|
Here we are.
I can't say I'm surprised. I predicted (I don't remember if I said it here, but I remember saying it to my wife) before the 2016 election that whoever won it would be a one-termer.
I am somewhat relieved that Joe Biden is in office.
- Whatever the merits or lack thereof in Trump's presidency, his conduct after the election went from unrealistic, to appalling, to inexcusable. Although Trump's speech does not legally meet the standards for incitement, his overall conduct is impeachable - vastly more so than the ridiculous first attempt at impeachment. In fact, that first attempt is all the more ridiculous in retrospect; now that there is real cause for impeachment that previous attempt gives this one at least some level of appearance of being more of the same. It shouldn't; Trump's behavior in the final weeks (after the EC was certified) rapidly went into the territory of "not acceptable for any reason."
- His phone call with the SECSTATE of GA was clearly improper. By itself, it may not have been quite enough to constitute impeachable conduct because he did not outright ask for anything fraudulent (he asked to "find votes" which could mean uncounted votes, and to "recalculate") but mere plausible deniability does not mean that this sort of thing is acceptable. In light of his subsequent actions, however, the deniability is a lot less plausible.
- The nature of his comments to the crowd, and those of some of his advisors (Giuliani, in particular, with his atrocious "trial by combat" remark) are unacceptable for an elected official regardless of whether they are legal incitement. They would definitely result in a conviction under military law, as contrary to good order and discipline, and the President is Commander in Chief. While not subject to UCMJ as a civilian (doing so would compromise civilian control of the military) that is more than enough to qualify as impeachable, especially in view of the previously-mentioned phone call. The speech he gave sounded like he was treating the whole thing like yet another example of theater, as if it were all a big WWE event. I do not tihnk he actually wanted anyone to storm the Capitol - in fact, I am not sure that this even occurred to him. This is not an excuse. It should have occurred to him. He fundamentally failed in his duty to execute the law, as his oath required, and encouraged a riot he should have known was reasonably likely to happen - this is all cause for removal from office, even if it could not produce criminal liability.
- We are now faced with the awkward situation of the potential impeachment trial of a former President. I will not go into the merits of doing so; I am deeply concerned with the Constitutional precedent this would set. On the other hand, I want him disqualified from future office (especially the 2024 election). I have seen several viewpoints on the Constitutional issues, all somewhat convincing, none decisively so, and I have not made up my mind yet.
- Rioting throughout the last summer is in no way an excuse for rioting at the Capitol.
- The Republican party had damn well better figure out what it did wrong in 2016 (and that answer is not to be found by listening to leftists). The problems Trump was supposed to address largely remain, or will be re-introduced by Biden's administration. The voices dismissing these problems along the lines of "white resentment" and other racially-oriented dismissals of rural, poor, working, and other such folks are clearly interested in reserving these problems for minorities to have, lest everyone figure out that racial politics are about preserving problems, not solving them. If the idea is that a certain group of people can just be abandoned until they are sufficiently non-deplorable, there's a serious problem. If one doesn't want another Trump to come along, one had better start taking this very large segment of the population seriously. (It's not as exclusively white as people might like to imagine, either.)
- A few Republicans owe some mea culpas for encouraging this nonsense. I do not see any legitimate cause of action against them; no matter how absurd the assertions of fraud became, addressing them through Congressional procedure is proper; storming the Capitol is not. Nevertheless, several of them owe the voters an apology and probably need to take a back seat to other voices for the forseeable future. They should have known better.
- With that said, the Democrats have managed the aftermath almost as badly as the President managed his election loss. It is not defensible to assert that the President needs to be removed immediately, then wait a week to hold an impeachment vote. I am fine with skipping all the normal niceties of committees in an emergency. However, the Democrats clearly demonstrated they did not regard it as such. Given the invasion of the Capitol, they would have been justified in having an impeachment vote just as soon as the EC certification was done. They did not.
- Nancy Pelosi is unfit for the Speakership and should not be there. This is not related to her politics; the Democrats are welcome to replace her with someone just as leftist. That's their prerogative. Nevertheless, she had no business calling General Miley about the nuclear deterrent. She is not the Commander in Chief, and as Speaker she is, or should be, intimately familiar with such procedures already. Her action in that regard was borderline seditious. Bragging about it on 60 minutes was absolutely seditious. If such a conversation was absolutely necessary, it should have remained between her, General Miley, SECDEF, and the Vice President, and possibly a few others. It should not have been for public consumption. She publicly called into question the ability of our deterrent to respond had their been an actual attack. If the President was such a danger, she should have kept the House in the chambers as long as it took to get an impeachment vote, not wasted time publicly compromising our national defense so she could score additional points on TV.
- "Whataboutism" is not a thing. Excusing riots for years legitimizes rioting. This cannot be allowed to stand. The correct standard is "peaceable assembly." There are no "legitimate grievances", there is no "we are not being heard" or any of the rest of it. It is absolutely correct that the rioters who entered the Capitol ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; frankly I am somewhat annoyed that stronger measures were not used to stop them. That, however, is the standard everywhere. We can forget last summer's rioting - the standard going forward is that riots will be promptly and forcefully dealt with no matter who is doing it. "But it was the Capitol!" is not an excuse. There is not some demarcation line between "okay" rioting" and "not okay" rioting that just happens to lie exactly where leftists need it to lie so that they don't have to admit that their side has a growing crowd of crazy. Normalizing rioting is not acceptable. This is not an excuse for right-wing rioters - it is an accusation. The Capitol riot is not an excuse for your side any more than ANTIFA or BLM riots are an excuse for the events at the Capitol.
- Joe Biden is right to call to lower the temperature. He is not right to call for unity. First, unity is the wrong word. What we need is discourse, not just acquiescence in the name of public peace. Second, after 4 years of RESIST! the left simply has no grounds to ask for unity. As far as Biden himself goes, this is just a quibble over choice of words. For the rest of the left, the onus here is on you. The right is doing its part to lower the temperature; we are having a pretty robust debate over what Trump is at fault for and what ought to be done about it, and what it means going forward. All that's happening on the left so far is barely-disguised glee.
- As for Parler, Amazon, Twitter, and the rest of it: This must stop. You cannot exercise control over the public square by agreeing to become the contractor that services it. The internet is a public square. If you are making money as the servicing agent to allow people to use it, you may not exercise control over how they do so. If they are engaging in actual criminal behavior, you may report it to appropriate authorities. But, if you are acting as a free and open common carrier (i.e. someone providing services without actually charging the user for them) you may not exercise any editorial control whatsoever.
_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
