I got a late start this morning (Wednesday 13 Jan) and so the sun was already well above the horizon when I got to my blind. The gents upriver greeted the sun with a thunderous volley, sending a considerable number of birds my way. But as I was late, walking, and unloaded, they passed noisily overhead—unmolested. I only programmed an hour or so into the morning hunt, and while the folks on neighboring farms seemed to be shooting it up, the only thing I called to my decoys was a good-looking red fox.
Sitting there with little to do but listen though slowly failing ears for the sounds of incoming geese, I had a lot of time to think about the state of our great country, and how troubled it is. As I write, the House of Representatives has begun deliberations on a second impeachment of President Trump, made necessary by the cowardice of the Senate a year ago, the enabling of the conservative media, and the gullibility/ignorance of the Trumpenproletariat. This man, this threat to the constitutional order, should have been convicted and removed for abusing his power in an obvious and straightforward manner before, so that he would not have had another year to bring about this terrible time in our country’s history. But that didn’t happen. Instead, what he said time and time again would happen, did happen, and that is, he not only failed to accept the will of the American people, but he has acted with the full weight of his office to overrule it.
A insurrection occurred, one summoned by the President and then given its marching orders by him. People died, and the duly constituted process of receiving the Electoral College votes was interrupted. Troops are quartered in the Capitol itself as Wingnut America plots its next move. We are a troubled and broken land.
The New “Lost-Cause”
The past few years have seen a steady increase in the rejection of any socially acceptable representation of the losing side of the Civil War. After 136 years, the Confederacy—and the “Lost-Cause” narrative that sustains it—is wheezing through its death rattle. On the horizon though, is a new “Lost-Cause”, taken up it seems by people with an affinity for its predecessor. The “Stolen Election” cry—fed by the stirrings of Trump’s fevered mind and amplified by a coterie of Grima Wormtounges, has created a new Lost Cause narrative for a goodly portion of the once-proud Grand Old Party to embrace hook, line, and sinker.
It is unclear at this moment, how long this narrative will survive. One hopes its life is considerably shorter than the Confederate version. The question of what to do with its progenitor will dominate the next week of the Republic. Should he be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet as the 25th Amendment enables? Should he be impeached? Convicted and removed? Barred from further service? Should he be branded an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, and barred from further office? Will he be subject to civil penalties resulting from the insurrection? Will he pardon himself? Will the State of New York indict him?
However he is disposed of, his supporters are unlikely to quickly turn aside. Their continuing fascination with the Confederate Lost Cause predicts staying power in their dysfunction.
Impeached, Again
One of the aspects of writing a “newsletter”-like Substack is the virtual certainty that unless you sit down and write it in the moments before it is to post, things will happen once you’ve started that you simply cannot ignore. This daily infusion of newsworthy events is a blessing to those with writer’s block but a pox upon the civil society of a country. Today (Thursday 14 January) is no different, as the House of Representatives yesterday voted to (once again) impeach President Trump. Trump now is responsible for half of all impeachments in U.S. Presidential history, so he’s got that going for him.
Some 10 members of the House GOP voted to impeach, and I consider these people to have done what was required of them when confronted with clear and unobjectionable evidence of impeachable conduct. One could always predict that a great many Trumpdrones in the House would rise to the defense of the President one more time, but there are a few whose failure to support the impeachment represent more disappointment than others. Mike Gallagher, Chip Roy, and even Dan Crenshaw come to mind in this category. Each has tried in some way publicly to justify their decision, and rather than call them out individually here, I’ll refer to the statement of Congressman Gallagher as a means to sweep up the best arguments of the bunch.
The Impeachment Accomplishes Nothing. This is more of a process argument than a substance argument, based on their (correct) view that a Senate trial will not occur while the President is still in office, and so removal from office —which is what impeachment is for—will not occur. But this is an incomplete understanding of the Senate’s role in impeachment. Let’s go to the governing text, the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 3:
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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
I’m no Constitutional law scholar, but it occurs to me that the framers gave more options to the Senate than simply removal from office, and when the people themselves have removed the President—as they have here—the Senate retains the ability to try an impeachment (which they just happen to have), convict, and then bar from office.
He’s guilty of unconscionable, unconstitutional, and likely criminal acts, but can’t we all just get along? There is considerable throat-clearing in the establishment of bona fides as a devotee of law and order and constitutionality, only to pirouette to concluding that impeachment is not warranted, likely, or prudential. We are coming to the end of the most corrupt presidency in our history, one featuring a man who has delighted in division and discord, a man who incited and then directed an armed crowd to where the national legislature was performing its constitutional duty, and this faction seems more concerned with “moving forward” rather than learning from the clear and present threat that Trump has posed. The danger in the past four years has been minimized ONLY by how inept the President was. The world, our political parties, and anyone ever wishing to run for President again, needs to know that you cannot outrun impeachment.
There was an insurrection. He invited it. He incited it. He directed it to the Capitol. But the Democrats are rushing the process. What’s that? You just said there was an insurrection. Webster tells us that an insurrection is “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government”. An armed mob egged on by the unitary executive moved on the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Electoral College votes. YOU CALLED IT AN INSURRECTION. You don’t think that’s probable cause for a political indictment (which is what the House role in impeachment is)? You need more evidence? Why?
We should have censured the President. A man already impeached and tried once is somehow going to get the message from a lesser measure? What of all this unity and harmony you seek? Will it be brought on by a censure? Oh and by the way, the Democrats are the really bad guys here for not seeing things our way and agreeing to censure.
Impeachment will not restore the constitutional order. But censure will? And what of disbarment from further office? Has censure any chance of that?
The cycle of distrust and recrimination did not start with President Trump. I’ll give you that. But it has been raised to a high art by a man for whom lying was second nature and was supported by a party that walked away from its previously held principles in enabling those lies.
The President did not order the crowd to attack the Capitol. The statement refers to the President having “enflamed the crowd and encouraged them to march toward the Capitol in a show of resolve”, but that “…he did not tell them to lay violent siege to the Capitol.” This can't be serious. A "show of resolve"? No, he did not say "go and lay violent siege to the Capitol". You are correct. Is this your limiting principle, that the President did not order the crowd to break down barriers and kill and wound uniformed members the Capitol police? Are we to assume that since the traitorous mob did not kill or kidnap any of the next three persons in the order of succession, that this wasn’t its intent? The statement goes on to defend the language cited by saying the “…semantic distinction matters”, that the credibility of impeachment “…hinges on charges matching facts.” We saw it with our own eyes. We heard him with our own ears. That a second impeachment will turn out as “partisan” is not a function of its factual basis or its credibility, but rather a function of the Praetorian Guard of the GOP circling around the President and continuing to mislead its underinformed base.
Both sides lie and stir up the crowd. Regrettable “whataboutism” and not worthy of further discussion.
The American people do not trust us. Nor do they trust someone who takes to social media and decries "banana republic crap" only to act in the best traditions of a member of the ruling junta and circle the wagons to protect the corrupt leader thereof.
Barring Trump from running for President a third time expresses a fundamental lack of faith in the American people. If we as Congress put “special fetters” on who can run for president, we may as well just admit that we do not trust the American people to make a wise choice. Barring further office is right there in the Constitution. Not a power reserved to the people, but one exclusively owned by the Senate. The Framers created the fetters. The same Framers who created the Electoral College (in which I am a great believer) specifically as a manifestation of their unease with vox populi.
When considering Trump, Trumpism, and the Trumpenproletariat, I keep coming back to Eastern religious thought. The Buddha would have us release our anger and forgive those who have wronged us, as the anger is only felt by us, and only causes us pain. This is a really attractive option. It is — at its heart — what those who urge us to now “come together” and “show unity” are advocating. Put aside four years of anxiety, anger, shame, and disbelief. That’s all behind us. It’s time to move forward!
I hope someday to get to this point. Until then, I’ll cling just a little longer to my sense that justice requires atonement, and the President must be made to atone for his great sins.