I would add that we need to see a fair trial. It doesn't matter that the outcome is already obvious. The Democrats have brought us this far, and they need to follow through in a way that impresses us with its legitimacy. It's hard to do that when the judges are lined up by party and they're all self-interested in the outcome and were involved in the incident at the heart of the case. But to cut matters short will make things worse and leave Trump supporters aggrieved and believing that a great injustice was perpetrated.
ADDED: Rereading this post, I can see that a Trump antagonist might say: Since Trump is going to win, Trump supporters will have no occasion to cry injustice. That attitude could stoke confidence that the House Managers can conduct the trial in any manner that they find politically advantageous. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
ALSO: I cut down the quote so I wouldn't copy too much, but one of the lines I left out is something that I thought would be too distracting. Now, I find, I'm still thinking about it, and it's nagging at me, so I need to include it. It's what comes right after the quote in my post title:
To be clear, I believe Trump deserves to be convicted of grave crimes against the republic and barred from ever again running for office.
You see the problem! McArdle hasn't seen the evidence that is needed to convince the public, and yet she is already convinced. And there's something about that "To be clear, I believe..." that seems like she feels pressure to assure WaPo readers that she's on the right side — Don't worry, I know he's guilty, it's those other people that I, like you, am worried about.
I do give McArdle credit for saying "I believe" and not "I know." And I notice she says "deserves to be convicted of grave crimes" not "is guilty of grave crimes." That's rather sneaky, because you could say "deserves to be convicted of grave crimes" even if you think he may not actually be guilty of the crime charged. You may simply think Trump is horrible and has done so many things that are wrong that he deserves to have something pinned on him.
Posts
189 comments:
Americans need to see all the evidence. And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it.
She's worried that there won't be enough evidence to convict? Yeah, that's about what I expect from Megan McArdle, who then goes on a long rant about how petitioning the government for redress of grievances is fomenting insurrection.
Megan's hilarious. She still believes the Democrats are acting in good faith.
Megan needs to lose her assumption of guilt to be taken seriously.
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
Men just want trustworthy. Circumspect is the deep state.
Many Democrats predicted fraud, but their claim ahead of the election was that Trump would cheat, Trump would steal the mail, Trump would suppress the vote. This gaslighting attempt to say Trump is unique in predicting trouble ain’t gonna fly. Like this similar “omg he challenged the results!” BS when Democrats have challenged electors for every Republican president I’ve ever voted for. More than the constant fake news, this trend of myth building day after day is tiresome. America needs to heal.
Media just want us to heel. There’s a big fucking difference.
We are STILL waiting for all the evidence that Shifty Adam Shift promised us about the fake Russian Collusion hoax they perpetrated on us for over 4 years and STILL try to claim is true.
Jane not going Galt.
The thing is played to women, is why it's ridiculous.
Please open up the election fraud issue. Call witnesses.
This moron at the Wash Post assumes the election was free and fair, which it wasn't. So yeah, let's back up to Trump's correct fraud warnings prior to election day, and throughout the corrupt counting.
Do it!!!
I would love to see a fair trial.
The Derp State is run by White Males, so powerful men thrive on circumspection.
Sorry, but we are already passed the point of this even being a constitutionally
valid proceeding, never mind fair. For example, where is the Chief Justice? His presence is mandatory for a presidential trial. No Justice, no due process.
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
Why? Why must we? There are no consequences if we fail to demonatrate those petty things
...thinks every Democrat everywhere.
Megan McCardle will write anguished essays while Trump supporters are loaded into boxcars for the camps. She's a good German.
Americans need to see all the evidence. And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it.
Yeah let's see ALL OF IT. Who refused National Guard troops for the Capitol. Who hired the Water Buffalo Shaman and the photographers? Why did that unarmed woman get shot point blank? Why does Senator Ron Johnson think Pelosi was involved?
And meanwhile we can all pretend we are intellectual by entertaining this farce, and giving our analysis of the "legal" issues.
if expressed sentiments are honest and there is desire to preserve /rule of law/ and "fair judicial process" - then is impeachment the way to go? or a criminal trial in Federal Court/Supreme Court.
Just the choice for venue betrays the actors.
If all the evidence is presented, will it include Pelosi's personal and direct refusal, upon request by the Chief of Police, to allow the Capitol Police to bring in enough personnel to protect against a large number of protesters? Or is that not the kind of evidence Megan wants to see?
Will all the evidence include the protester, outside the building, imploring the riot-gear-clad squad to "do something!" as idiots misbehave?
Will all the evidence include the video of the the officers waving protesters past the barricades and up the steps?
This was a kabuki, farcical riot. Get back to me when cement milkshakes start flying.
////
Americans need to see all the evidence. And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it.
------------===========
wait till there is water main break in Capitol!!! and then voilà !!!!
"Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy."
That's not what Democrats do.
Now we know what it’s like to live in a country with political show trials driven by mobs of delusional crazy people.
Oso Negro said...
Megan McCardle will write anguished essays while Trump supporters are loaded into boxcars for the camps. She's a good German.
McArdle is only saying these things to salve her conscience.
“Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy. “
Respectfully, the most powerful people holding the most powerful weapons of government, namely the 3 letter agencies, have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
Especially wrt anything to do with Donald J Trump. This is a farce and the people know it’s a farce.
Appalling. The lot of them.
[But it is] important is to lay out the entire case before the large number of Americans who haven’t understood exactly how the events of Jan. 6 unfolded or how much Trump and his allies did to foment that insurrection....
Ohhhh sweetheart. We already know how all this went down. We watched in coming all 2020.
Hopefully Ms. Mcardle can find a place in Madison, WI when she retires. She'd fit right in.
"And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it."
The evidence doesn't exist. That's why it won't be presented.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, circumspect and trustworthy...
There is a long way to go to go from "encouraging a protest" to "causing the Capitol insurrection".
Politicians have every right to encourage a protest. Witness this past summer with politicians encouraging BLM, and "good trouble".
Is the Capitol off limits for protests? Only boarded up businesses and out of the way federal buildings are acceptable?
It's hard to square the outrage over this incident considering this country was founded on an insurrection. An insurrection against the Crown of England.
Megan's hilarious. She still believes the Democrats are acting in good faith.
She has to; they're all her friends and neighbors and if she acknowledges that they aren't acting in good faith, then maybe they've never acted in good faith and Trump isn't the monster that she's spent four years believing him to be.
Remember when she used to think she was libertarian?
Good times. Good blog. Sigh.
Megan wants to be entertained with fiction. There is a bookstore for that.
The problem is that the Democrats are not circumspect and trustworthy. How about that Russia hoax? How about the first impeachment?
Any thinking person has to acknowledge that this is a chapter in a long novel and that it will result in nothing but more bitterness. It is foolish beyond measure. The man is out of office. there is no accounting that will lead to anything good.
This is why Ford's pardon of Nixon was one of the great political acts of my lifetime. It cost Ford election in 1976, but it let the nation move on.
Althouse wrote: I would add that we need to see a fair trial.
But we didn’t need to see a fair election, right Ann? You didn’t seem too interested in any of that.
Strange priorities.
Megan still struggles so hard for approval from the same jackals who have already boycotted her smeared her as racist and claimed she writes right wing propaganda, yet she persists in trying to prove she can be a cog in a progressive machine. Gee when has WaPo given you such a prominent spot to crow from Megan?
When the first day brings the Democrats presenting doctored video as evidence, then do we really need any more days of evidence? I guess Megan probably believed the video was perfectly OK, just like the election was fraud free. I guess the Atlantic gig pays her well enough that keeping the blinders on makes economic sense for her.
All the evidence might be presented, but I am not sure who is watching....
The courts have had an opportunity to weigh-in on the accusations of election fraud and they unanimously declined to do that. So Joe Biden is President and he is legitimate regardless of the facts around election fraud -- which should still be investigated.
The same is true for the impeachment charges against Trump. When CJ John Roberts declined to preside, that carries the weight of a judicial decision and the Senate should not proceed with the hearing. An investigation is appropriate, but a trial is not.
"If Donald Trump directly caused the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, then Democrats need to prove it...." "Americans need to see all the evidence.
That sounds suspiciously like an actual... *trial*. You know, with witnesses and evidence and due process and stuff.
The democrats would have to stop claiming - as the press like to say (but only of Trump), "on no evidence" - that Officer Sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.
Now is no time to go all "normie" and "rule of law-ish". This is an emergency, and there's no time.
McCardle said...
It's hard to do that when the judges are lined up by party and they're all self-interested in the outcome and were involved in the incident at the heart of the case.
Huh? There is one presiding "judge," a biased Democrat Senator Lahey (because the Chief Justice wouldn't entertain this farce).
Doesn't McCardle mean the rest of the Senate being jurors?
Disgust
There is no case, the vast majority of rally goers were peaceful, a tiny fraction broke in, the bureau releases those like john sullivan who should have still been in jail.
I would add that we need to see a fair trial.
Indeed.
As I said last week, the Trump defense must take this opportunity to put the democrats on trial, using their own words and actions that allowed America to burn all summer, not to mention forcing the evacuation of the White House,
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
The Left, both domestically and internationally, has always been known for it's circumspection and trustworthiness./s
We're watching Congress pass a Bill of Attainder in real time. Fascinating.
Lawfare queens disgust me.
Doesn't McCardle mean the rest of the Senate being jurors?
Journalism is the profession for people too stupid to get into law school.
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
Tell that to the FBI and the FISA process.
As I said last week, the Trump defense must take this opportunity to put the democrats on trial, using their own words and actions that allowed America to burn all summer, not to mention forcing the evacuation of the White House,
It sounds like Trump wanted that fight, and his own attorneys were too chickenshit to go that route and quit.
"I would add that we need to see a fair trial."
Let's briefly consider from we seek a 'fair trial': (no semi-colon for me)Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, the House managers, FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA...etc. Not gonna happen.
or:
You may simply think Kavanaugh is horrible and has done so many things that are wrong that he deserves to have something pinned on him.
or:
You may simply think Sandmann is horrible and has done so many things that are wrong that he deserves to have something pinned on him.
"To be clear, I believe Trump deserves to be convicted of grave crimes against the republic and barred from ever again running for office."
And there lies the problem. I feel exactly the same about the whole Obama Administration and the FBI who lied with them...but unfortunately, we believe in due process which is obvious that the left does not.
It sounds like Trump wanted that fight, and his own attorneys were too chickenshit to go that route and quit.
Yep.
"Americans need to see all the evidence."
This assumes that it hasn't all been seen already. Might not be a safe assumption to make.
It’s so aggravating that we can’t get on a level playing field with these types of people. The election was riddled with fraud, so much so that Joe Biden’s legitimacy is indeed in question, and he specifically can not have the normal presidential standing. That the left-leaning dismiss this so quickly is just jaw-dropping. Forcing (“fortifying”) election outcomes is un-American and is the sole reason for the rally of hundred of thousands and the breach of the Capital by a few hundred of them. The left should be accountable for all of this, starting with that Podhorzer guy. If Megan or anyone wants it all to come out, it has to start there.
The managers lied with every statement by omission and choice. As elise stefanik pointed out. For example
"This is what happens in banana republics and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Democrats don’t care.
The Senate impeachment “judge” voted on Tuesday to proceed with the impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump.
Far-left Senator Patrick Leahy is acting as witness, juror and judge in this sham proceeding.
What a crock." -Gateway Pundit.
Megan should go back to writing articles like, "Why does Portland have the highest used bicycle prices in the USA". I really enjoyed her back then. Now she's just a slightly smarter than average hack.
Browndog said...
It sounds like Trump wanted that fight, and his own attorneys were too chickenshit to go that route and quit.
Yep.
Generally, I think Trump's political instincts were good, but he relied too heavily on people who couldn't think outside the standard political process, and were too timid.
"Americans need to see all the evidence."
evidence? evidence Of WHAT?
evidence that a majority of the US House voted to impeach? We've Seen that
evidence that a majority of the Senate want a trial? We've Seen that
The only 'evidence' left to find is: How many 'republicans' will vote to convict?
There IS no other evidence, show trials don't need evidence
I wonder when they will pull the guillotine out??? You know it's coming next.
Cross edited timeline free videos instead of evidence?
Browndog: “We are a clown country with no virtue.”
chuck said...
Megan wants to be entertained with fiction. There is a bookstore for that.
2/10/21, 8:20 AM
There was until the lefties allowed and in fact encouraged it to be burned down. But that was peaceful you see.
Mcardle doesn’t “believe” anything she wrote. She, like everyone else, knows the election fraud was real, and it was the actual “coup” or “insurrection”. Oh wait… it was “fortified”. That’s right.
Here readers know and fellow “believers” know as well. The trick is to pretend you got away with it. The installation of Biden isn't enough. Pretending it was fair and square is required or it really is a hollow victory.
But at this point it’s Pickett’s Charge. Mcardle, along with anyone else who REFUSED to audit, analyze, discuss, or listen to evidence presented to State Legislatures are all in. In on the fraud. Flanking maneuvers are now not an option.
Hats were hung on the denial. Self-preservation and grasping on to pretend ethical intellect requires they remain there. And…now we’re fucked.
...barred from ever again running for office.
After all, if he does run again he might win.
Scott adams
Please stop asking me to form an opinion around your hallucination that someone "incited an insurrection." That only happened in your imagination and was created by the Fake News Industry. I don't form policy opinions around the hallucinations of strangers.
The use of weaselwords is very appealing to lawyers and law professors. It occurs to me that law and logic are almost diametrically opposed, the law being a collection of fine print and contingencies, intentionally obscured to those outside of the bubble and devoid of common sense.
Matt Sablan said...I would love to see a fair trial.
It is not a trial. it is a scripted reality show for the leftists and the idiots to enjoy and for other Americans to fear.
It would not surprise me if the Senate voted to send this farce to committee where it can be better stage managed.
I call it Kavanaugh Redux.
“Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.”
I’ll have to circumspect back to you on that.
Scott Adams’ this tweet this morning: “Please stop asking me to form an opinion around your hallucination that someone “incited and insurrection”. That only happened in your imagination and was created by the Fake News industry. I don’t form policy opinions around the hallucinations of strangers.”
Brilliant. Simple. 100%. But we will continue to hallucinate here at the Althouse blog and pretend the election was free and fair and this Impeachment is an actually legitimate.
Something about the DC swamp rots peoples' ethics. It is often observed and seldom accounted for.
It’s quaint that you think they care what we think.
Generally, I think Trump's political instincts were good, but he relied too heavily on people who couldn't think outside the standard political process, and were too timid.
You're far more generous than I. I think they thwarted him and his agenda every step of the way.
Ok this is now too much! These people are destroying your country. The Senators who should be above board vote to claim the trial is constitutional, they are a disgrace. As for those Republicans I better don't add any additional qualifications to the disgrace. In a democratic country these guys will be thrown out. The point is as clear as it can be. The so called establishment wanted President Trump out from day one as he was endangering their existence. And to achieve that they also rigged an election. I live somewhere where we have some shenanigans from the establishment but I can assure you nothing to the extent of what is going on in your country.
"“Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.”
I’ll have to circumspect back to you on that."
I should have thought of that.
“Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.”
Once you know that you have the means at hand to win every election for the foreseeable future and nobody will dare question whatever you do, even pretending that in Cobb County and Stalinesque 99.99% of signatures matched on the audit.
Here is a picture of a “matched signature.”
Elections are over. We are post democratic. They can do whatever they want. When COVID settles down, I am moving to France or Ireland.
https://welovetrump.com/2020/12/31/check-out-what-qualifies-as-a-signature-match-in-georgia/
Nobody is allowed to print stuff like this in a “reputable” news outlet because how would it help to “fortify” the selection?
If she makes that post and doesn’t include the “to be clear” caveat, she’s cancelled. You know it. I know it. The WaPo knows it. And Megan, a very smart cookie, knows it.
Sadly, I can’t blame her. Nearly everyone who’s ever taken a stand on any issue is living in fear of the woke mob.
Meanwhile
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1359461927513186305
Is Trump a modern day Dreyfuss? Convicted because he is a populist conservativee,or you could say, but I wouldn't, a populist demagogue? Is that as bad as being Jew in the French military in the late 19th Century? Could Megan see a parallel? Somehow I doubt it--and I won't argue that the analogy is entirely correct. But there's a whiff of Dreyfuss in the air in the Swamp.
So much bullshit. That is all the Left (Democrats,the press, entertainment, music, all of them) has.
It lost all chance of being a “fair trial” when Justice Roberts refused his constitutional obligation to preside.
I should have added the Deep State-FBI,CIA,DOJ etc. All traitors.
When next the GOP controls the Presidency, House, and Senate, they should IMMEDIATELY begin impeachment proceedings against EVERY elected and appointed Democrat.
"If she makes that post and doesn’t include the “to be clear” caveat, she’s cancelled. You know it. I know it. The WaPo knows it. And Megan, a very smart cookie, knows it. “
It’s amazing how they have all of these “smart cookies” cowering before their power to disappear people from the national conversation. Twitter says that Trump’s ban is for life, regardless. We will see how that sits with democracies around the world that have watched what Big Tech did to Trump and are wondering what misstep they might make to piss them off and how they need to pass laws pronto to take away Bit Tech’s veto power on the national. conversation.
Somehow we forget ( or ignore ) that the house spent about a minute doing this( twice ). It is a compete third world political witch hunt. Thank you President Trump for exposing just how corrupt our government is.
Where is Buwaya when we need him? I hope no harm has come to him.
narciso said...
Meanwhile
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1359461927513186305
2/10/21, 9:17 AM
Yep. Their little Brown shirts are on the march because they know nothing will be done to them. They can burn down whatever they want.....
tim in vermont said "...99.99% of signatures matched"
Wisconsin too! It's an election miracle that the absentee ballot rejection rate for all causes in the state declined 89% from 1.8% in the April primary to a lowest-in-history .2% in November.
ORANGE
MAN
BAD
While our new masters are surrounded by their personal city guard. Again, thank you President Trump for showing us the true nature of our government.
"When next the GOP controls the Presidency, House, and Senate”
I am afraid that Democrat control over government is going to be “fortified” from here on out. That’s why they don’t need to produce any of the evidence that they don’t have. Do you think anybody running against Biden would be allowed to air an ad based on the corruption of his family? When it has been documented for decades in the mainstream press? The Hill fired the people looking into Biden corruption in Ukraine, the New York Times pulled their reporters off of the Biden corruption beat, the Washington Post will never run such a story.
Either they think that a couple hundred people wandering through the Capitol and making noise is an existential threat to our system of government, or they don't. If the latter, then they are perverting constitutional safeguards and undermining faith in our system for political gain. If the former, then something is very wrong with our system that it is so fragile, and the political class is to blame, not Trump.
"Circumspect" is an interesting word. A trustworthy person won't cheat. A circumspect person will be prudent and careful. Careful not to cheat, or careful not to get caught. "Circumspect" seems to imply that one is looking around to see if anyone is watching. It's a little like "credible" which can mean almost anything, or "table" which has opposite meanings.
Citizens need testimony and documentation that painstakingly lays out the theory of the case: how Trump planned to claim fraud well before the election and how he followed through afterward, using false statements and frivolous lawsuits to deceive his followers into believing that he hadn’t really lost
For the most part the statements weren't false and the lawsuits weren't frivolous but the way that Trump talked so much about the Democrats cheating beforehand and did so little to try to stop it before the election does indicate a weakness in having an entertainer or performance artist in the top job. It's as though he was looking for a great dramatic role to play, rather than trying to affect outcomes in the real world of events.
P.S. Look at how McArdle writes. She doesn't need any kind of an "I believe he's guilty" disclaimer. Her belief comes out in every sentence she writes. If she thinks she'll get cancelled for not making that even clearer, cancel culture really has gone too far.
When next the GOP controls the Presidency, House, and Senate, they should IMMEDIATELY begin impeachment proceedings against EVERY elected and appointed Democrat.
They will never do that. The GOP establishment wants to manage the superstate, not actually reduce it. That's why they hate Trump: he actually tried to keep his promises to the base.
"Thank you President Trump for exposing just how corrupt our government is.”
With liberty and justice for all...
What a fucking hoot.
Where is Buwaya when we need him? I hope no harm has come to him.
I miss him too, Oso. And he was, unfortunately, right in his pessimism about the future of America.
tim in vermont said...I am afraid that Democrat control over government is going to be “fortified” from here on out.
If California is any example then yes: Ein Party, Ein Payer, Ein Furor. But zwei Folk until further notice.
""Circumspect" seems to imply that one is looking around to see if anyone is watching. It's a little like "credible" which can mean almost anything, or "table" which has opposite meanings."
Or just cautious.
The secretary of state in georgiA bought the machines on a 20 years financing deal.
Yes hes going to throw them out. The ones not certified in texas or florida.
Oh, well, apparently The Simpsons predict Armageddon in 2024 so there's that.
Funny how McArdle wants a full investigation and inquisition into Trump's iniquities, but was dully incurious about allegations of election fraud and irregularities.
Tom said…Sadly, I can’t blame her. Nearly everyone who’s ever taken a stand on any issue is living in fear of the woke mob.
Very true. The Devil is having a hard time keeping up with pumping out contracts for the sold souls. The ones hit the hardest are those that live in places like Madison, WI that helped create this sickness. At one time it seemed intellectual…altruistic. You could look down on all the people you were pretending to help.
But now they know we’re heading toward Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. Reality Czars. I’m sure there is some percentage in places like Madison that realize, “Holy shit, I was a part of creating this horror, and now even I am threatened. Now I have to watch what I say, and not just point fingers at what others say”.
But, I’d also bet there is a larger percentage of the Madison, WI population that would like a seat on a “Truth Commission.” You’re momentarily protected while sitting in judgement, and you get to give all those Deplorables exactly what they deserve. In Madison, that’s a win-win.
Here is a picture of a “matched signature.”
Nobody pays attention to signatures anymore, you can't even sign a credit card without a sharpie and it is never checked. We need something better.
"While our new masters are surrounded by their personal city guard. “
Look how easy it was to gut the first amendment right to freedom of assembly. Look how easy it was to institute guilt by association and collective punishment, look how easy it was to shut down opposition voices in the press. All stuff they accused Trump of secretly wanted to do, while all the time they had a plan on paper and put it into action to “fortify” us right out of our democracy.
One of the things that pissed of Willian Tell, even before the Hapsburg Viceroy made him shoot the apple off of his son’s head, was that they were building a castle in Switzerland to literally fortify the emperor’s power. Too late, the castle is built, they are making us bow to the cap in the town square to pay obeisance to the new emperor, and if they want to make us shoot an apple off of our child’s head as a punishment for being too uppity, like happened to William Tell, who refused to bow, there won’t be much we can do about it.
Blogger Clyde said...
Funny how McArdle wants a full investigation and inquisition into Trump's iniquities, but was dully incurious about allegations of election fraud and irregularities.
Same as Althouse. She wants a "fair trial" but showed no interest in a fair election.
Birds of a feather????
"Nobody pays attention to signatures anymore,”
Twitter, Facebook, and Google assured us that there were “robust safeguards” protecting mail in voting to make it “safe and secure” and one of them was signature verification, and another was that there would be poll watchers in place to ensure fair play. Neither one of those things happened, and don’t expect Twitter to check into whether they were perhaps mistaken.
"It lost all chance of being a “fair trial” when Justice Roberts refused his constitutional obligation to preside."
Does he have a constitutional duty to preside over an unconstitutional impeachment? His refusal to preside indicates that he doesn't think it's constitutional.
Levi Starks said...
It lost all chance of being a “fair trial” when Justice Roberts refused his constitutional obligation to preside.
There is a trial because Roberts stood mute as to why he refused to preside. The leftist agenda marches forward, unabated.
Also, it's not a "trial," it's an onanistic political circle jerk by the Democrats, and they aren't even going to get a "happy ending." I hope they have enough lube that they don't rub themselves raw.
Never believe anything.
Trump impeachment posts are boring and predictable. Been there done that. The media meltdown during Biden’s impeachment will be much more fun.
Gusty Winds said...
Blogger Clyde said...
Funny how McArdle wants a full investigation and inquisition into Trump's iniquities, but was dully incurious about allegations of election fraud and irregularities.
Same as Althouse. She wants a "fair trial" but showed no interest in a fair election.
Birds of a feather????
Like most women they'd rather not confront unpleasantness directly. They'd rather pretend that it doesn't exist and hope that everything will go back to normal. Like a wife who won't stand it when everyone points out that he husband is banging the secretary, or a mother who "just wants a peaceful Christmas" so we have to ignore that her son is doing lines of coke in the bathroom.
Trump was perhaps the most libertarian president we've had in 100 years. And yet he was brutish and a bully, so McArdle convinced herself that somehow he was worse than Biden.
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
A couple of cliches come to mind:
- Closing the barn door after the horses have bolted
- If wishes were horses
No one in this saga, none of the politicians nor talking heads, such as McArdle, are circumspect and trustworthy. What credibility should be give to the assessments of someone that talks about what they believe rather than what they know? None.
"refused his constitutional obligation to preside...”
Can you cite the pasage in the Constitution for us? JKLOL, you know that the Constitution says he is required to preside when a *sitting* president is impeached and on trial.
The Constitution says nothing about show trials like this, which are by their very nature extra-constitutional. It seems to me that Trump has every right to take his case to the highest court, the electorate.
"Prove? You mean like with evidence and logic? Don't be absurd! We don't do that kind of thing."--the Collectivist Hive
Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
Too late for that. This didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of the last 4 years.
It happened in the context of the FBI spying on Trump and no one being held to account. It happened in the context of the completely phony Russia Collusion Investigation. It happened in the context of the first impeachment sham. It happened in the context of the election shenanigans that have not been investigated.
To paraphrase Obama, the ground has shifted under your feet.
People should worry that Impeachment is turning into the "Recall Scott Walker" or the "I don't like him" move, where you just push it through on a quick vote when you don't like the POTUS of the opposing party.
This isn't just about Trump running again. This is about any Republican who wants to be elected POTUS, or any person who doesn't want to see the next GOP POTUS be held hostage to the whims of the other party. You make it easy to impeach, and impeachment will happen.
Now, people will say, but Trump needs to be impeached! Maybe. But he isn't POTUS any more. They have already used the argument that "if he isn't impeached for this, what is impeachment even for?" in his previous impeachment trial one year ago.
And it isn't even that Democrats aren't presenting witnesses. They didn't interview witnesses. They haven't spoken to the people who were violent that day. What motivated them? Nobody knows who planted pipe bombs.
So the question for that becomes...why haven't they talked to those people , and why aren't they part of this impeachment?
I can guess why.
So here's the recipe: Get Bob Craemer's people to riot, then impeach the GOP POTUS for the riots. If that isn't what happened this time, its certainly being teed up for next time.
Gee, I used to read Megan McArdle pretty regularly and she made good sense. But I suppose when she went to work for the WaPo it was only a matter of time until she was assimilated.
Are we supposed to believe the FBI can't find out who is behind an anonymous twitter handle?
So who's Q? We're told he caused all this. Doesn't it seem a bit odd he hasn't been exposed?
When next the GOP controls the Presidency, House, and Senate, they should IMMEDIATELY begin impeachment proceedings against EVERY elected and appointed Democrat.
Start with Woodrow Wilson, move to FDR, then LBJ. Then rub their face in it and impeach RBG. Finally, impeach John Roberts over his lack of oversight of the FISA court.
It's a fair show trial. Everyone's getting something they want out of it.
Mr. Wibble said… Like most women they'd rather not confront unpleasantness directly. They'd rather pretend that it doesn't exist and hope that everything will go back to normal.
I’m not sure this is a gender thing. Look at all the men that have the same Mcardle / Althouse position. Pretend interest in a “Fair” trial, but no interest in a fair election.
On Twitter I can think of Ari Fleischer, and all the beta dudes at the National Review. There’s the kiddie diddlers at The Lincoln Project, the XY Chromosome hosts at CNN, and the pussy whipped Joe Scarborough at MSNBC. Every male Democrat voted for this bullshit, along with Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Can’t hang this one on women. There’s a lot of gender diversity in the flocking feathers.
"I would add that we need to see a fair trial. It doesn't matter that the outcome is already obvious."
That sounds like the Old West talking.
Thats what they did in 2017, and they all walked.
Megan's been ready to impeach Trump since February 2017, which is why her argument holds no merit.
Trump’s lawyers have something to prove too. If they can only get the acquittal on the basis that former officials can’t be subject to impeachment trial, that only means Trump can’t be held to account by the Senate. Their argument, which I was surprised they made so directly, was that the appropriate venue for accountability of a former official is a criminal trial, which invites an indictment.
But that is the Senate friendly argument, which gets the Republican Senators off the hook. I suppose that was the intended point of Bruce Castor’s rambling opening statement.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/maga-blood-libel-why-are-they-hiding-the-medical-report/
"[E]ven the most meticulous case is unlikely to sway the 17 Republican senators that Democrats would need to convict Trump...."
Sway 17?
Some fair trial when 50 are already in the bag for conviction before the trial starts.
It's not about the Constitution. It no longer matters because it's whatever the Party doesn't like that will cost you your job. And maybe your head.
Everyone seems to be throwing in the Trump condemnations in whenever they are writing or speaking; now even more often. Reminds me of back in 2003/4, when The Economist changed editors and picked up what I came to call "Bush Tourettes". You'd be reading an article completely unrelated to the US even and suddenly, they would declare Bush evil or something. Quite annoying all those random declarations. I stopped reading when my subscription lapsed. Full disclosure, I also shortly transferred out of DC and didn't need train reading material anymore.
Personally, when someone starts this random denouncement, I lose a lot of confidence in what they write and eventually interest.
Dr. Althouse: Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy.
For the umpteenth time, RussiaGate already happened, and Kevin Clinesmith, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissmann, and Hillary Clinton are not behind bars.
Wake me up when that changes.
wendybar: We are STILL waiting for all the evidence that Shifty Adam Shift promised us about the fake Russian Collusion hoax they perpetrated on us for over 4 years and STILL try to claim is true.
I knew I was forgetting at least one of the actual seditious traitors.
I trust nothing, NOTHING. from the WaPoo. The NYT, too. As I keep saying, I don't know if the media is/are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem Party, or if it's the other way round, but it's OBVIOUS that they are in CAHOOTS.
I was glad I kept reading the entire post before commenting, because Althouse wrote the comment I was going to....
"You see the problem! McArdle hasn't seen the evidence that is needed to convince the public, and yet she is already convinced."
It has been incredibly disheartening to see what has happened to Megan McArdle ever since she took the job at WaPoo. She was, at one time, one of the brightest writers on pretty much any topic she chose to address- marshalling logic and facts into strong arguments; now you get today's McArdle wanting to be shown the evidence she is certain exists- but can't outline herself for.....reasons- so that her conclusion can be supported.
When she first moved to D.C., some of her regular commenters warned her that once in the imperial capital and working for the mainstream media, she would be swallowed by the Deep State- we didn't call it "Deep State" in those days, but the point was clear enough. I thought those warnings were ill formed, but I was the one who was the fool, not them. And it wasn't even that it was a big east coast city she moved to- she was a life-long New Yorker, just like Donald Trump. It is difficult today to reconcile the McArdle of Asymmetric Information and Jane Galt with the writer of today. It almost like she sold her soul to someone and is trying to buy it back.
McArdle outs herself as just another GOP hack.
Which is not to deny she sometimes writes things worth reading, but I now have a better sense of who she is, when I am interpreting what she writes.
'"To be clear, I believe Trump deserves to be convicted of grave crimes against the republic and barred from ever again running for office."
You see the problem! McArdle hasn't seen the evidence that is needed to convince the public, and yet she is already convinced.'
Alternately, perhaps she has been paying attention enough to see enough evidence herself and be convinced by it, but still believes in following the right process and presenting it in court, on the record, subject to cross-examination, etc.
I mean, I've seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes to have a pretty strong opinion on this and many other cases. That doesn't mean I'd try to get someone convicted without presenting it in a trial.
The problem, as I see it, is that this wasn't the first assumption that springs into your mind when you read this.
Trump really has left us all more deranged. Sad.
Oso Negro I believe has it correct. Read "good German" for "good American". I'm half way through another reading of Gisevius' account (To the Bitter End) on the rise of the Nazis. I'm amazed at the similarities. One could literally (yes literally), drop paragraphs from his book into a current newspaper article and it would pass as currently accepted truth.
Anyone who questions or questioned the integrity of the 2020 election is now guilty of “the big lie.” In my opinion that’s the point of this show trial.
Like, I'm old enough to remember when the same people piling on here would make commentary like "fair trial, then hang 'em" about all kinds of things where they knew/assumed what the result of a fair trial would be.
"And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it."
can't supply what you don't have. Trump didn't tell people to commit any crimes, which is what incitement is. To the contrary, he told people to peacefully protest. Some people didn't listen to that, but that's not his fault.
When she first moved to D.C., some of her regular commenters warned her that once in the imperial capital and working for the mainstream media, she would be swallowed by the Deep State- we didn't call it "Deep State" in those days, but the point was clear enough. I thought those warnings were ill formed, but I was the one who was the fool, not them. And it wasn't even that it was a big east coast city she moved to- she was a life-long New Yorker, just like Donald Trump. It is difficult today to reconcile the McArdle of Asymmetric Information and Jane Galt with the writer of today. It almost like she sold her soul to someone and is trying to buy it back.
"Politics is downstream of culture." McMegan married a fellow "libertarian" journalist and moved to DC and immersed herself into the culture. She didn't have a chance.
I feel like the impeachment strategy now is just to show really bad images of the riot/protest/whatever, and say, "Someone must pay. Trump is someone!"
Democrats aren’t out to prove anything because Republicans have already categorically stated (with their vote on the Constitutionality of impeachment) that proof will not matter.
Instead, Democrats’ aim will be to put on a better show than Trump, and for once Trump will be utterly, grossly outmatched.
There's not even an autopsy report released on Brian Sicknick yet. God Bless him, but we don't know what happened to him, which seems kind of important if you are going to impeach a president using his death.
"You see the problem! McArdle hasn't seen the evidence that is needed to convince the public, and yet she is already convinced."
As are 50-plus senators...that's the scandal.
I don't give a fuck about a hack reporter.
Was going into the Capitol wrong? Is the issue black and white?
I'd say it's not black and white. If you disagree, tell me why.
"I would add that we need to see a fair trial."
"It's hard to do that when the judges are lined up by party and they're all self-interested in the outcome and were involved in the incident at the heart of the case."
It's not just hard, it's impossible. The unfairness has already happened and nothing that happens from now forward can undo it. In no court in this country would a trial be considered fair when the presiding officer and most of the jurors have declared their judgment before the trial is held.
Why are you unable to acknowledge this fact?
I keep thinking about how many times we hear after terrorist attacks elsewhere - "And the real Londoners didn't even stop eating their dinner!" and the French "Refused to let the Charlie Hebdo attacks keep them from going about their day"
Yet something happens to our Congress people, and the incentive is for them to be as dramatic as possible. Yesterday we heard they were "calling their loved ones to say goodbye".
I get they might have been frightened, but for heaven's sake lets not have a race to the most traumatized.
Didn't watch the news, but imagine the edited video is being shown everywhere. Most voters ane ignorant and trust the MSM news.
MayBee said...
There's not even an autopsy report released on Brian Sicknick yet. God Bless him, but we don't know what happened to him, which seems kind of important if you are going to impeach a president using his death.
Waiting on toxicology to confirm preliminary finding of drug overdose.
I bet the idea of disqualifying every single member of Congress from ever holding office again would poll better than the idea of disqualifying Trump.
WaPo has infected Megan with the leftmediaswine virus. She used to be worth reading, especially on economic matters.
Where did all that bullshit come from. She can’t believe Democrats can prove it or that they even considered it in their rush to judgement, but she had to put it in print to satisfy the bloodlust of the idiots who read, publish and own WaPo. But there it is “in black and white” for the bubble people like my next door neighbor and my Portlandian son.
God, these people suck!
narciso said...
https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/maga-blood-libel-why-are-they-hiding-the-medical-report/
2/10/21, 10:40 AM
Yes, everyone should read MAGA Blood Libel: Why Are They Hiding The Medical Report?
McArdle once had a blog called 'Jane Galt' (and all the implications therein). She continues to write very insightful and thoughtful pieces but once she started to get a higher profile and got more and more embedded in the Washington/New York press corps she has had quite a habit of always being sure to throw a bone to her coastal elite readership that she is one of them. In a world of cancel culture in these formerly high brow journalistic institutions, one wrong word can cut off the gravy train.
All that said, Althouse says: "That attitude could stoke confidence that the House Managers can conduct the trial in any manner that they find politically advantageous." Um...the House Managers are doing this entire exercise for purely political reasons. So, of course what is considered politically advantageous is fundamental to everything they are doing. Impeachment after all is a POLITICAL exercise. If he committed a CRIME, then charge him with a crime. But they won't do that because then they don't get to grandstand and be the one to put the nail in Trump's coffin. Or benefit from the fundraising and friendly press which is what this was always all about. No principle is involved here. Make no mistake, the Dems don't actually want Trump to go away. They would love for him to stick around and destroy the GOP root and branch.
After this is over, Pelosi and Schifty will exhort the Democrat House majority to impeach Bush II for his undeclared wars, Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus (if they have anyone who knows) and every Republican in between for whatever.
After all, impeachment is no longer serious business. Impeachment is just free political advertising. Free to the Democrats. Not free to the taxpayers or to the Republic.
Useful idiots like Mittens and Murkowski can’t figure it out. It’s not just Trump. Non-Democrats, particularly Republicans, conservatives and Christians, are evil and must be discredited.
When she used the phrase, "or how much Trump and his allies did to foment that insurrection", I already knew that McArdle thought Trump should be convicted.
"To be clear, I believe Trump deserves to be convicted of grave crimes against the republic and barred from ever again running for office."
To be clear: McMegan has turned into a ignoramus and idiot while at the WaPo.
Links are here: https://gregquark.blogspot.com/2021/01/no-congress-can-not-keep-trump-from.html
Amendment 14, Section 3:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, ...
What do we learn from this?
1: No one can be barred from being President via Amendment 14, Section 3.
2: "Offices under the United States" are appointed offices, not elected ones. That's why "Senator or Representative in Congress" are named explicitly
What does the Constitution say about the penalties that can be levied via impeachment?
Judgement 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
So via impeachment you can be blocked from holding an Office under the United States. Which is to say, an appointed office.
You can still run for Senator or Representative in Congress, or for President.
TDS really is a bad drug
"how Trump planned to claim fraud well before the election and how he followed through afterward"
Gosh, you mean like how Hillary planned to claim that Trump engaged in "Russian Collusion", and how she followed through afterward"?
Combine that with the violence at Trump inauguration: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-parts-capital-inauguration-day/story?id=44925970
So, every single person who supported the Russia collusion hoax needs to be impeached and barred from ever holding an appointed US office.
Good to know.
Then there's all the Democrats who spread "vote fraud" stories ahead of the 2020 election. Every single individual who pushed the bogus "The Trump Post Office is going to trash your ballot" is clearly an insurrectionist who needs to be driven from public life.
Thanks for clearing that up, McMegan
The 'Cop was Murdered' narrative is starting to unravel:
https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/maga-blood-libel-why-are-they-hiding-the-medical-report/
"[But it is] important is to lay out the entire case before the large number of Americans who haven’t understood exactly how the events of Jan. 6 unfolded or how much Trump and his allies did to foment that insurrection."
Now do the Antifa riots in Portland. And all the Democrats who complained when Trump tried to arrest some of the thugs.
Burning down / assaulting a Federal Courthouse is at least as wrong as attacking Congress.
McCardle and fam are part of the cathedral. They write what their bishop wants to read.
Perhaps like many others that earn their living through writing and opining on current events, McArdle is just writing this sort of article to protect her brand and her job. After all, those on the Right generally don't play the cancel game against folks they disagree with.
"ADDED: Rereading this post, I can see that a Trump antagonist might say: Since Trump is going to win, Trump supporters will have no occasion to cry injustice. That attitude could stoke confidence that the House Managers can conduct the trial in any manner that they find politically advantageous. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy."
Really? So, it's ok to sick prosecutors on innocent people, because of course they're "going to win" and not get convicted?
The person who says that is a monster. If your position is "of course we're going to lose this case", then you shouldn't bring it.
"I don't like the jury, so I don't have to try to make a good case"? That's insane. The more biased you claim the jury is, the greater the pressure on you to make an iron-clad case that shows up the jury's bias.
The simple reality of the situation is that Trump is right:
The election was stolen.
Calling out that theft was and is there correct thing to do.
And after the last 4 years of Democrat "protests" / riots / obstruction / resistance, no person aligned with the Democrats can have the slightest shred of legitimacy complaining about anything Trump or the Republican protesters did.
Because the Dems set the standard, and their behavior was consistently far worse.
meanwhile
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/14-state-attorney-generals-tell-biden-theyre-reviewing-legal-options-regarding-keystone-xl/
are they just watching white house down, a very cringeworthy exercise at obama worship,
I agree with McArdle. I think there should be a full trial on the merits. The Democrats should go through every fraud claim that Trump made and show it’s a lie and that that Trump either knew it was a lie or recklessly didn’t care. They should prove that Trump orchestrated a campaign of lies about the election with the intent of overturning the election results. That’s clearly an impeachable offense, I think everyone here would agree, if that’s what happened. So let’s see the evidence.
To be clear, McCardle needs the paycheck and to keep up her DC status.
All her columns require throat clearing.
Soon she’ll be replaced by a transgendered robot.
large number of Americans who haven’t understood exactly
Given that the evidence has already been doctored, I think she means that Americans should learn to say five fingers when required.
Given that the evidence has already been doctored, I think she means that Americans should learn to say five fingers when required
And not just say five fingers but think five fingers.
A Democrat supporter of Bernie Sanders tried to massacre Republican's at softball practice and almost killed Steve Scalise. A Democrat supporter attacked Rand Paul and put him in the hospital. A Democrat supporter kicked Sarah Huckabee out of her restaurant. For the last year, Democrat supporters have rioted, looted, burned, and viciously attacked innocent people. Democrat supporters were involved in the assault on the Capitol.
The wrong Party is on trial.
Eric Swalwell (the Chinese Spy fucker) calls Jan 6th and act of war.
Rep. Dean says "they came draped in Trump flags and used American Flags to bludgeon"
Yep. All the Deplorables are on trial.
Many more to come. For Wisconsin, maybe they can hold them at a UW Gender Studies lecture hall. I'm sure they could pack the place with jurors.
Democrats actually used the words "rioting" when asking their side to riot.
Trump never did. Not ONCE.
"we need to see a fair trial"
I'm sorry, I like Althouse and all, but this is another puzzling one -- WTF?
The impeachment is a political stunt, the trial is no trial, it has nothing to do with the Constitution, the entire damn thing is rigged, the hackiest of hacks is supposedly in charge, and here we get Althouse in her sideline nice-mom mode: "we need to see a fair trial."
Again, WTF?
Who dat we? What does fairness have to do with anything? Why do "we" "need" to "see" it? What's this about a "trial"?
What if every person who voted for Trump emailed NYT complaining in a civilized way about the content of their newspaper?
Every day. Maybe Trump should encourage it. Take it up as a hobby. Better yet, handwritten letters. Supports USPS while making an impression.
Quick math off the top of my head guesses around 1,736,111.111111125 pounds of single page letter from 70,000,000 Trump supporters.
Add in disenchanted Biden supporters for another ten million or so, for fun.
Naturally, Biden supporters would have to counter attack with their own snail mail assault, so NYT would have to deal with dozens more.
A fair trial would be important for our country but it is already too late: the house impeachment was a kangaroo-court sham and the trial itself is unconstitutional since trump is not in office anymore.
No one cares, Moon. Most people don't drink bile from a firehose like you people.
Everyone seems to forget that during the 2016 or 2017 women's march, Pelosi let 1000 women into the congressional office building for a protest. 1000. Since they just let them in, no violence.
The forget that during Trump's inauguration there were violent riots blocks away.
Everyone pretends that the obvious antifa members who joined the break in were not there.
so much pretending.
So much bullshit. That is all the Left (Democrats, the press, entertainment, music, all of them) has.
Politics is the opiate of the masses. So of course, as a Communist Marx would pin it on religion.
Then rub their face in it and impeach RBG
I like the way you think.
Oso Negro I believe has it correct. Read "good German" for "good American". I'm half way through another reading of Gisevius' account (To the Bitter End) on the rise of the Nazis. I'm amazed at the similarities. One could literally (yes literally), drop paragraphs from his book into a current newspaper article and it would pass as currently accepted truth.
I came to the exact same conclusion watching Rise of the Nazis on PBS about a month or so ago. The similarities were so striking and many that I couldn't believe they actually aired it.
Megan McArdle only threw in the reassurance to her readers to ensure she can dine at the same table as Bill Kristol and what's left of the Lincoln Project. Trump represents the deplorables, THOSE PEOPLE she and her ilk wouldn't know. Flyover country is not for the urban and urbane such as her. Nope, we're redneck rubes to her and Never Trumpers. Foxhall Road cocktail parties are more their type of thing.
There seem to be two "theories of the case". The one I thought the Democrats and their MSM allies were pushing was that, after Trump (to his surprise) lost the election, he started claiming he "was robbed", brought a lot of meritless lawsuits, made a lot of extreme and unsupported claims, etc., etc., and this led to a big mob of of Trumpists coming to DC and causing the events of January 6.
MacArdle's theory seems to be that Trump knew all long he would lose the election and everything he did (meritless lawsuits, stirring up his supporters, bringing a big mob of them to DC and sending them to the Capitol to raise Hell) was pre-planned to force Congress to continue him in office after the election. If the Dems can prove the MacArdle theory they should, because that really would mean that Trump instigated an insurrection.
While the other theory -- that Trump was surprised by his loss and did and said a bunch of things and then the events of January 6 happened -- has a big hole in it regarding Trump's intention, and even regarding cause and effect.
Well, I totally distrust everything in the WaPoo, as well as the NYT.
A handful of clowns breaking into the capitol is NOT an insurrection. How exactly were they going to control the government? The guy in the funny fur sitting in the speaker's chair does not constitute a takeover.
Calling for a recount is an insurrection? Funny how it is ok when they do it.
Post a Comment