. “Next time you get a speeding ticket, try telling the judge that other people were speeding too and let us know how that works for you.”

                      I don’t know about speeding, but it worked for attempted murder at UMass Amherst. A Black student sliced & diced two White visitors, all of this caught on video, and charges were dismissed because the police allegedly hadn’t properly investigated an incident where a White male(s) had allegedly clubbed a Black male with a metal flashlight. (It wasn’t pursued because none of the witnesses would talk to the cops, and there wasn’t much they could do then.)

                      If you only prosecute White people (or Black people) and not everyone, that’s selective enforcement.

                    5. ” It strikes me BLM has as much complaint about selective enforcement as you do.”

                      Not when the Black DC Mayor says “thou shalt not have troops in the streets again” which is pretty much what she said in response to this. Her call — and she’s Black and elected by a largely Black electorate.

              2. As to “current threat”, Burn Loot Murder is currently marching in protest of Trump. So that’s a current threat.

      3. I can’t believe they made it over the fence, and I suspect Trump can’t either.

        It’s clear that they didn’t expect to do once they did. Had they, it would have been a lot more difficult to remove them.

        As to “giving them massive casualties”, “Bloody Sunday” worked ever so well for the British, didn’t it? See:

    4. The fascists have already split from the rest of America. No need to worry about avoiding what already came to pass.

  2. That’s not the issue — it’s that he is going to run in 2024.

    And that is what you are worried about — right on down to staging another Reichstag Fire — Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the cops who somehow weren’t there on Wednesday. All 2,300 of them…

    But Ilya, if you pull a stunt like this, you will draw all the crazies out of the woodwork and people will die… All you will accomplish is making him a martyr and guaranteeing a GOP sweep in 2022. And then what’s never, ever, come up before is if a future Senate can remove the lifetime disability for public office.

    Every other action the Senate takes a future Senate can repeal — and as the Constitution doesn’t say anything either way, I don’t see why not.

    1. Remember too that due process is a principle more than legal technicalities, and this is the country which once had “Operation Wetback.”

      All the arguments you make for Trump not to be entitled to due process here, I can turn around and make for expedited deportation of illegal aliens — which is also not a criminal process. And there are people (not me) who’d like to bodyslam them into a C-130 and literally leave them on the end of a runway in some (any) Central American country.

      Not even bothering to get them back to the *right* Central American country…

      And they want to get rid of illegal aliens as much as you want to get rid of Trump. Think about that for a minute…

    2. Does Ilya care if they die though? Will Ilya celebrate their deaths as yet another propaganda opportunity? That’s the real question.

      What’s actually inside Post and Somin and the some of the others? Humanity? Anything?

      We’re starting to get some idea of the answer.

      When history looks back at what went wrong and how it could have been averted, perhaps they will say the tragedy could have been averted if only a few people had decided not to be insane: to try to de-escalate the situation instead of doubling down yet again.

      1. Yes, and if Biden truly wanted to unite the country, he would tell people to end this and then he’d hire someone to write something nice about Trump that Biden felt comfortable saying (something that meant nothing but sounded good) and he’d say it.

        That’s how you unify a country…

        1. Ilya wants to go the opposite direction.

          1. What direction did Trump want to go in before Wednesday night?

            This is why your bad faith is so blatantly obvious.

      2. “What’s actually inside Post and Somin and the some of the others? Humanity? Anything?”

        Ben hates dehumanizing those who politically disagree with him…

        1. It’s a question. Do you have any humanity left yourself? It’s not showing.

          1. Yes, only someone with no humanity could be for impeaching that great humanist Donald Trump. And, you are against dehumanizing. It all ties together of course!

              1. Well, yes, he is bad. He’s bad for all the things you are now suddenly acting like is important to you. You’re transparent in your bad faith.

                1. DWB — Here is Jefferson’s famous formula—which sounds enough like the present it could have been tailored to it:

                  And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

                  Nothing there about giving the rebels their way. Just a formula mixing forbearance, force, education, and bloodshed. And a caution not to worry too much about the bloodshed.

                  1. Jefferson was quite ignorant — he had no idea of the geography of Western Massachusetts nor of how close Daniel Shays had come to taking the Springfield Armory — nor of how difficult it would have been to take it back.

                    Built away from the coast and above the navigable portion of the Connecticut River, in the days of sail where you had to wait for a favorable wind to sail upriver (which is why NYC was smaller than Boston until the era of steam tugs), it was intentionally designed to be very hard for an organized state to capture.

                    Remember that they had already shut down the courts — not for the afternoon but outright. This very nearly became the Second American Revolution — something that I think Adams understood better than Jefferson.

                    1. But what Jefferson did say was this:

                      ” The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.”

                      Not execute them, which is what Massachusetts wanted to do. And a lot of stuff in the Constitution was in response to this.

        2. Then Queen, how would YOU unite and walk back the near civil war we are in?

    3. ” right on down to staging another Reichstag Fire”

      The Party of Personal Responsiblity < the Caucus of Conspiracy Kooks

      1. You mean the Russian Collusion Hoax (attempted coup) perpetrated by the DNC? The 2017 Republican Congressional baseball shooting (attempted mass murder)? The drinking bleach hoax? The fine people hoax? Your hoaxes over the past four years are literally getting people killed.

        1. They’ve never heard of Cannon Hinnant, and will never acknowledge that their lies led directly to his death.

    4. Correct. Somin is making Democrat partisan points. The Democrat Party is afraid of the Trump return in 2024. The Biden term will massively hurt the Democrat constituencies, the way that Trump helped them bust records of prosperity. No other Republican has the Trump celebrity and household name.

      1. By the Trumpistas own claim Trump will be older then than Biden is now and will certainly have dementia, right?

        Or was all that bad faith bullshit?

        1. Trump hasn’t had (at least) two brain bleeds, one of which they thought would be fatal. Those cause brain damage.

          1. We don’t know what Trump has had because he’s secretive about his medical health (like his taxes, his finances, his affairs, etc.,).

            1. We don’t care what he has had because is is a bad human being. America does not need people of such bad will

      2. The entire country of people who respect law and democracy are afraid because of the clear coup risk. They certainly aren’t afraid of losing elections to the guy who got fewer votes than both Lock her up Hillary and Basement Biden.

    5. “you will draw all the crazies out of the woodwork and people will die… ”

      Little late for that Eddie…If you were against drawing crazies out of the woodwork and people dying as a result, you should’ve started condemning Trump long ago.

      1. You’re right, the 2017 republican baseball game shooting where a Democrat tried to mass murder a bunch of republican congressmen proved that. Except you can’t blame Trump for that one.

      2. Queen. What was your sex at birth? What is your race?

  3. The sooner, the better; Trump has incited war against constitutional government. And as a bonus, the nation saves the cost of post-presidential office space (rented from his company at ridiculous prices) because impeachment and conviction disqualifies him from benefits under the Former Presidents Act.

    1. The Former Presidents Act mentions impeachment? I doubt it.

      1. Do you get some kind of sexual gratification from being proven wrong, you sniveling, imbecilic halfwit? Otherwise, I’m at a loss: you literally could have figured out the answer in less time than it took to write that comment.

        1. Trumpistas don’t care about being right or true, they want power. Don’t Retreat, Reload (Palin was the proto-Trump)!

        2. Well, you don’t think it can be amended in 2022?
          With retroactive reimbursement?

          Bear in mind, if you impeach Trump, that’s grounds to impeach Harris for inciting BLM and with Biden impeached for the laptop, it’s the GOP speaker as POTUS in 2022.

          1. It’s full of conspiracy theories.

          2. You just can’t stop yourself can you?

            Why would the same Congress that just impeached Trump vote to give him a pension, you knuckledragging, peabrained coward?

            1. Are the personal insults really necessary? You are being goaded down to their level.

            2. The next one might…

      2. It actual does specify that an impeached president is not eligible for benefits.

        1. (f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person–

          (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    2. Oh if inciting war against constitutional government is the issue then Obama should have been impeached. He went to war against Libya and Syria, provided assistance in Arab Spring overthrows, invaded Pakistan airspace, continued Bush’s wars (also impeachable) in Afghanistan and Iraq, droned innocent civilians in Pakistan and Yemen. All based on a an AUMF from a previous president. It was high crimes all right. Should I stop or are you ok with all that.

      1. Could it be worse to attack your own Capitol? Nah, must be partisan blinders on the other side.

        1. There were several hundred thousand people there — If Trump had truly incited an attack on the Capital, the building wouldn’t be standing right now. The head of the USCP union essentially said that.

          While disgusting, this was no worse that what routinely happens in colleges throughout the land. It was a “building takeover.”

          And do you really want to establish the principle that the President is responsible for what any of his supporters do? Do you know how few Presidents won’t be impeached???

          1. Look, your bad faith is showing like a chubby tube top wearing lady’s tummy. You don’t think it’s ‘disgusting,’ you’ve ping ponged about since that time going from that it was justified anger, a false flag, a set up, etc., etc.

            You know people see it as wrong but you can’t get why because, like Trump and many of his followers, you’ve got an atrophied sense of principle (or didn’t know what that was to begin with).

            And ‘well, he could only get some number of them so wound up they did this’ is a pitiful defense.

            1. Regardless, if Trump had said “I want the building leveled” and if he has the power you fear he does, it would have been.

              A lot of MAGA folk work construction and have easy access to explosives. (It’s how we build roads — we blast ledge out of the way.) It’s apparently also not that difficult to fabricate them, e.g. Nashville.

              You honestly believe that 20 guys couldn’t have carried in 50 lb backpacks in that chaos? That’s half a ton or two 500 lb bombs that would do a LOT of damage to a building that does not have a steel frame and is largely made out of sandstone. (Remember what Berlin looked like after WW-II?)

              No, Trump didn’t advocate the destruction of the capital because it wouldn’t be standing if he had…

            2. Jeez, are you crazy? Go read _Brandenburg._

              And the statute on incitement.

              If you’re capable.

  4. No discussion of the Belknap precedent?

    Basically, Grant’s Secretary of War resigned just before getting impeached, so that the House impeached “a private citizen.” Nevertheless, a majority of the Senate – but not quite two-thirds – affirmed that it had jurisdiction.

    So if Trump gets impeached while still in office, then the case for Senate jurisdiction would be even stronger than with Belknap, even if Trump becomes a private citizen during the proceedings (because of the expiration of his term).

    So if the Senate really believes that disqualifying Trump from office would deter future Presidents not named Trump, they can do it even after his term is over.

    (Though I thought one of the profs here said the Senate couldn’t keep Trump out of the Presidency in future – I don’t understand that argument, so maybe the different profs can hash it out).

    1. The Senate may have thought it had jurisdiction, but I doubt that SCOTUS would, and you can be sure that’s where this would go.

      What does the text of the Constitution say?
      You can’t remove him from an office he no longer holds and hence you can’t impose a lifetime disability either. And that is what this is all about…

      Of course, all he would have to do is have Melania run — that’s been done before…

      1. Melania definitely isn’t eligible but Trump supporters seem to think the Constitution is merely a piece of paper to wipe their asses with.

        1. Heck, forge a birth certificate like was done for Obama 😉

          1. Oh, isn’t that clever.

        2. Why Republicans are supposed to think more highly of the Constitution than Democrats, I don’t know.

          But, while Melania would probably make a pretty good President, (She’s a lot sharper than most Presidents have been!) she’s clearly not constitutionally qualified.

          1. Exploiting people’s esteem for the Constitution is one of their tactics. They make every virtue into an attack vector. And if it doesn’t work they call you a nihilist.

          2. Melania is what Melania is and I mean not to disparage her great accomplishments, but what is it, exactly, that makes you believe that she is ” a lot sharper than most Presidents have been?”

            She may be, I don’t deny it, but if she is, why has she been hiding her light under a bushel?

            1. Melania traded her (relative) youth to a flabby old guy for a solution to her sketch immigration position, chain migration for her parents, and a meal ticket. That transaction was entirely in keeping with her record and character.

              She lied about her education (when she said she had one).

              She lied and cheated with respect to her immigration status.

              She lied about that “I don’t care” jacket.

              She is a birther and a bigot.

              She is a plagiarist. And a half-literate, “Be Best” dumbass.

              She did nothing — other than the occasional lie — while her husband debased the nation and cheated on her.

              Disrobing for money may be the least objectionable element of her time in the United States.

              She is complicit. She is objectionable. She fits in well with the Republican-conservative crowd.

    2. That’s why they’re in a freaking huge hurry: If they begin the impeachment while he’s still President, they have some claim of legitimacy. If they start it after he’s a private citizen, he stands a good chance of getting the Supreme court to rule that, no, you can’t impeach private citizens.

      And, aside from getting one last lick in, this is mostly about making sure WE will never be permitted to elect him again. It’s not about Trump, but about taking an option way from the voters. For all their talk about democracy, this impeachment is as anti-democratic as it gets.

      Stupidly so, because it treats Trump as some unique figure, who if taken off the table can never be replaced. Does Ilya really think that 75 million voters are suddenly going to develop a taste for mainstream Republicans if the political establishment tells them they can’t have Trump?

      1. “Stupidly so, because it treats Trump as some unique figure”

        Yes, it’s Ilya that’s mainly doing this! Black is white…

        1. Look, if Trump can’t run for President in 2024, I’m not upset, I don’t think he SHOULD run for President in 2024, for the same reason Biden shouldn’t have run last year: He’ll be older than dirt, and even if you’re in good health, “78 year old good health” is not good enough to execute the duties of the Presidency. Especially when you’re going to be in your 80’s by the time your term is over.

          But it’s terribly anti-democratic to want to impeach Trump solely for the purpose of denying the voters the power to elect him again.

          What the people proposing to impeach him for that purpose are doing, is assuming that, if you can take out Trump, things return to ‘normal’. That’s stupid: Trump wouldn’t have been elected in the first place if ‘normal’ were still around.

          Take him out of the equation, and while the next Republican nominee won’t be some kind of Trump clone, they won’t be a standard GOPe hack, either. Or if the GOP proves capable of reclaiming its stranglehold over the Republican nomination, the party will split.

          Because Republican voters finally got a taste of being able to bypass the gatekeepers and nominate and elect THEIR choice. They’re not going to be willing to return to having the party establishment foist it’s choices on them again.

          From a pragmatic standpoint, I don’t know why the Democrats wouldn’t want Trump running in 2024. They’ve devoted 5 years now to demonizing him, if somebody else runs in 2024 they’ll have to start that work all over again, and maybe against somebody harder to demonize.

          1. Trump probably won’t run in ’24 and shouldn’t be a factor if he does. That is next to certain, and doesn’t depend on him wearing orange in a prison cell (something a little less sure). Here’s why :

            To leave the presidency, sit out of power four years, and then return to win a party nomination is rare. To succeed, Trump will have to make a focused & disciplined effort to keep himself a political force – a presidency in exile, so to speak. This means something more than noise, which we all know comes easy to Trump. And this is significantly beyond the WWE-style entertainment he provides his fan base.

            In a way, Trump would need to be more substantive than he was as president. Then he could play his brat-child theatrics against the dignity of the office. Out of power, his juvenile antics will lack a backdrop. The king walks around showing his bare ass and the crowd praises his finery. A private citizen is just buck-naked.

            So what are the odds Trump could pull that off? Zero. The man barely had the discipline to appear presidential while in the office, with a full host of aides to prod him to his duties. He preferred TV binging to classified briefings; his policy positions changed daily by whim; the hard work of the position infuriated & bored him.

            An ex-president voted out of office always looks like someone whose time has past. This process will occur twice as fast with Trump, and to twice the degree. He’ll appear ludicrous when emerging from long periods of golf & lassitude to rage incoherently. Trump will be a jokey irrelevance long before four years passes.

            1. Good analysis — I suspect that you are correct

  5. According to James Madison, the House can also suspend Presidential powers during Impeachment.

    1. Where does it say that in the Constitution?

      1. It’s part of the assumed impeachment Power.
        Page 494 of The Debates in the Several States Convention (Vol III) states:

        “There is one security in this case to which the gentleman (Mr. Mason) may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.”

        1. Fortunately that didn’t happen during the Clinton impeachment. The grownup was allowed to continue running the country (and he nearly got bin Laden) while the children in the Senate sniggered through the testimony.

          1. Well, there would need to be a suspicion that he was going to abuse his powers. If his impeachment wasn’t for abuse of presidential power, then I suspect there wouldn’t be a need to suspend his powers.

            1. You’re quite right. But that just shows that the Clinton impeachment was not warranted — as you point out, the “offense” had nothing to do with his presidential powers.

  6. And in our rush to eliminate any scintilla of due process in our witch hunt, there is this:

    SCOTIS threw out loyalty oaths and “unamerican activity” as grounds for firing teachers 53 years ago…

    1. Lol, not only would Ed have led the Red Scare’s back then, he’s all for them now.

      1. Merely repeating what SCOTUS, in its infinite wisdom, ruled.

        1. Repeating in bad faith, yes.

          1. No faith in repeating. Just facts.

            1. No, you’re trying to make an argument there of course. You’re just not good at it and not doing it in good faith. You’re a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

  7. “which threatens to deprive the defendant of fundamental human rights to life, liberty or property”

    Ability to hold any public office for the rest of his life? I kinda think that comes under at least one of those categories…

    Not that Ilya really cares — and that’s what these learned law professors don’t understand — they may agree with each other but not with Joe Sixpack and an impeachment would instantly provoke a nationwide trucker’s strike.

    Like to eat, Ilya???

    1. Lol. There will be no nationwide trucker’s strike. Truckers like to eat too.

      1. A few days off? Our distribution network is that close to shattering anyway….

        1. Truckers without pay will run out of food before Ilya would . There will be no nationwide truckers strike. You live in a fantasy land. You’re a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

          1. Oh, really? You know any truckers? I do. They don’t tend to live in urban centers a week from food riots.

            1. Your wacky anti-urban ideas are well known here. Emphasis on wacky. University professors like Ilya have far more disposable income than most truckers (I know a bunch btw), they would hold out longer than truckers.

              If there’s a nation-wide trucker strike I’ll eat my favorite hat. I bet you wouldn’t bet on it, push comes to shove.

              1. You’d have a point if Ilya could eat ATM withdrawals in place of, you know, food.

                I don’t expect a nation-wide trucker’s strike all that soon, but if it happened, having a lot of money in the bank wouldn’t keep food in Ilya’s belly if the local groceries and restaurants weren’t getting food deliveries.

                1. One could probably last a long time consuming nothing but good homemade mead. Do you know anyone with a sizable stash?

            2. A few years ago I was wearing my camo Peterbuilt baseball cap when cruising on my 42 foot catamaran down island and another sailor made a snide comment about it to which I replied a Peterbuilt is sure better than a Freightliner and shut him up in a hurry. Point is there is a facebook group StopTheTires2020 that discusses a truckers strike. It has had some minor success in disrupting a couple of manufacturing plants that operate on ‘just in time deliveries’. Many supermarkets would not last two days for many products without multiple daily deliveries.

              Maybe more to the point I still know some active long haul truckers and when I mentioned the facebook group to them they laughed and said truckers have an underground communication system that does not include facebook.

              A lot of truckers live in rural areas because parking a big rig in an urban area is a PITA. They also tend to be very self reliant in terms of having food and fuel stored for what ever reason. Not to mention they have a great dislike for dems since Carters’ 55mph speed limit and they blame the government in general for high fuel prices. Not to mention thinking the dems Green New Deal is also hated.

              Bottom line is truckers not only dislike the dems they liked that Trump was what I would call a loud mouthed braggart but they saw him as a regular guy who poked a stick in the eye of pols they hated.

              Bonus extra credit question; who remembers “10-4, good buddy.” ?

              1. My clients employ hundreds — thousands — of truck drivers. Those drivers don’t live in penthouses but they also do not live in the Oxy-saturated, no-school-past-sixth-grade, rattlesnake-juggling, Hillbilly Elegy wasteland that fuels Trump rallies. We pay them solid wages, they do good work, and most of them are solid citizens.

                Better Americans — with their education, reason, information, and fancypants standard English — don’t get as excited about the prospect of a great trucker uprising as disaffected clingers do.

                1. Kirkland, you don’t really know them…

                  1. When are you predicting this clinger-induced paralysis to begin?

            3. Brett, I don’t think it will take a week. I remember what it was like when people feared that Charlie Parker was going to ban driving and the grocery stores started looking like something out of the Soviet Union where people were buying *anything* they could find, grabbing it before it could even get put onto the shelves.

              Beef comes to the store in large cryovacked packages in the 50 lb range that the store cuts up and people were buying *those*… It came quite close to getting ugly and that was with as many trucks as possible rolling in as fast as they could.

              I think the shelves will be stripped bare the first day of a truckers strike, and that things will get ugly on the second…

    2. It would be similar to a company firing an employee and saying that they can never work for that company. Zero due process needed.

      1. It would be nothing at all like that.

        People aren’t born with the right to work for a specific company. Citizens in America are born with the right to run for any elective office for which they meet the qualifications.

        Taking that right away from Trump without due process (for example the ability to defend himself in the senate trial) might well backfire on the impeachers.

        Terrible analogy.

        1. Ya, not good analogy. But he is still owed nothing more then maybe an hour or so for defense. Then the Rs can vote to find what he did A-OK.

      2. It would be similar to a company firing an employee and saying that they can never work for that company. Zero due process needed.”

        Two words: “Private Sector.”

        This is public sector. Things are a tad different…

    3. I am curious, Dr. Ed: Why are you so certain that truckers would go on strike to support your cult leader? What makes you think that they’re not intelligent enough to recognize him for what he is, namely, an immoral, narcissistic, unethical, misogynistic, racist, barely literate, vulgar, divisive, bullying, incompetent, feckless, tax-cheating, science-denying, lying grifter? I’m willing to bet that truckers are smarter than you seem willing to give them credit for. And I’ll also bet that they are true patriots — not phonies like the moronic insurrectionists who mobbed the Capitol. (Feel free, by the way, to argue that I’m wrong about any of the words I used to describe the whiny LOSER hiding out in the White House.)

      1. A bit off topic, but on truckers : Back in ’10, I was hopelessly unemployed, facing divorce, and dealing with unstable finances. So I decided to hike the Appalachian Trail. Near Roanoke I got off-trail for a hot meal & laundry. I was doing my clothes at a truck stop and fell to talking with a trucker – a big burly guy who did long runs up&down the east coast. The subject turned to politics.

        Now, I’ve got some pretty decent chops when it comes to national & international events, but as the conversation went on this trucker was kicking my ass. If I brought up a Supreme Court decision, he knew the case name & all the details; Mention a law, he knew its sponsors and when it passed. Finally I had to confess my admiration. He said it was simple : While on the road all day he listened to NPR.

        I doubt he would strike for a huckster buffoon, but admit he was unique among truckers I know (and are related to). Good testimonial for National Public Radio though…..

        1. That comment almost made me like you.

        2. My clients employ many truckers, who occupy a wide range with respect to character, politics, intellect, culture, and other points.

          A point you raised struck a chord — some of them listen to NPR. One asked me, at a holiday party a few years ago, after an extended discussion of Mick Taylor’s rhythm and Keith Richards’ lead, whether I could do something about NPR reception along a particular stretch of highway. I tried. Now, thanks to your observation, I will try to check whether anything improved.

        3. Much of NPR is concurrently broadcast on multiple stations so as one fades, you can jump to another one and not miss anything. Same thing is true of Rush Limbough, and you can go from the Albany station to the Springfield station to the Worcester station to the Boston station to the Portland station to the Augusta station to the Bangor station with only 10 seconds (at most) difference between them.

          Particularly before satellite radio it would really suck to be listening to something interesting only to have it fade away as you literally went over the edge of the earth.

      2. Besides all that, a nationwide truckers strike would require organization and solidarity.

        1. Have you ever seen what flash mobs do?

          1. Mostly they fall apart.

      3. See my post above and get on face book and join the group StopTheTires2020. There are lots of posts about big rigs going to DC on 20 Jan and shutting it down. If BLM can block Interstate by standing in the street how effective do you thing 100 big rigs blocking interstate would, not to mention main roads in DC.

        Anyone who thinks long haul truckers support the dems are living in a dream world. They still hate the dems for allowing Mexicans to drive trucks from Mexico into the US and not have to pass the insurance requirements, safety inspections, and hours they are allowed to drive that US drivers are required to follow. There are also major complaints about lots of new drivers who lack what they consider basic driving skills. There are drivers who pick up good money at truck stops parking and backing up trucks that some of the newer drivers can not do for themselves.

        Bottom line is long haul drivers are very unhappy about what has happened over the last twenty years or more due to the government imposing more and more restrictions.

        Bonus question; who remembers “Breaker breaker good buddy- got your ears on?” Maybe more to the point who thinks CB radio would be useful for communication and coordination?

        1. One of my favorites from college — fraternity roommate had the eight-track — that I still attempt with my band periodically.

          Which is intensely foolish, trying to emulate Jerry Reed either at the fretboard or the microphone. But enough people have never heard of Jerry to let us get away with it.

          (I attended that ’82 show in Austin. First time I saw a Peavey T-60.
          Wanted one desperately, couldn’t afford it then. Never got one. I have a Peavey bass amp, though, used mostly for guitar. After attending that show, I tried to get the Rolling Stones on Austin City Limits, but the closest I got was booking The Leroi Brothers, whose manager worked with me at the newspaper, at a couple of bars in the Northeast just before I left Texas.)

        2. There are drivers who pick up good money at truck stops parking and backing up trucks that some of the newer drivers can not do for themselves.

          That actually surprises me because in order to get a CDL (which I have) you have to “do the cones” in the yard before they even let you do a road test. Back into an alley dock, parallel park with 10 feet to spare, and something else. Without hitting the cones.

          This requires far more skill than anything I have ever seen at any truck stop I’ve ever been to which makes me wonder *how* these people are getting their licenses, if this is actually true. I’ve seen inexperienced/incompetent drivers, yes, but they are more likely to take down a telephone pole or snag a car in the back axle while changing lanes.

          Fraud comes to mind…

        3. “If BLM can block Interstate by standing in the street how effective do you thing 100 big rigs blocking interstate would, not to mention main roads in DC.”

          They wouldn’t even have to block them — DC was built so that an invading army couldn’t fire a cannon down a straight street and hit the Capitol — that’s why there are all those circles. A trailer is either 40′ or 53′ long and doesn’t bend — and all 8 rear tires fight each other as you turn because they are going different distances (the dual axles really fight each other).

          All they’d have to do is try to safely drive through town in any significant numbers to totally f**k things up. Or to carefully observe the 55 MPH speed limit (which it is down there), going 50 MPH so as not to violate it. And just go round and round the beltway all day — that’d f**k things up as well.

          And a lot of 4-lane streets with parking really aren’t wide enough for an 8′ wide truck to fit, let alone safely (an interstate lane is 12′) so the truck would have no choice to take both lanes, precluding passing…

      4. What makes you think they *care* if he is an immoral, narcissistic, unethical, misogynistic, racist, barely literate, vulgar, divisive, bullying, incompetent, feckless, tax-cheating, science-denying, lying grifter?

        If their lawyer is an effective advocate for them, they don’t care if he/she/it is one, and why is this any different? They’re not marrying him, nor are their children marrying him — they’re asking him to advocate for them and he’s done a pretty good job at it.

  8. I agree with Ilya, I really want this to happen as long as the Democrats really own this one. Be smug as possible, no apologies. Really rub it in.. Its the rightest as in most correct most obvious thing to do after all. Well what are you waiting for lets do this.

    1. At least it will give the GOP the enema it needs and we will be rid of the RINOs – any of them who support this will be primaried and if that doesn’t work, we’ll vote for the Dem instead.

      1. No principles expect fealty to Trump. This is what they are.

  9. Nothing says “I’m being neutral and dispassionate”, like viewing a lack of due process as a good thing. Somin has been blinded by his hatred for our President for over four years, and is terrified of having to let it go in just eleven days. Imagine his having to go back to trying to think clearly. The poor guy.

    1. I can say the same thing about Trumpistas lamenting a lack of due process as I said above about them lamenting division.

      1. There’ll be room in the C-130 for you as well.

        1. You’re a crazy, extremist conspiracy theorist. You’re a Trumpista (but I repeat myself).

    2. How will they continue to justify their rage and wrath two weeks from now?

      Maybe that’s why they want to continue to escalate things. If there are more incidents, they can keep the fires of rage and hatred going.

      1. “How will they continue to justify their rage and wrath two weeks from now?”

        Trumpista decries rage and wrath, now chief suspect in death of his sense of self-awareness.

        1. Queen Amalthea : Trumpista decries rage and wrath, now chief suspect in death of his sense of self-awareness.

          Speaking of which, did you see the recent thread where Dr. Ed piously cries out against being “petty and vindictive”. Apparently these traits are very bad in a Democrat, but less so when they’re the emotional & ethical core of his day-glo orange deity…..

          1. They are bad (and unwise) in a victor.

    3. Just think, if nothing had changed except Trump had been an openboarders zealot and a less illegal friendly president was coming in. Somin would be right there on capitol hill at the front of the crowd swinging a katana at the doors of congress.

    4. Where exactly is the lack of due process? You could present the evidence against Trump in half a day. And then he can have a day or two to present any counter-evidence or other defense he wants. He can even testify, and be subject to cross-examination.

      Do you think due process means you have to have months and months of legal wrangling?

      (That said, my view as I have expressed it here is that it is not going to happen, period.)

      1. So, due process doesn’t involve discovery, or time to locate witnesses?

        1. Discovery in criminal cases is very limited today, and did not even exist until the 20th century.

          Finding witnesses might or might not be necessary. First come up with a name or at least an identity, and then we can decide if you need time to track them down and subpoena them.

          In this case, Trump’s own words, and the resulting actions, are what convict him. You can play the tape on both. What witness, other than himself, do you think Trump would need or want to call?

          1. Let’s start with Kamela Harris and ask her about what she said to the BLM folk….

  10. I’m confused by the push for impeachment here.

    Trump will be gone in 11 days.

    What’s the point? Unless you want to give President Pence an opportunity to give Trump a full Pardon. Which he would do

    1. You can’t pardon an impeachment.

      1. No, but if Trump is removed, Pence can pardon him, and he couldn’t be prosecuted after Jan. 20. Of course, Trump could invoke the 25th Amendment and give Pence the opportunity to pardon him, and the un-invoke it.

        This assumes that Trump can’t pardon himself, however.

        1. After what Trump has done to Pence, why would Pence pardon Trump?

          Remember, most Americans are not Trump suckers.

          1. Pence has class.

      2. So?
        Trump could pardon himself of anything except the impeachment, and the Senate can’t do anything but remove and block him from holding office.

      3. No need for a pardon anyway, none of Trump’s comments rice to the level of true threats or imminent incitement.

        Unless of course you have a direct quote you can share you to think is criminal.

  11. One wonders what 1860 felt like. Now we know.

    Not everything that CAN be done should be done. Are you working for peace, or are you just fighting a war using words instead of bullets?

    1. Where was this message from Trumpistas before Wednesday evening? We all know, it was non-existent. They were reveling in his over the top divisive language. Now it’s blown up they are suing ‘peace, peace,’ but of course they don’t believe in it. They never have.

      I’m not for impeachment. I think if they want to do something, censure the guy, then he’s gone. But anyone who was marching behind Trump’s divisive efforts all this time who *know* starts talking about the need to bring people together, not fan the flames of enmity, etc., is full of bullshit, and obviously, transparently so.

      1. But anyone who was marching behind Trump’s divisive efforts all this time who *now* starts talking about the need to bring people together, not fan the flames of enmity, etc., is full of bullshit, and obviously, transparently so.

        1. (we need an edit function)

        2. No, we are calling out the Thief in Chief for his hypocrisy.

          And some of us are rather shocked at the extent of what happened because we’d never do it. Stand outside and scream “You Suck” — in a heartbeat. Go in and vandalize a building or put people in fear of their lives — any building and any people — never.

          And I still think this was Reichstag Fire Part Deux — that this was permitted to happen.

      2. Well, not being a “Trumpista” (presumably that’s a Trump enthusiast?), I don’t know whether people who previously wanted to burn the place down are now calling for peace. I only know my own mind on the matter.

        1. The only things I saw burning were buildings and cop cars Democrat rioters set ablaze.

          1. Isn’t it interesting that they got the only person with gasoline OUTSIDE the building before he could do any damage. Fortunate, but also interesting…

            You’d have thought the cops could have been as intrepid last summer…

  12. Trump defiantly needs to be impeached. I am disappointed that the House did not vote to impeach already. This is not the time to sit on a draft over the weekend and maybe vote on Wednesday.

  13. He should be removed a.s.a.p.

    However it won’t happen due to Republican mendacity. As former Senator Flake pointed out today on NPR, the Senate doesn’t reconvene until Jan. 19, unless it has an emergency session, which requires unanimous consent, which will not happen.

    1. Guess you’ll have to get your entertainment some other way.

      1. Kicking bigoted clingers around is always fun. I just set up a set of mint ‘60s Slingerlands.

        I should be fine for entertainment until the reckoning — and the real fun, at least for our society’s winners — begins in a couple of weeks.

      2. Ben_ : Guess you’ll have to get your entertainment some other way.

        Kinda rich coming from a Trump supporter. WWE-style entertainment was all he ever had to sell. Remove the carnival barker shill & brat-child theatrics and Trump is just an empty shell.

  14. I fear that Dr. Ed 2 is right … the country is currently on the verge of civil war.

    It’s time for the impeachment warriors to think about whether they love this country more than they hate Trump.

    1. If the country is near civil war it is due at the very least (and this is to be charitable) to Trump himself, his egomania, his extremist hyperbole, his constant partisan divisiveness, and all those made most manifest in his doomed to failure months long effort to stoke a silly conspiracy theory(ies) using almost cartoonishly crude actors and methods that worked his followers to a frothy nuttiness. Anyone who supported that who *now* starts talking about the importance of healing, unity, non-divisiveness, etc., is palpably in bad faith.

      1. @Queen I understand your choice. I hope others make a different one.

        1. Except the country isn’t within a million miles of civil war (except in Dr. Ed’s masturbatory fantasies). If another Right-type piously sighs about the risk of civil war, I swear my head will explode over the pathetic dumbass stupidity of it all.

          Particularly because this piety often (barely) conceals pride by said Right-type over his army of well-armed keyboard warriors, prepared to rise-up from their mother’s basement and overthrow the Deep State (maybe capturing that basement at Comet Pizza while they’re at it). I’m sure General Ed will be at the head of this mighty hoard.

          So, repeat after me : No. Civil. War.

          If you want a worst case, there might be a few instances of terrorism; that threat has always been greatest from the Right. Having grown up in the ’60s, I can assure you this country has survived more difficult times than anything a huckster buffoon like Trump can cause.

          1. @grb I’m glad your crystal ball is working these days. And, just because I’d like to see you put your money where your mouth is: “risk of civil war”.

          2. The difference between now and the 1960s is that everyone over the age of 40 was either a WW-II veteran or personally knew someone who was. They’d seen war and didn’t want to see another one.

            That’s not true today…

      2. Objective research showed — PRE-Trump — that we were more divided now than at any time since 1860.

        4 years of attacks on him only exacerbated things further…

    2. They have hated the country for years — it is what they want!

  15. The Conspiracy’s lone libertarian speaks.

    And speaks well.

    Thank you.

  16. Real Americans don’t give a shit about what “legal scholars” think, especially commies like you who who want to flood America with tens of millions of illiterate third worlders.

  17. The real case for impeachment is to smear Trump in the history books forever, by making official the slander that he was not in fact cheated and/or that his challenges were given fair hearing in the courts. This would no doubt be followed by other Orwellian measures to punish those who disagree with that false narrative.

    Do you really want to make an armed revolt by Trump, followed by a dictatorship, both rightful and necessary? Impeachment would do it.

    1. Rightful? Seriously. Congress is totally within their rights to impeach him, should they choose.

      It’s not gonna happen for reasons explained by Bored Lawyer below, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that would make a revolt rightful.

      1. They won’t be asking you

        1. You seem to have clicked on the reply button, but do you actually imagine your comment is a reply to anything he said?

          1. The part about whether it’s “rightful”. Bystanders’ or objectors’ opinions of what’s “rightful” do not decide what others do.

            It’s the same mistake BoredLawyer makes below: arguing against the wind. Things happen regardless of your agreement.

            1. He is singling out jdgalt’s use of the word “rightful” to make the point that there is no rational justification for armed revolt. He also seems to agree with Bored that it won’t happen, but not because of its lack of “rightfulness.” I think you are confusing two different arguments. I agree with you that “things happen regardless of your agreement,” but that doesn’t mean they are rightful.

      2. When, in the course of human events …

      3. “nothing, absolutely nothing, that would make a revolt rightful.

        Unless it was successful, at which point it would declare itself rightful.

        Political Science 101….

        1. The chance of a revolt being successful is about the same as the chance of you posting something intelligent — vanishingly small.

      4. ANY successful revolt is defined as right.

  18. Impeaching Trump might be the right thing to do… but it’s asinine, Trump’s supporters believe he won, they believe he is a man of character, they are wrong, but they are reactionary and well armed. Everything the left is doing now is stupid, martyring him, driving them to irrational action. Jesus.

    1. One of you is still sane. Congrats.

      If things keep escalating, you can blame the “reactionary” if you want. But you have noticed who is “driving”. They could stop any time. But they’ve been at it since 2016 and forgot sane behavior long ago.

    2. I believe very few politicians are “men of character”, (Rand Paul seems to be.) and that Trump lost.

      I also believe the election last year was an utter dumpster fire, with so many irregularities anybody who wants to think it was stolen won’t lack for justification, and that what is going on here is an effort to make looking into any of those irregularities impossible.

      Which does not bode well for the regularity of future elections.

  19. This website is devolving to childish shouting matches. It’s getting to the point that it is not worth having a serious discussion of the legal issues raised here.

    So let me make on political point. The number 70 millions keeps getting thrown about, as though all of them are devoted Trump followers. There are many people who voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, and/or because they rejected the leftist agenda that has taken over the Democratic party, and the use of a half-senile, demented weather vane as the presidential candidate. IOW, they held their noses and voted for Trump.

    Trump’s behavior since the election, and especially in the last week or so, has completely turned them off. Trump acted like a third world thug, and deserves to be humilated, if not jailed.

    If anyone thinks those people are going to join in a civil war on Trump’s side, they are badly mistaken. He would be lucky to get a small percentage of his voters to do that. Not that even a few people cannot cause a great deal of mischief (look at what 20 terrorists did on 9/11), but the notion that they are going to split the country is as delulsional as the notion that Trump won the election.

    As I said before in the prior thread, in a Constitutional Republic, the Consitution is king. In Great Britain, government officers swear allegiance to the monarch. In the United States, they swear allegiance to the Constitution.

    Trump tried to kill the king this past week. He failed. You know the old adage. He must now be made to suffer. I doubt that impeachment can be arranged in time in a way that will satisfy the Constituion and legitimacy, but I will not be sorry if it happens.

    1. You think wars only happen when you agree with the reasons for them.

      People who will double down and impeach in the last 10 days will double down on oppression over and over.

      Maybe war doesn’t start the first time you double down. But you have shown you can’t step back and make a sane choice.

      1. I don’t think Trump fans are smart enough to pull off anything more complicated than a ‘rasslin match, a rattlesnake-juggling exhibition, or a faith-healing session.

    2. I suggest you review the history of the Russian revolution of 1917. You don’t need half the country to start a revolution … just a committed core.

      1. Not to mention that the left’s response will be against ALL conservatives, including those that, to use Bored Lawyer’s words, “were completely turned off” by Trump.

        That’ll bring in people to the cause who couldn’t care less about, or even despise, Trump.

    3. I did not vote for Trump the first time and only voted for him the 2nd time because he was indeed “the only middle finger available.” I am not “pro-Trump,” but pro-constitution, America and ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

      I hate war — but I could see viewing this action as an act of war.


      1. Wow. Someone who actually admits he voted for a huckster buffoon because Trump’s brat-child theatrics were a “middle-finger” to someone or something (undefined). That’s always been obvious for any other substantive alternative, but it’s nice to see this casually admitted.

        Equally impressive is the pretzel logic than transubstantiates WWE-style entertainment into “pro-constitution”, but I’ll leave that to DWB and his conscience. No doubt he relies on the same magic thinking to decide the election was “rigged”, or an impeachment proceeding is an “act of war”…..

        1. The evil of you leftists/Democrats is QUITE defined, from the killing of babies to the lustful desire to manage even the most mundane acts of life, the violence done to the constitution has reached the point where Democrats are a threat to the very freedom we sadly seem to be abandoning. Sadly I feel there is no reasoning anymore, just a descent into dissolution of the country.

          If you think that Biden was anything but a middle finger to the other half of the country you are a bigger fool than you appear (a possibility I am sure.)

          Perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on how you could be a bigger threat that Trump?????

          1. How big a fool I am you’re welcome to decide, but first you need correction : Biden is not a “middle finger to the other half of the country”.

            Now I admit there are people who will take his very existence that way. Today’s Right is a generator for producing Victimhood; sometimes its adherents seem like butthurt snowflake whiny drama-queens to a man (or woman). But there’s one distinction you’re missing :

            Biden’s presidency will not be devoted exclusively to trolling. Biden didn’t sell himself on the campaign trail as troll entertainment. People didn’t vote for Biden like you voted for Trump, as someone who’ll provide yuks by “owning” the other side.

            I didn’t think much about G.W.B’s presidency, but I never thought he was a “middle finger to the other half of the country”. If there”s a non-snowflake Right left, I suspect they’ll come to the same conclusion about Biden. Maybe you should join’em……

    4. The American Revolution was won with — maybe — the support of a third of the people. And in spite of opposition from another third…

      1. A month from now – a year from now – four years from now, and there will be no civil war. What will you do? Cry yourself to sleep every night?

        1. He’s got a woody for a civil war that just ain’t gonna happen. Not enough people are worked up about it to have one.

        2. Thank the Lord there wasn’t.

  20. McConnell has claimed that bringing the Senate back for the impeachment trial would require unanimous consent. Is that true, and if so could a majority in the Senate have stopped the recess on Wednesday?

  21. Never has the gentry class across the political spectrum been so unified in despising one man, which likely endears him all the more to the working class.

    There is zero chance of a 2/3 vote in the Senate, so it would be a colossal waste of time. But, beyond that, the only reason to disqualify Trump from future office (the only real consequence the Senate could impose) is fear that he could actually win election to future office. But how could that be? Surely, a man so universally reviled (as the chattering classes constantly assure us that he is) possibly win election? It is an exercise in the nobility informing the peasantry, “You’ve had your fun, but it’s over. You are free to choose a Bush or a Romney, but there are some choices you are simply not allowed.”

    Democracy, indeed.

    1. “Surely, a man so universally reviled (as the chattering classes constantly assure us that he is) possibly win election?”

      That kind of depends on exactly how bad the Biden administration is, now, doesn’t it? If Biden governs the whole four years as an uneventful, centrist Democrat, and vetoes anything really over the top Congress sends him, Trump would have no chance in 2024, especially given that the media censorship we’re seeing now is only going to get more comprehensive and sophisticated.

      If in early February he announces that, sorry, he actually IS developing dementia, and resigns in Harris’ favor, and the Democrats go nuts with her enabling it? Trump could win, especially if he spent the next few years building alternative media the left can’t censor. (Notice they’re now attempting to shut down Parler because it wouldn’t join Twitter’s censorship campaign.)

      Intermediate scenarios are far more likely, and Trump’s odds under them less clear.

      1. Brett Bellmore : “If in early February he announces that, sorry, he actually IS developing dementia…. (etc)”

        The quality of your fantasies are deteriorating, Brett. That wouldn’t suggest a larger problem if they were kept private (where sordid & ludicrous daydreams usually reside) but you keep dragging them out in the open. This seem to be a Trump-induced mental illness spreading in the cult – something like a mini-pandemic all its own. Up&down these comments are people claiming the election was stolen (pathetic fantasy), that civil war is eminent (pathetic fantasy), and every kind of nonsense possible about Biden and the Democrats (pathetic fantasies all).

        I guess it’s to be expected in the end. Having raised a pathological liar to cult-status, why should the real world have any hold on you?

  22. I suspect this won’t be popular here, but the 2020 Presidential Election stinks. If the Democrat victory was legitimate, the Democrat Party and the Political Elite of the country have done their level best to make it look like it wasn’t. The number and character of the statistical anomalies involved in Biden’s coming from behind in a handful of crucial states makes a strong case for suspecting fraud. The Democrat Party’s decades-long determination to oppose anti-fraud measures, including refusing to obey existing law regarding the clearing of voter rolls, looks as bad as can be imagined.

    Yes, there are a lot of people who firmly believe that the election was stolen. Impeaching, or attempting to impeach, Trump will inflame them. And, ultimately, the charge against Trump is that he wouldn’t be a Good Republican and roll over and wave his paws in the air.

    The Fascist Left seriously does NOT want to go there. Why Fascist? Because four years of thirds-rate imitation Brownshirts in the streets, escalating to the widespread destruction of the last year is frankly Fascist at its core. A Progressive is a Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist. There may be minor differences in litanies and uniforms, but the motives (authoritarianism) and results are dismally similar.

    I am disgusted with the Left; if they had had the sense to realize that the voters always eventually tire of King Stork and vote for King Log (or vice versa) they could have rode out Trump’s Cult of Personality and returned to power without the mess that is coming.

    Impeach Trump and/or suppress the people who think, with some reason, that Biden’s victory is as phony as a three dollar bill, and I suspect what we ill see is ugly proof of the fundamental truth of a throwaway line from a rather silly movie (REVENGE OF THE NERDS), “We have news for the Beautiful People; there’s a lot more of us than there are of you.”

    Take the victory. Pursue your agenda. Be goddamned scrupulous about the 2022 and 2024v elections. MAYBE we can get through this without it devolving into Woke vs Deplorable.

    You’d better hope we can. The Deplorables target shoot for fun, and they have more guns than the military and the rest of the Federal Government combined.

    1. C. S. P. Schofield : “A Progressive is a Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist”

      Why chose this from your gibberish screed? Simply this : I’m going thru one of my spells where I reread Nero Wolfe, mysteries being my genre reading of choice. Their author, Rex Stout, once said this to House Committee on Un-American Activities chairman, Rep. Martin Dies :

      “I hate Communists as much as you do, Martin, but there’s one difference between us. I know what a Communist is and you don’t.”

      No doubt true. No doubt Dies was an ignorant man. No doubt you’re more ignorant still, C.S.P.S.

  23. The Bulwark? Are you FUCKING kidding me????

    Ilya … you are a dumbass.

  24. I see Volokh Conspiracy is upsetting the idiot Trumpists who infest the comments sections.

    Impeach the fucker, and anyone who doesn’t vote for impeachment and conviction should be marked as a traitor to America.

    1. What’s your plan for after that? Murder 70 million Americans?

      1. No plan after that, you move on. The Trump loyalists will be all pissy and maybe commit some crimes, but that is it.

        1. No one will be asking you. You have no idea how it would go.

          And anyone willing to impeach now will do something equally insane or even more insane next month and the month after.

          Read the comment from the Union Thug below about how people see a future with no hope of peace.

          1. Trumpers need to leave fantasy land and acknowledge that Trump lost fair and square.

            1. Why? What’s the reward for doing what you ask?

              Romney was the biggest get-along Republican ever and got “put you back in chains”. McCain was the Dem’s and news media’s favorite Republican and was slandered by The NY Times as having an affair with a lobbyist.

              Do what libs want: get treated badly anyway

              1. You don’t get a reward for living in reality, you utter child.

              2. The reward is that the Trumpers stop looking like the gullible buffoons that they are.

              3. You are going to do what the liberal-libertarian mainstream wants regardless of whether you like it, regardless of whether you want it, regardless of whether you understand it, regardless of whether you accept it.

                Do yourself a favor and accept it.

  25. The Bulwark would welcome Ilya and most of the staff writers from Reason. Volokh is ruining his sound reputation by consorting with them

  26. Many of the comments from the trumpers here read “if you try to punish trump for leading an insurrection, we will start a civil war.”

    They want us to allow insurrection to go unpunished and hope that the trump family and their followers behave differently in future elections. That sounds pretty naive.

    The better option for those who are opposed to insurrection may be to try to kill it in the cradle. If the threat is that the trumpers will spill blood, better to have this fight while they are out of power.

    1. “Many of the comments from the trumpers here read “if you try to punish trump for leading an insurrection, we will start a civil war.””

      No, many of the TDS sufferers here are reading that, but nobody is writing that.

      You just can’t get past this literally insane assumption that everybody who claims to be disagreeing with you actually agrees with your interpretation of last week’s events, and is expressing approval of what YOU think they were.

      This is no different from, if somebody says, “Zimmerman engaged in fully justified self defense.” you say, “Brett said he approves of racially motivated murder.” Or somebody says, “I don’t believe global warming is a serious problem.” and you say, “Ed said he wants the oceans to boil.”

      You need to get over this ludicrous assumption that everybody secretly agrees with your views.

  27. When “prominent legal scholars agree,” time for the real lawyers who live in the real world to step in. This is not law review time. Trump talks, yahoos act, and it’s impeachment time???

  28. Lets point out that all civil wars have a few common traits. They have defined and serious issues that they need resolved, and defined goals (commonly a new government). They also have to have support from very powerful and influential people. These Trampers have none of that. If they try anything they will just riot and be hooligans, and then inmates.

    1. Also this talk proves just how traitors they really are.

      1. Also, no one gives a shit about being name-called by leftists any more. Just so you know.

        1. This is likely the truest comment here.

          I’ve read Molly refer to “Trump supporters” in disparaging terms in at least three or for different topics now.

          At some point, you just learn to skip that person’s posts and stop intersecting with them, kinda like I do Tony’s posts. Eventually, that person ends up interacting with only other like-minded individuals, thus creating an echo chamber.

        2. “Also, no one gives a shit about being name-called by leftists any more. Just so you know.”

          You get to talk all you want, Ben. Mutter and sputter. Rail and flail. Whine and whimper. Rant and bluster.

          But you will comply, clinger. Your betters will see to it. Bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and backwardness do not win in America.

      2. How can one be a traitor when our government was founded by slave owning white people? At least that was the tune the left was singing up until the current “we love america” number….

    2. The next insane thing you do next month might be the one that supplies the key missing item.

    3. In this case, we’ve got a very serious and defined issue: Massive and rapidly spreading media censorship.

      It was bad enough last year, but in the last few days the extent of it has increased exponentially.

    4. Oh, really?
      How about the Soccer War?

  29. Of course those who are motivated by rabid hatred of Trump justify their belief with the false notion they are saving democracy but have absolutely no clue that they are perpetuating the undoing of our Republic.

  30. “In a case where the facts are clear and indisputable, like this one,”

    I’m disappointed that Ilya, along with so many others, are ready to just adopt the Democrat’s and the Media’s talking points here, with no skepticism and no critical thought on the matter.

    I would’ve hoped more people, of whatever political persuasion, would be resistant to the rush to execute instant judgement on their political enemies.

    Having a different opinion about elections and fraud, even if an incorrect opinion, isn’t an impeachable offense. Holding a rally isn’t an impeachable offense. There’s no actual evidence that Trump would’ve wanted anyone to enter the capitol, let alone violate any laws while inside. Certainly in all of his remarks he never told/requested/implied anyone should.

    The main illegalities were the actions of a tiny minority. Maybe a couple of dozen at most. A few hundred more at most wandered around the open capitol and gawked at things and took selfies.

    Tens of thousands of people who listened to Trump, including Trump himself, did none of that. They staged a peaceful demonstration.

    1. Recklessness still counts. Trump and Cruz and the like have been gleefully lighting matches for a while, they are now responsible for the fire.

      Asking for a wild protests, telling them they were being robbed at the Capitol, and then telling them to go to the Capitol is a thing that speaks for itself unless you are being willfully blind.

      If you will note it is that violent minority who have been charged.

      1. Making liberals feel bad. Being orange. Not agreeing with CNN.

      2. Because the media spent all summer fomenting hatred and violence by baiting the BLM people. Funny how no one called that “reckless” when they were stoking a race war.

      3. Assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is now “gleefully lighting matches?” That this comes from the guy who never saw a looter or an arsonist all last summer is rich.

  31. We are not in the brink of anything scepter the VC becoming useless to comment on.

    “appease the right or else the country gets it!” is an argument not to actually appease them, but to ignore their threats, lest they think violence is a viable way to get what they want,

    Some of you have no limits to what you will defend,

    1. Due process is appeasement? Not censoring people is appeasement? Or is it not murdering people that’s appeasement? Be specific on what you think is appeasement.

      Who else should just quietly accept whatever evil treatment they receive? Anyone with less than 50% of the vote?

      I don’t see any limit on what leftists will do. A couple are openly pushing for war — the war the me and the other non-leftists keep trying to argue against. But they are just your Good Leftist cohort, right?

      1. The appeasement is everything you said. It’s doing whatever you are insisting on via intimations of further violence.

        You have shown yourself as part of the Ed brigade. So much for you. Next time try and be convincing rather than Internet tough guy bloody nonsense.

        1. Not murdering people is appeasement then. You must be one of The Good Guys

          1. I’m not saying do the opposite of what you say, just ignore you. You don’t get a seat at the big boy’s table where policy is discussed until you manage to make a cogent argument that ‘Give me what I want if you want the country to live.’

        2. Perhaps as many as a tenth of a percent, but more like a fiftieth of a percent, of the crowd broke the law after this speech, and it was “incitement”?

          And look at the virtually instantaneous and over the top reaction. Multiple figures attacking Trump with the same language at the same time, classic Journolist style. Widespread and aggressive media censorship and deplatforming. Multiple supposedly independent companies conspiring to destroy Parler for the sin of not joining their censorship campaign.

          I’m finding it really hard to see everything moving this fast if it wasn’t organized in advance. More and more I’m thinking what happened Wednesday was a Reichstag fire, and Trump wasn’t the guy who lit it.

          1. Incitement doesn’t need to be 100% to be incitement.

            This was an assault on our country with the purpose of overturning our government. People died for this.

            You don’t care, just going down secret agenda rabbit holes.

            You’re not threatening violence like Ben and Ed, but your paranoia is not a lot better.

            Reichstag fire
            Dude, the right wing chuckleheads livestreamed it. Go to QAnon, it seems you don’t prefer reality.

            1. “Incitement doesn’t need to be 100% to be incitement.”

              That’s just an excuse to call any political speech you don’t like “incitement” if there’s a crime anywhere near it.

              Try applying the same standard to Democrats’ speech around the riots last year, and see if you like the implications.

          2. “More and more I’m thinking what happened Wednesday was a Reichstag fire, and Trump wasn’t the guy who lit it.”


            Chemical haze.



            Some may quarrel with my tone, but that just political correctness. Appeasing these yahoos — by refraining from describing them in plain language — is immoral and counterproductive.

      2. Ben_ the due process was done with after the recounts, and long before the last of the court decisions. The ultimate authority on the outcome of the election had long-since spoken, with its votes.

        The only process due in an election is to announce accurately the outcome decreed by the sovereign People. That ends the election.

        Once sufficient process makes clear what the People actually decreed, continuing to dispute the result becomes sedition. A sovereign jealous of its power ought to counter violent sedition with overwhelming force, lest its very sovereignty be put at risk. The murderous seditionists at the Capitol have thus far been treated with more leniency than they deserve, and likely with more leniency than will prove wise.

  32. Michael Stokes Paulsen, with whom I usually agree, has gone off the deep end. If he had read the transcript of Trump’s statement, he wouldn’t have accused Trump of trying to get Raffensberger to find votes. Paulsen is either a careless reader, a toady to the establishment, or senile.

    1. Dude literally said find votes.

      1. Here’s the transcript:

        Crtl-f for “find”, read every paragraph in which it appears, and tell me that you honestly think that he was asking Raffensberger to manufacture Trump votes. If you can say yes, then this country is doomed because we would live in two alternative universes that partially intersect in some sort of bizarre spatial geometry that physicists won’t understand for thousands of years. Trump is plainly asking Raffensberger to “find” actually fraudulent or illegal votes, not manufacture Trump votes. That’s a dumb request to be making now, but it’s plainly what he’s requesting.

        1. By asking for a specific number of votes it is clear that he wanted them to be illegally found. But take one step back and realize that an election official going out for the expressed purpose to locate votes for a specific candidate is in itself illegal.

          1. No that isn’t clear. He listed all the areas where he thought fraudulent votes were cast and he concluded that it was several hundred thousand. Saying that he only needed a fraction of those was simply stating the obvious. Now it doesn’t matter whether he was correct about the votes or not; he believes that so he wasn’t trying to get them to be “illegally found.”

            1. donojack, on the basis of reasoning approximating what you offer in your comment, thousands of Trump supporters now tend toward a dispute of the election result by a test of arms. If they do that, it will matter a great deal whether Trump was, “correct about the votes.”

              Alas, even Trump’s supporters mostly think they are campaigning for a chance to find proof they don’t yet have. How many of them understand the implications?

              It means that without even knowing whether they have a just cause, they are arming themselves against a sovereign’s decree. The election result is nothing less than that. It means armed seditionists ought to expect to be slaughtered without mercy, lest a sovereign jealous of its power see it called into question by indulgence of a rival claimant to sovereignty.

              Trump’s refusal to end his election dispute opens a test of sovereignty by force, and thus recklessly casts history’s most dangerous die. Hapless Trump supporters like Ashli Babbit—who are comprehensive innocents, innocents in both the pejorative and the approbatory senses of that word—should not be invited to gamble for ultimate stakes in a game they don’t understand.

              It is not merely foolish and unwise, but also reckless and cruel, to encourage continuation of Trump’s folly at such grave risk. You should withdraw your support.

          2. Hallucinations do tend to be clear. Look, just because if Trump makes a random noise, you clearly hear him saying something evil, doesn’t mean we all suffer from that problem.

            Did you actually read the call? Trump wasn’t asking Rassenberger to find the votes. He was asking Rassenberger to permit his people access to data that would let them identify problems they suspected, that if resolved would yield the votes.

            1. Trump did specifically ask the SoS to find votes, many times. And a candidate can not at all be allowed to have his people access the data. If Trump was calling for a joint committee between his campaign and the Biden campaign, then maybe, but that was not what he was asking. Trump was clearly and without any doubt asking for a retroactive rigging of the vote. And also lets note that no one at all would accept the new certification if it happened. The SoS comes out with just enough new votes to give Trump a win the day after Trump calls him? Hell no.

            2. if Trump makes a random noise, you clearly hear him saying something evil, doesn’t mean we all suffer from that problem.

              You suffer from an unwillingness to believe Trump could do anything wrong, no matter how obvious.

              The call was a mix of insane psychotic babble about hundreds of thousands of votes and Dominion and whatnot, threats of criminal action against Raffensperger, and requests to “recalculate.”

              Trump actually claimed he was sure he’d won by hundreds of thousands of votes because of the size of the rallies. If you need evidence that the man is mentally ill it’s right there in the transcript.

      2. Dude literally said that HE needed to find votes.

    2. “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” – Trump

      1. Yes, he identified how many votes he needed to find. Now you show where he ordered Raffensberger to find them whether or not they really existed. All he asked Raff for was access so HE could find them!

        1. It would be highly illegal for an election official to give one candidate preferential treatment to rummage though election records. There is zero way one can spin this that looks anything by horrible for Trump.

          1. OK, now point out where he asked for exclusive access.

            The problem I’ve been having with people in the left, and for years, is that they’re never content to read, they always have to read into.

            1. It was a non-public phone call that the President intended to be confidential. Had he wanted the Biden team to also have access then they would have been invited to join the call.

    3. Later in the call he repeated it (truncated to 11,000) and acted as if they were borderline handicapped if they couldn’t do something so easy.

  33. I am so goddamn sick and tired of this kind of fucking overkill that I could just puke. This is what law looks like these days? Executing someone who’s already on a ventilator? Have you assholes no sense of what you’re doing to what used to be the body politic?

    1. Sarcastro is so concerned now with the match throwing…

      Will he be surprised if there is an actual insurrection because of all the match throwing that the left is doing?

      1. Punishing the match throwers is not throwing matches.

        As I said to Ben, you don’t get a say in what happens if your argument is ‘do what I want or there will be an insurrection.’ You have the right to say that, but no one will listen to you or appease your dumbass tantrum.

        So go ahead and continue to soil yourself; no one is coming to clean you up.

  34. Maybe some of these new found law and order types will begin advocating for arresting and prosecuting all the people who were documented destroying public property, looting, and a host of other violent crimes….

  35. Thanks for the pointers for January, 2023. See you then, elitist Knownothing.

  36. Y’all hate Trump to the point you can’t think.

    1. Y’all are worthless bigots who operate at our mercy.

      1. Goddamn, Art, you just hate the fucking Constitution don’t you? All of this “you will do what we allow” bullshit. You’re more authoritarian than Trump.

        1. America has rules. The liberal-libertarian mainstream identifies them.

  37. A little historical perspective may be in order. Last December and January Trump was the odds on favorite to win reelection. The economy was doing great. Trump endlessly pointed out that minority employment was better than it had ever been. Lots of economic indicators like home ownership, small business success, and more were at record levels. The dems seemed to be on course to nominate Sanders and the Squad was getting all the headlines which the majority of voters disagreed with. Then Covid hit and once again the dems cut Sanders off at the knees and some how was selected by the powers that be even though he was out of it at times.

    The spaghetti hit the fan when COVID-19 raised it’s ugly head. No one really knew how to handle it and it seemed like every day the experts were changing their advice; not to mention China was doing all it could to conceal what was happening there. As time passed the shutdowns (which likely reduced the spread of COVID-19) brought the economy to it’s knees and worse. This combined with massive hits from the MSM on Trump the race started to tighten. The failure of the MSM to even acknowledge Hunter Biden was a sleeze ball with questionable finances (it later came out he was then and currently is being investigated for money laundering) made Trump’s complaining about it look petty. Things for Trump only got worse from there.

    This is why many Trump supporters feel cheated. What looked like a sure win nine months before the election vanished due to COVID-19 which Trump had no responsibility for. While Trump may have been able to handle it better it has become obvious that with the exception of a few countries that completely barred travel into the country no country world wide has been successful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 or the hit to the economy.

    No doubt the current situation is bad but many experts think it will get worse before it gets better. There will be more COVID-19 deaths according to all the medical experts. The economy will continue to take hits and many small businesses like bars, gyms, and others are gone for good along with the jobs they provided. On the political front massive drag down knock out fights are likely. Impeachment will likely be quickly forgotten as things like packing the court and adding states are proposed. Sad to say things do not look good.

    1. I bet money with a British betting company on Trump winning re-election in the pre-Covid period, and I can promise you that he was never the “odds on favourite”. His implied probability of winning was always in the range of 40%-50%.

    2. “Sad to say things do not look good.”

      Things look great.

      Merit, equality, reason, science, transparency, justice, and education continue to become more influential in America, at the expense of unearned privilege, superstition, ignorance, bigotry, dogma, inheritance, inequity, and authoritarianism.

      Our electorate improves every day — more diverse, less bigoted, less rural, less backward, less religious — as cranky conservatives die off and are replaced by better, younger Americans. Republicans are increasingly uncompetitive in national elections.

      Our economy and cultural and research institutions are strong, resilient, and improving.

      Our can’t-keep-up backwaters are emptying. Universal health care is approaching. We will regain our standing and effectiveness in the world soon enough.

  38. Elections are not legitimate anymore. 2020 One especially. People have made it their jobs to ignore the truth and support whoever they want in the government. I have been searching for a job ever since I completed high school in order to be able to earn while going through college. If you are seeking a job today in the npower organization helped in the process for real. Job hunting is never easy

  39. Trump’s most vociferous backers are hard to follow.

    On the one hand, impeaching Trump will do nothing. The Rs won’t act in the Senate, and Trump himself will just be further enhanced in the eyes of his adoring fans. That’s what they think and say.

    On the other hand, if the Ds impeach Trump, Trump’s fans want to go to war and start killing people in revenge.

    They seem to be arguing in the alternative, as if there is some adjudicator who is bound to consider contradictory claims separately, evaluating first one, then the other. It’s as if contradiction were no part of the problem, and the only issue is to find out if one or the other claim will stick.

  40. There is nothing in this analysis that explains why an impeachment needs to be “swift”.

    The trial could take two years, and if he’s ultimately convicted, he won’t be able to hold future office.

    Trump was duly elected, and if Congress rushes to “cancel” that election, the precedent is awful.

    Trump ought to be allowed to present a defense, however weak that defense might end up being.

    1. “Trump was duly elected, and if Congress rushes to “cancel” that election, the precedent is awful.”

      I. Just. Can’t. Even.

    2. It needs to be swift, because it actually IS legally questionable whether you can impeach somebody who has already left office.

      At the very least they want to start the process before the 20th, to have at least a fig leaf for the claim they’re not impeaching a private citizen.

  41. It’s obvious from reading these various threads lately that few if any libs understand what is going on. They somehow think that this is a Trump cult and if they can effectively dispose of Trump then the movement will evaporate.

    Trump isn’t the creator of the movement but its creature. Half the country has awakened to the fact that the ruling elites despise them while happily outsourcing their jobs and importing cheap labor to replace them. Look at Arthur, the fool who just says the quiet part out loud. This arrogant, ignorant elite has treated us to endless unwinnable wars, naive and stupid deals with our enemies, and widespread influence peddling without a passing thought for the good of the country.

    Going forward we will see a populist movement in search of a party. The GOP will die. Some of the smarter members will put a finger to the wind and convert, or pretend to convert to the anti-GOPe side. Cruz has that finger in the wind now as do some others.

    Socially we will see a mass migration away from media controlled by libs; a rejection of public schools in favor of homeschooling, and not just by evangelicals anymore; strong attempts to recruit blacks and hispanics; use of Biden law against the upcoming EOs; and increasingly frequent and growing acts of civil disobedience.

    Libs are generally stupid so the backlash will continue and will increase in intensity. Good, the movement will need to see you for who you are every day: little commie bullies just like Arthur.

    1. Great summary. And these people forget that the people they despise produce nearly all of the food, all of the clean water, all of the energy, and generally keep the economy functioning. Playing with trading algorithms on Wall Street or writing code in a Facebook office in the Silicon Valley doesn’t keep food on the table or keep the electricity on.

    2. ” Libs are generally stupid ”

      Assessments about the side of Berkeley, Bryn Mawr, Bard, Harvard, Haverford, Wellesley, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mount Holyoke, Penn, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Ohio State, Occidental, Oberlin, Reed, Rutgers, Columbia, and Yale from the side of Regent, Hillsdale, Ave Maria, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, Liberty, Grove City, Biola, Calvin, Dallas, Ozarks, and Wheaton are always interesting.

  42. Thinking about it, the primary reason for swift action is the usual one whenever somebody tries to stampede you into acting instantly:

    Ilya’s afraid that if people have time to stop and think about it, they’ll decide it’s a stupid idea. He needs to get this done while the public is in a mindless panic, and they can’t maintain that for long.

    1. Yeah swift accountability is always a lie. Justice delayed is justice well thought out, as they say.

      There can be no unity until the GOP takes responsibility for what has happened.

      1. There ain’t gonna be no unity. Not politically anyway. Out in the real world where everything isn’t politics everything is still basically ok.

        95% of political types don’t want it. Most of them are too afraid to even attempt it because of their side’s lunatic fringe. Remember when Feinstein and Graham were nice to each other after the Barrett hearings?

        They’re aware that there’s a bunch of us out here that are tired of the drama and the 6th scared them, so it’ll get a little lip service for a bit.

        1. We shall see. I’m more optimistic than that. Look at the resignations; there’s a decent number of House GOP defections. They deserve a chance to vote right.

          Even if you’re right at the moment, populism is like a fever; it breaks quickly and without warning and sanity rules again. Like McCarthyism, or Huey Long.

          1. I’m rooting for you to be right, I just have a verrrrrry low opinion of our political “elites”.

            Hopefully the flirtation with progressiveness and Communism is fleeting as well. There are discussions to be had around the size of the safety net, but going anywhere near C is a deathblow to a society. The 20th century demonstrated that in spades.

      2. Justice is somewhere between a rush to railroad somebody before people can calm down, and dragging things out so the charged gets no closure.

        A week between charges and conviction is well into rush to railroad territory.

  43. While I appreciate the fact that the country is currently in the grip of a scapegoating force (one that can do some real damage to the Republic unless cooler heads start to prevail), there are are also smaller problems that could prove thorny: appropriate recusal in the Senate trial, for example. While impeachment is a political act arguably not governed by common law standards of fairness, a trial in the Senate presents a very different question. Our system is modeled on that of the UK, which is why the Representatives impeach, and the Senators sit in judgment. This divides the political force of the accusation from the common-law norms of the trial. At the deposition of Richard II, the Commons made clear that they were not party to the judgment of violation of the coronation oath and subsequent deposition, and Henry IV replied, agreeing that only the Lords and the King had the power of sitting as a court and issuing judgment.

    If the political work of impeachment were to be accomplished, under basic standards of recusal due to personal involvement in the incident, and according to either prevailing ethics or the code of judicial ethics, how many Senators could sit in judgment?

    Mr. D.

  44. A week should be enough time for the impeachment and conviction to take place. But the charge should be for treason because he tried to overthrow the duel elected government of the United States and those those who conspired with Trump should be charged with conspiracy to overthrow the duel elected government of the United States also. Since this is treason maybe the death penalty would justified.

    1. Promoting destruction of private property and killing of citizens and policemen by elected officials is treason as well (thinking of the Ferguson story and resulting riots/shooting of cops as well as this past summer)? Governments which decide not to protect citizens life, liberty are treasonous as well right (Sanctuary Cities)? Just seeing where we can go with this…might need a pretty large gallows….just saying. But by all means dump Trump..but let’s not stop there..

  45. The Republic might already have become something else before Trump. Now looking back at the last 20-30 years you can see the US leaving the track completely in foreign policy, rule of law, monetary policy, and integrity. Started back in the 30’s but accelerated a bit in the 60’s and really did when the cold war ended. the move to an empire of “democracy” ended in a guy who was pretty clueless about our Constitution and republican values. Now you want to do something? 30 Trillion or so in debt? Printing money like water, subsidizing whole “well connected sectors” and the new “equity” and “inclusion” have turned our system into what Madison feared. Impeach Trump but honestly the “democracy” mobs are now in charge…..the founders thought “elites” should be the leaders in a republic but they thought these folks would have public virtue, honesty, and a deep reverence for America. The leaders for decades are driven to settle “old world” grudges and create a new social order based on cultural marxism…

  46. Often at times I do wonder why people don’t like the truth, we all know that y’all are not happy with the result outcome of this year 2020, but it doesn’t matter who wins and who loses, all that matter is to bring back our countries hope and pride, according to I think we should all love one another despite our choices.

  47. I think that explaining something and justifying it are two different things. Airtel Recruitment

Please to post comments