It seems ludicrous that in an open society, a president could be impeached and possibly removed through a process that begins with a report by a bureaucrat whose identity is never formally revealed and who is immune from examination. After all, the impeachment process is an attempt to override the decision of the electorate as to who shall be president. It should not be undertaken, and certainly not consummated, without the fullest, most open process, including the possibility of investigating the origins of the process.
But isn't that what we've learned from the entire Trump episode in our political history? Isn't characterizing ours as "an open society" precisely begging the question? Hasn't it all been an effort at suppressing facts and substituting narrative?
"After all, the impeachment process is an attempt to override the decision of the electorate as to who shall be president."ReplyDelete
It is this incorrect thinking that allows the validity of a corruption of process to gain traction. It can never be viewed as a legitimate means to, "...override the decision of the electorate ...", rather than removal for actual crimes. That thought carries the implied acknowledgement that the electorate is not truly sovereign; that the supposed foundation of the Republic is a sham.
This gives the game away for Deep Staters like Mr. Mirengoff. They truly, in their heart-of-hearts, do not believe that the People, of a right, ought to rule. The D/S is epistemologically incapable of supporting and defending the Constitution or of recognizing the essential wrong-headedness of their argument.
Great point, Tom. Framing it like that gives the game away.Delete
Of course, the SJWs have been moving heaven and earth, to replace "open" justice, with (as Kunstler puts it today) Robespierre justice: "heads we SJWs win, tails the Deplorables lose!"ReplyDelete
If there's any good news, it's that ex-Dems like Kunstler (and, somewhat, Taibbi, Dersh, etc.) are facing such music, about what monsters their erstwhile allies have become.
I suspect that much of the fate of the republic hinges, on the extent to this Walk Away movement gains more ground, wherein guys like Dersh drift further away from the SJW-dominated Dems.
A side benefit, of Horowitz/ Barr/ Durham actually lining up a big repertoire of FISA etc. busts, could be a huge boost to the Walk Away mov't, such that, if the SJWs continue to dominate the Dem party, it'll have a fraction of its former power.
Wouldn't it be cool if, instead of "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the CP-USA?, it became chic to ask, "were you ever a player in, or cheerleader for, the stupendously dishonest plot to frame this POTUS?"
One thing's for sure--nothing will be the same, and the GOPers better get ready for the new reality.Delete
I'll bet you could write a whole post on how the GOP might try to do that, and Surber's post today on P. Noonan/ M. Taibbi could get you thinking.Delete
Facts inconvenient to The Narrative will be ignored. It's all about the acquisition and control of power, by any means necessary.ReplyDelete
If a tree falls in the wood and the NYT didn't report it, did it make a sound?
A friend sent me this link. Check it out. How much is narrative, how much reality? What trees falling in the forest is the NYT failing to report on, and is its description of the tree that are falling accurate?Delete
PM is a NeverTrumper, period. He puts out a semblance of sanity, but his opinions are anti-Trump.ReplyDelete
PM coontributed to this mess he is lamenting. He gave "conservative" cover for NeverTrumpers.
Allahpundit is the same. Allahpundit, amongst others like Little Green Footballs, was part of the exposing that Dan Rather's memos about W's national guard service was fake, beyond fake, criminal in my opinion.
LGF went anti-Bush after the Iraq WMD fiasco. Allahpundit bided his time and came down, willingly by licking a used piece of bubble gum he found, with a full case of TDS.
PM is the same, but more passive aggressive.
I take P.M.s words, on "an attempt to override the decision of the electorate", to be about dissing this attempt as ludicrous.ReplyDelete
Rather, for me, he gives the game away, with such words as
"With many of Trump’s defenses crumbling as the facts roll in".... Facts, my ass!
OTOH, when he writes
"The fight by Democrats, to keep the whistleblower out of the picture, is almost certainly an attempt to short circuit this 'prosecutorial ABUSE' defense",
he (inadvertently?) backs up the point of Anonymous, that " The D/S is epistemologically incapable of supporting and defending the Constitution...." (as interpreted by the Warren Court).
I disagree. I think Tom is right. I think that when PM wrote those words "an attempt to override the decision of the electorate" that was intended as a serious characterization of what impeachment is. But it's not. I think that gives away his own NeverTrump sentiments. YMMV.Delete
I agree with you re the absurdity of the narrative that PM and McC have been pushing--that Trump may have done something wrong. In fact, PM comes right out and basically says that:
"Democrats say they can prove their case against Trump without the whistleblower’s testimony. That’s probably true."
IMO, it's because he has that idea in the back of his mind that he writes that characterization of impeachment. He's smart enough that if he thought about it a bit he'd reconsider those words.
I read and re-read that sentence several times to be sure I was giving it a fair shake context wise. Couldn't get around the fact that he wrote "the impeachment process" rather than "this impeachment process". I take the entire sentence to be generally descriptive. If not intentional then I think it at least Freudian.Delete
I'll bet Freudian, like so much of what these brats do.Delete
Their epistemological incapability, to which you refer above, goes so very well with their Post-mod hate of the White Patriarchy, and rather well with their class snobbery toward the Deplorables.
"they can prove their case against Trump without the whistleblower’s testimony."ReplyDelete
As Dersh asks, WHAT case? Show the clause, w/in the statute.
Is the D/S actually so epistemologically incapable, or are they just so desperate, that they'll risk being ever-more widely seen as grasping at laughable straws?
Tho I've personally seen (esp. in the last 10-15 years) plenty of B.S. from the Woke upper-middle class, I'm still stunned at the level of degeneracy they (esp. those in the MSM) have publicly shown these last few years, esp. on Trump/Russia.ReplyDelete
To paraphrase Churchill, never have so many hyper-privileged brats gotten so much so openly wrong (of such huge consequence), with such stupendous arrogance.