I’ve been thinking …
By now, most of those weasel Senators have admitted to themselves that tRump committed impeachable offenses. Most of the country can’t talk themelves out of that knowledge, Considering the fact that he did it in full view, that recordings of his voice sayiing “I want you to do me a favor” to the President of the Ukraine were broadcast repeatedly and that act, the solicitation of internal American political intrigue from a foreign national, is impeachable, and the President cannot be allowed to get away with it, this shouldn’t be surpprising. Equally, it shouldn’t be surprising that tRump will be resoundingly defeated if he runs for re-election. His brand of black comedy has run its course. Time to restore sense – at least, some modicum of sense – to the political process.
After his Senate “trial” failed to convince anyone that It Would Be Alright to just gloss this disgraceful episode (i.e.,the tRump ;era) over, that some remedy was needed, McConnell kept insisting the remedy did not lie in “negating the vote of the People” through removing The “President” from office via Constitutional process, that he had to be defeated at the polls. And so that remedy will be applied..
There’s been plenty of revisions to the electoral process since the nation’s founding. In 1789 when the Consitution was ratified and George Washington was elected President, the electorate consisted of men who owned their own homes. Over the intervening centuries, the voter’s rolls have expanded to include renters, women, and now (there’s a movement to enfranchise) prisoners. tRump was famously not elected by The People but by the Electoral College. Why is that relic still in place?
Where did it come from, anyway?
Curiously, it was the inspiration of the creators of the Constitution. Men of the Age of Enlightenment, they distrusted Democracy. In their view, it favored mob rule. In defense of their attitude, 1789 was the year of the storming of the Bastille by a mob who went on to install a Reign of Terror leading eventually to Napoleon. They were worried that majority rule could lead to the installation of some charismatic narcissist who would become dictator. Their remedy embedded politics at the absolute root of our form of government in an unusual prominence. As a result, politics has flourished in this country like in no other, and has been celebrated with torchlight parades and bands marching through conventions and small towns ever since. It is the ongoing festival of our place in history.
Like many recreational devices, though, it can be toxic. Planning and utilizing politics displaces other strategic concepts and efforts that could be much more fruitful. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, could tax reliefs result in lots of charging stations enabling lots of electric vehicles reaching the roads years earlier that they might?
And another thing.
Last week there was a palpable thought racing around that nothing could be called an “impeachable offense” unless it was a crime. Firsr of all, didn’t the DOJ come to the conclusion that a President was immune from prosecution for criminl offenses? (I need to see that decision on paper, by the way. What could possibly bring an American lawyer to that conclusion? Nothing in American political philosophy includes this concept.)
Beyond that, the Constitution defines an “impeachable offense”, doesn’t it? “Major crimes and misdemeanors”, it says. So: what book lists the “major crimes”? Is it the sme one that ennumerates the “major misdemeanors”?
The point is, you can’t imagine what some asshole-in-charge will come up with sometime in the future. That’s why it doesn’t say, “parking in the Chief Justice’s Space”, or “using the wrong gender restroom” or an other statutory offense. A “major misdemeanor” is an inappropriate demeanor, like telling the Chief Justice, “I can shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it”, or actually mooning the Queen. Or shitting on the Bill of Rights. Really, really bad demeanor. You know?
What made tRump think he could ask the President of a newborn democracy, a distinguished member of the international community who had just triumphantly concluded an election campaign based on a platform of reform in a notoriously corrupt nation, publicly, to provide him with mud with which to smear his political opponent with the approval of the American people, other than an overestimation of his own native charm? I think it was his desire to link his name and fate with Bill Clinton, the only other impeached President in the last hundred years. Clinton’s impeachable act, as was exhaustively pointed out during The Procedings, was not his Overt Act (that is, cumming on his intern’s dress) but his Subvert Act, lying to Congress about cumming on the fucking dress, that is, claiming her jerking him off was not a “sex act”. He wanted to be dead certain he could not be accused of lying to anybody about his behavior concerning President Zelensky. Cause, see, he didn’t want to be impeached. That’s the kind of fuckwit we elected.
Goddam right we should be embarrassed.
We let this government descend into such a bucket of politics that Hilary Clinton’s official conduct was considered “Normal”, that Nancy Pelosi and Mich McConnell were re- and re- and re-elected despite their corrupt ‘demeanors’.
I’ve been thinking …