19 thoughts on “The Pointlessness Of Impeachment”

  1. Get this farce over quick. Dems won’t let it happen but Republicans should move to suspend normal order and to vote on the conviction immediately. Spare us the lost weeks.

    1. What sort of amuses me is that the Democrats’ aim with the impeachment was to bar Trump for running in 2024, and that is something that impeachment doesn’t even apply to, and cannot accomplish. You’d think they’d have at least someone on staff who has a passing familiarity with the text of the Constitution, but apparently not.

      1. Well, in fairness, the Constitution was written a long time ago by a bunch of dead white men, so it isn’t surprising that the Democrats don’t know what it says. It really doesn’t matter. The Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding.

        1. I agree with Larry. Right now, the Constitution says what they think it says, not what you learned in school, or SCOTUS determined in rulings, and especially what was written in the Federalist Papers. If you think otherwise, pay attention to their ideas on the First Amendment. Heck, I saw a chyron at lunch that said “House Managers push back on Trump’s claim of First Amendment defense”. They don’t think he has a right to it.

          2. I had it right in terms of the chyron, but indeed, Democrats did tell Trump’s lawyer that his right to not testify can be inferred negatively, which is a violation of his Fifth Amendment right. So the chryon is correct, Trump is asserting his First Amendment right, Democrats are pushing back against that defense by also rejecting his Fifth Amendment right.

            For Kiwis that only get their news from credentialed media; Trump is claiming he had the right to make a speech that Democrats didn’t like. Indeed, the statutes on insurrection require more than a speech.

      2. About the concern that Mr. Trump will be a threat in 2024, is this like the Jim Carrey character being gently turned down for a date by a woman, “So, you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

    2. I doubt the never Trumpers in the Retardlican party will go for a quick vote. They want their pound of flesh.

  2. They should call Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as a witness. A disbarred Federal Judge serving in Congress from 1993 to this day and ask him…

  3. Reading the Kinsley article in full was an eye-opener, in two respects. First, it revealed the degree of mindless, (admittedly?) baseless, and horrifyingly savage hatred he harbors for the former President, a hatred he is convinced most Americans share. Second, it showed that when a person harboring such hatred turned away from it to actually think, he came to a reasonable conclusion.

  4. Reagan was a dem, Trump was a dem and the dems hated them.
    It makes sense, but there is so many reasons it makes sense.

    How about the idea that dems are constantly losing. And again, in so many ways. The dems were eaten by Lefties. Oh, you thought dems were Lefties.
    I guess I got to define what dems are, and I define dems as people who vote for Democratic Party.
    So it’s more about the voters than politicans are getting their vote. Or, would union members being the dems, rather than just those running the unions.
    Though, the general idea of lefty eating dems, means left gaining control their leadership. So maybe I should instead say the Left is eating the dems children. Well forgot eating, Left is controlling their children and controlling who they vote for. Anyhow, the dems being slaughtered.
    Anyhow, don’t think getting hollowed out carcass of Joe Biden as President can be counted as a dem “win”.

    One could argue that the dems have a long tradition of party bosses selecting who they vote for, and if whatever their party bosses are, AND they not losing, then the dems are wining- or if not true, dems have never have been winning- or I could say everything is staying same. No plus nor minus.
    Dems are not losing.
    Accordingly dem party bosses did not select Reagan or Trump, and neither had much respect for dem party bosses.
    And one could claim that Reagan and Trump both robbed dems from the party bosses.

    The moral being, Lefties hate people who steal their property.

    1. “The moral being, Lefties hate people who steal their property.”

      Or free their slaves.

      Red Pilling or being mugged by reality, a thinking person eventually catches onto the game, which leads them to contemplating the alternative.

      Democrat’s advantage is that most people want to be good but their disadvantage is that the outcomes of their policies are the opposite of what they claim motivates them. This is why Democrats must dehumanize their opponents, identity trumps disillusionment. Come for the racial harmony but stay for the racial hatred.

  5. I’m watching the House managers arguing that they can impeach Trump. Their omissions are notable, as are all the holes in their arguments.

    In the Belknap trail, the senate spent two weeks debating jurisdiction and didn’t vote that they had it, they voted to combine the question with the evidentiary determination, which at the time was supported by plenty of legal practice whenever part of a defendant’s argument was lack of jurisdiction or other such defense.

    Only two senators voted that Belknap was no guilty. Another 23 voted that they didn’t have jurisdiction to try him, and thus he was acquitted. Blount was likewise acquitted due to lack of jurisdiction.

    One of the managers’ argument was that since Trump was still in office when impeached, and the Senate has the power to try all impeachments, the Senate can go ahead with the trial. By that metric, since a grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felonies, and since circuit courts have the power to try all felony cases, a circuit court can still put him on trial.

  6. The Dems have several purposes in mind with this impeachment.

    It isn’t JUST to try and prevent him from running again. In fact I think this is a false flag because 2024 is an eon away as politics go so you cannot seriously be worried about Trump running 4 years from now.

    Other purposes include:

    Teaching GOP congress member that they better watch their step or they too can get hung out to dry by Congress.

    Teaching Trump voters to NEVER EVER vote a person like Trump (i.e. someone who will expose the Grift) into office again.

    Conviction would mean Trump is branded an insurrectionist and therefore the harsh steps that now must, alas, be taken – like 10’s of thousands of troops in DC and like gun confiscation, and blacklisting – are “so sadly” necessary.

    Even failing conviction, the idea is to justify the totalitarianism coming down the pike: just by stirring up the fears of the unwashed masses and creating false emergencies.

    None of which will be wasted.

    The Dems never do something which has but a single purpose.

    I recently read an article by Rep. Crenshaw who said that we must not engage in battles we cannot win. We must only engage in battles we CAN win.

    I like Crenshaw a lot but he’s missing the point here. In military terms the Dems are experts at the feint. And in tying up the opposition with thousands of battles to fight – almost all of which are bogus and almost all of which the Dems will lose – just to distract a tired opposition from the real important battles.

    And each one of those bogus fights DOES advance the firming of Lefty culture in the minds of more and more people.

    The pronoun battle is one example.

    I wanted to reply to Crenshaw but one could not comment on the article and as I’m not in his district I couldn’t email him.

    That’s too bad.

  8. Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: House Dems ‘Really Blew It’ at Senate Impeachment Trial

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/dershowitz-newsmaxtv-senate-impeachment/2021/02/11/id/1009689/

    Not to disagree with Alan Dershowitz but the Dems’ argument might likely go something like the following. This isn’t an actual trial because he wasn’t impeached for actually breaking a statutory law. Just like “colluding with Russia” isn’t a crime, or the phone call to the Ukraine president wasn’t a crime or “contempt of congress” without a court ruling on whether Trump’s assertion of executive privilege outweighed congressional supeona isn’t a crime. This is “beyond the pale”; that is anything he did that Congress really, really doesn’t like is the new legal standard for impeachment from now on.

    1. After all he nearly got impeached for making a SCOTUS nomination to replace RBG; obviously that couldn’t possibly be reasonable construed as a high crime or misdemeanor . They only held off because they decided “he wasn’t worth impeaching at this point” not because it would have been unconstitutional because no law or “serious misdeed” took place.

Comments are closed.