As expected, the Senate's attempt at a show trial has turned into a low kind of political farce, but even at that it's a failure. There's no drama and no humor, so what's the point? There's not even any real interest for armchair legal analysts. The only question that offers something remotely like suspense is whether Schumer will be able to hold the Dems together in a block. Lindsey Graham says the whole thing is an insult and that any movement is in favor of Trump.
Improbable as this may seem, it really does appear that the Dems, in their Ahab like obsession to cancel "Moby" Trump thought keeping Trump before the public eye by making fools of themselves was somehow a good idea. Mark Levin captures the spectacle exactly:
“First of all, we are watching one of the stupidest events by some of the stupidest people in American history, ...”
That seems pretty inarguable. And Levin sums up by explaining why this non-event is so lacking in interest:
“You cannot impeach a private citizen. You cannot have a trial of a private citizen. You don’t have the power to prohibit a private citizen, a former public official from running again.
“We have a rogue impeachment, a rogue House, a rogue Senate, a rogue trial, and we have an innocent man at Mar-a-Largo who deserves a hell of a lot better than this. This is a disgrace. A disgrace. That’s it.”
Where these buffoons got the notion that the great unwashed actually cares about such transparent political theater is anyone's guess. Jamie Raskin? Eric Swalwell? Get serious! Maybe they could get some interest if they brought Fang Fang on in some role.
Now, a little over a week ago Jonathan Turley--who always likes to play the straight man in these public travesties--wrote an article that's worth revisiting. Suppose that the Dems, realizing that "impeachment" is flopping, try to switch to Plan B and pull the despicable Tim Kaine's rabbit out of the un-constitutional hat: Censure and banning under the 14th Amendment.
Turley warns the Dems that this could be--try to wrap your head around this--an even bigger mistake than faux impeachment. Here's Turley's one sentence summary of the danger--which, naturally, is an opportunity for Trump:
The suggested use of the 14th Amendment raises serious constitutional concerns and could present a compelling basis for a court challenge if actually passed. Indeed, Trump could prevail in court shortly before the 2024 presidential race.
Read the whole thing if you're interested in Turley's reasoning--as usual it's pretty sound. But the real point is this: Imagine the spectacle of Trump emerging from a SCOTUS triumph that overturns such an obviously unconstitutional ploy as attempting to ban him from public life? The publicity Trump would garner would be nothing short of phenomenal.
Now, Turley, warning the Dems to steer clear of this, suggests an alternative--a simple censure vote. There are two problems with this, in my view:
1. Nobody would care.
2. By staging the offensive faux impeachment with a cast of totally deplorable persecutors, the Dems have given the GOP an opportunity to regroup and find some high ground. The result would be a predictably partisan censure, which leads back to #1.
This whole thing is just the Dems once again shooting themselves in the foot.
In the meantime the good news for the country is that Trump remains before the public eye, before the eyes of his supporters. Trump gains sympathy for this obviously fraudulent attempt at banning, conducted in a city under military occupation. This will end, and Trump will emerge--with plenty to say.
While on one hand, I love a clever turn of the phrase, such as Andrea Mitchell's lovely piece of Faulkner: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.ReplyDelete
OTOH, sometime ya gotta throw caution to the winds, eschew nuance and cleverosity, damn the torpedoes, and plow full speed ahead: "one of the stupidest events by some of the stupidest people in American history, ...”
Bravo Mark, couldn't said it better meself
By now I imagine you know that what Andrea Mitchell erroneously attributed to Faulkner was actually from Shakespeare. One would think that she, as an English Lit major, would have known that. So much for hipshooting. Ted Cruz straightened her out on the source. Incidentally, you might want to have a read here - controversy over what Admiral Farragut actually said…ReplyDelete
Right. She confused the title of Faulkner's book, which was an allusion to Macbeth. I've never had any use for Faulkner.Delete
heck, I knew it when I wrote it...just tryin' to be clever meself and assuming all would know from whence I came...so to speak.Delete
BTW, after 42 years with the military and being an avid fan of its history (to include many staff rides and lifetime membership with the old Civil War Trust, but I digress) I was familiar with the Farragut quotation "mystery" laid out by the U.S. Naval Institute...that being said, I always lean towards another famous quote from that fabulous documentary about the infamous Western gunfighter, Liberty Valance, to wit:
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"
or Andrea Mitchell...Delete
I’ve never had any use for Andrea Mitchell...Delete
Yeah, WF has been hugely touted by the literati, ever since they called his Nobel Prize dinner speech one of the very greatest.Delete
In it, he espoused that man “has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, *duty* is to write about these things.”
I’ve nowhere seen corresponding critiques of such a demand, so that it, I fear, have (implicitly) become part of the Canon. Hitler must be laughing in his grave.
Insofar as writers kowtow to such a demand, they shirk other considerations, foremost of them (to me, Orwell, etc.) liberal democracy’s dire need for whistleblowing, on Elites’ gaming of the system (vs. the general public interest).
If such whistleblowing rains on the parade of the Doctrine that “the writer’s, *duty* is to write about these things”, bring it on!
(For an example of such touting, see
I have always enjoyed those writers who used our rich language well, but we not afraid to use its simpler words when they were as fitting as something that sounded (to them) more impressive. Here’s that speech.Delete
I think Andrea Mitchell used to much Gorilla glue in her hair that day she referenced Faulkner.Delete
To correct my words above, they should beDelete
"haS,(implicitly) become part of the Canon."
Although we had the sound off during today’s broadcast of the Raskin Follies, we could see the performance. It was jarring to see Jamie the Brave wind it up looking like a performer in a Las Vegas lounge show, obviously smiling, mugging, laughing, gesticulating, playing the clown. I do not believe he can be an object of great admiration in the Senate or anywhere else.ReplyDelete
Doublethink - how it affects your lifeReplyDelete
An essay from Soviet Jewish dissident Anatoly Shcharansky about living in Soviet Russia, and the fear that everyone lived with of saying the wrong thing
"...the Soviets’ deceptive order of doublethinkers. This round-the-clock public charade defined the typical life of a loyal Soviet citizen. You knew to be politically correct in everyday life. You said and wrote and did everything you were supposed to do, while knowing it was all a lie. You only acknowledged the truth with your family and a very close circle of trusted friends."
"To keep the growing mass of doublethinkers under control, the KGB turned our daily life into a series of tests. There were constant probes, some subtle, some direct, to determine your loyalty. You had to watch your language, your gestures, your reactions, your friendships—because “they” were always watching you."
"...live without that permanent self-censorship, that constant checking of what you are going to say to make sure it’s not what you want to say. Only then do you realize what a burden you’ve been carrying, how exhausting it is to say the right thing, do the right thing, while always fighting the fear of being outed for an errant thought, a wrong reaction, an idiosyncratic impulse."
"...my father became part of a vast assembly line manufacturing the Soviet version of “fake news.” He understood that—as would be said a century later by an activist Member of the U.S. Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—more important than “being precisely, factually, and semantically correct,” he had to be “morally right”—meaning in line with the official ideology."