Briefly Noted: The National Disgrace Of Our Politics

Yes, of course I'm referring to the latest faux impeachment. This new low in our political theater has been exacerbated by the introduction of a military occupation of our capital city into the mix of outrages to the body politic, along with the attempt to turn the the latest liberal boogey man--no less than the former president and the 75 million people who voted for him--into non-persons.

I refuse to dignify this farce by paying much attention to it--especially since it's a ploy that's once again doomed to fail. However, I would like to note two articles that strike the proper note or chord.

The first article is brief: A Monsoon of Manure. Or, if you prefer straightforward Anglo-Saxon, a blizzard of BS. The article's thesis is simple but very much to the point of the state of our public discourse:

I refuse to watch the impeachment trial as a matter of principle. To devote any attention to this charade would legitimize the corruption of our Constitution. Tuning in would be a tacit acceptance of the blizzard of BS that has buried the national discourse. At least since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, Democrats and their media allies have demanded that we view their smears and lies as high-minded pursuits of the truth. Consider:

...

When antifa thugs destroyed property, beat citizens and occupied public lands, they told us to believe that the group didn’t even exist.

... 

When they argued that “whiteness” and “white privilege” are the underlying source of America’s problems, they told us to believe they were trying to heal the nation.

When they censored allegations of the Biden family’s corruption, they told us to believe they were fighting disinformation.

When they allowed Twitter mobs to destroy people who had once said something they didn’t agree with or like, they told us to believe that they were seeking justice.

And, when they demonize and silence the tens of millions of people who oppose their quest for domination, they tell us to believe they are seeking unity.

Those are just 10 examples; there are scores of others. From their position of power in Washington, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and academia, progressives continually manufacture false narratives that insult reason and decency and demand that we accept them as virtuous.

They are a most dangerous type – unserious people who are deadly serious. I refuse to submit. 

Those are five of the ten examples. Follow the link for the others.

The second article is much longer, but is historically interesting--if the ten examples of false prog narratives weren't enough to convince you of Dem indecency. I've linked to the FR republication of the article because the formatting is easier to read: The Democrat Precedent for Impeaching Trump Comes From a Racist Senator Who Wanted to Kill All Black People. The actual history of the one instance in which the Senate claimed the authority to impeach a former office holder at once impeaches the Dems--and their "legal scholar" shills--for hypocrisy as well as for poor historical scholarship. It makes powerful reading, and there's lots more at the link.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that [Allen] Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.

...

The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racist ...

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.

...

Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to "a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro".

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.

...

Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”

...

Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.

...

That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.

...

Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.

Does it get any more indecent than this?