Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category

It’s obvious that Gen. Jim Mattis was upset. It’s equally obvious that he wasn’t in touch with reality. In an op-ed, which I won’t link to, Gen. Mattis wrote “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

What’s disgusting is that the police are protecting the protesters’ right to protest. Where politicians let them, the police have protected civilians, businesses and property. When idiots like Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Jacob Frey and Tom Wolf have tied law enforcement’s hands, rioters have controlled this nation’s major cities after sunset.

Police officers were run over, shot in the head or murdered by rioters. Private property was demolished by the insurrectionists/terrorists. Minority businesses were burned to the ground after they were looted. Does Gen. Mattis think that we’d be better off letting these local officials make decisions that destroy minority neighborhoods while the liberal politicians give rioters room to riot?

Let’s not overlook Gen. Mattis’ statement about “those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” Sending in military troops is constitutional. Article IV of he Constitution gives the commander-in-chief that authority. That isn’t making a “mockery of our Constitution.” That’s obeying the Constitution.

Mattis also wrote this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

With all due respect, Gen. Mattis, you’re relying on faulty intel. President Trump didn’t divide this nation. Antifa, Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat-aligned organizations have been dividing this nation for over 10 years. That’s a verified fact. According to this article, Antifa doesn’t hide its disgust for governance:

We spoke to secret Antifa groups in Oregon. They said they come from a variety of political backgrounds but they were united in their opposition to fascism, and they have an anti-government streak. They said they see creeping authoritarianism in the current American administration that they are looking to build “a movement that really insulates us from the policies of Donald Trump”.

That’s what division sounds like. Antifa/anarchist organizations have existed since the 1920s. That’s before President Trump was born.

It isn’t difficult to make the argument that the Obama administration abused the Constitution far more than the Trump administration has. Lois Lerner used the IRS to prevent TEA Party organizations from fully participating in the 2012 election. Lerner’s actions stripped these citizens of their First Amendment rights. The Obama FBI lied to the FISA Court to spy on Carter Page, thereby denying Page the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In his op-ed, Gen. Mattis wrote this:

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

That’s sour grapes. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” President Trump isn’t overstepping his constitutional authorities. He’s thinking about exercising his constitutional authorities. To date, he hasn’t utilized the authority of Article IV, nor has he used the authority of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

President Trump let Gen. Mattis have it in this statement:

It’s time for Gen. Mattis to fully retire. It’s apparent that he isn’t a constitutional scholar. It’s apparent, too, that he didn’t figure it out that the commander-in-chief has an affirmative responsibility to protect the people of this nation.

Finally, would Gen. Mattis utilize the tactics and strategies that civilian Mattis is advocating for? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Despite DFL Gov. Tim Walz’s total failure during the COVID-19 crisis, his approval has increased. While that’s disappointing, it’s understandable. Because the Twin Cities media hasn’t asked Gov. Walz a single hard-hitting question, much less a difficult follow-up question, all Gov. Walz has to do is not totally disintegrate to have his approval improve.

To the Twin Cities media, it isn’t relevant that hundreds of lives have needlessly been lost in long-term care facilities. The Minnesota Department of Health, aka MDH, can be utterly incompetent but that apparently doesn’t impact Gov. Walz’s approval rating, either. Who cares that 500,000 Minnesotans have lost their jobs as a direct result of Gov. Walz’s tight-fisted lockdown order? After all, they’re just jobs. It isn’t like they’re important to people.

Gov. Walz is still letting COVID patients into nursing homes. That’s led to a high percentage of COVID-related deaths coming from long-term care (LTC) facilities. Unfortunately, that’s the only category Minnesota leads in.

Minnesota’s economy is tattered. The percentage of COVID-related deaths in LTC facilities is the highest in the nation. Gov. Walz’s orders have been supported by the DFL. Most importantly, those policies haven’t worked. Some policies have been reversed just days after implementation. Bankruptcies are increasing rapidly. Life savings have gotten lost. Family businesses have gotten shut down.

What part of that sounds like something worthy of a 65% approval rating? It sounds more worthy of a 35% approval rating. Gov. Walz is a failure from a medical and financial standpoint. He’s especially failed from a constitutional standpoint. Initially, Gov. Walz “had said churches would have to wait before reopening for large, in-person services until subsequent phases in his reopening process, but gave no date for when that would happen.” This past Saturday, he changed his mind. Perhaps this is why:

A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota will conduct a hearing Tuesday about a temporary restraining order on behalf of Minnesota churches to suspend enforcement of Minnesota’s Stay Safe MN order as it relates to religious services. The telephone hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. Tuesday. It will address the Governor’s current phase of the Stay Safe MN order, which restricts church services to 10 people or fewer.

Check out this headline:

Gov. Tim Walz to let Minnesota churches open at 25% occupancy

This is why the Twin Cities media constantly doesn’t understand the Constitution. Gov. Walz isn’t letting anything. He’s being forced into changing because that’s what the Constitution requires. When you have constitutionally illiterate idiots writing things like that, it isn’t surprising that Gov. Walz isn’t getting asked difficult questions.

Equal application of the law is essential. Gov. Walz failed that test. I’m not surprised.

Gov. Walz and Speaker Hortman are playing purely partisan games in an attempt to pressure Republicans. House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt has said that “his caucus will block passage of a public infrastructure borrowing package until the peacetime state of emergency Gov. Tim Walz has used to enact the stay-at-home order and other coronavirus response measures comes to an end.”

Predictably, Speaker Hortman responded, saying “it is ‘disappointing to see the minority leader threaten to block much-needed investments in local jobs and projects in our communities.'” Ms. Hortman, there’s a simple solution to this impasse. It’s found by letting the people have a say in matters. Leader Daudt laid it out pretty simply:

The Legislature is in session. We believe we should be working with the governor on the response to COVID-19 and keeping Minnesota safe.

I’ll put it in simpler terms. Minnesota isn’t a monarchy. Tim Walz isn’t an emperor. He was elected to be Minnesota’s governor, not Minnesota’s king. It’s time he dropped the monarch act and provided servant leadership.

Speaker Hortman apparently favors monarchies:

Governor Walz and his Administration have served the people of Minnesota well during this crisis, and his thoughtfulness is why Minnesotans overwhelmingly approve of his actions. Ending the peacetime emergency declaration before the emergency has passed would be reckless.

Actually, letting Gov. Walz do whatever he wants is reckless. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Right now, Gov. Walz is acting like he’s got total authority to do whatever he wants. If Hortman wants to campaign that Gov. Walz has the authority to make unilateral decisions and that he’s made nothing but good decisions, I can’t wait to see her surrender her Speaker’s gavel this November.

Gov. Walz and Speaker Hortman, if you want to run as an autocrat and the chief supporter of an out-of-control autocrat, don’t expect a gentle reception outside downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul this November. People with common sense don’t like authoritarianism. This about it this way. Gov. Walz has decided to ‘let’ more businesses open. Gov. Walz has ‘let’ people start fishing again. Gov. Walz has ‘let’ golf courses open after being pushed by protesters into that decision.

If this is right, the law needs changing:

The state of emergency, currently to end May 13, does not require legislative sign off, though lawmakers can vote to end it. House Republicans have made several unsuccessful attempts to pass legislation rescinding the order. The governor can extend the measure every 30 days with approval from an executive council of statewide elected officials, though he must call back the Legislature if he acts again after it has adjourned. Daudt said he would rather see the Legislature remain in session without a state of emergency past May to approve any virus response measures.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, is where political disputes should be settled. Further, giving the governor the authority to extend his autocratic decisions theoretically gives him the ability to extend it indefinitely if there’s a divided legislature. Giving a governor the ability to make decisions without consulting the legislature is a recipe for disaster. Nobody should ever have that type of authority. The people must have a say in the matter.

Greg Gutfeld frequently talks about the prison of 2 ideas in the context of people accepting that a decision comes down to just 2 options. With Georgia deciding to reopen their economy, Georgia Democrats are doing their utmost to prevent that from happening:

Georgia House Democrats urged Gov. Brian Kemp to immediately rescind an executive order that will allow some businesses and restaurants forced to close during the coronavirus pandemic to reopen later this week.

The letter sent Tuesday by House Minority Bob Trammell and dozens of Democratic legislators called Kemp’s decision “too much too soon” and warned that reopening close-contact businesses like tattoo parlors and massage therapy centers will make it impossible to maintain social distancing.

“Combined with the state’s well documented struggles with testing capacity, this premature executive order puts Georgians at risk and may very well wind up resulting in more prolonged restrictive measures in the future,” the Democrats said in the letter.

This is a purely partisan ploy. Democrats know that they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. As Andy McCarthy explains in this interview, states must meet multiple legal thresholds:

Talking about US AG Bill Barr’s statement about states going too far with their shelter-in-place orders, McCarthy said “What he’s saying is that when the government regulates your fundamental rights, which might include your right of free association, right of exercising your religion, your right to work, in many ways, they have to narrowly tailor their restrictions so that it’s the least restrictive way of burdening your fundamental rights and the Justice Department has already intervened in a case in Greenville, Mississippi, on behalf of religious believers who were being denied the right to do communal observance of Easter. So this is not like it’s a threat in the air. This is something that they’ve already done. And I think that the most important thing he said, Neil, especially for what you’ve been covering today, is that it’s not your burden as an American that your job is essential. It’s that it’s their burden, that is, the government’s burden, that your job can’t be operated safely before they can shut it down.”

Minnesota business owners participating in this upcoming Sunday’s #Liberate Minnesota protest at the Governor’s Mansion should highlight this information. Let’s force Gov. Walz to justify why he’s doing what he’s doing. Let’s force him, and the DFL, to explain how this is the least restrictive way of accomplishing the goal of flattening the curve and reopening Minnesota’s economy.

Gov. Walz might be able to accomplish one of those goal. I’m certain that he can’t accomplish both. Brit Hume brought another bit of common sense to this discussion in this interview:

“I think it’s time to consider the possibility, Shannon, that this lockdown, as opposed to the more moderate mitigation efforts, is a colossal public policy calamity,” he stated. “That the damage to the economy, businesses that I see, businesses are closing. Many may not reopen. Those jobs will be lost. Those businesses will be lost. Those incomes will be lost.”

“Plus, the effect on children who don’t have their normal life. They don’t have school. They can’t play with their friends, even outdoors. All these things are accumulating,” he continued. “They’re not going to get better, Shannon. They’re going to get worse with time. And, as I say, we may not recover from many of these losses for a very long time if ever.”

“Nobody is talking about going back to exactly where we were,” he explained. “What they’re talking about is moving forward, ending the lockdown, allowing people to continue to take the measures of avoiding crowds, washing your hands a lot, social distancing wherever possible, you can do that in offices, you can stagger the way people come to work. Some people stay home some days. Some people come in. There’s an awful lot that could be done. Wearing masks when indoors, particularly in stores and so on.”

It’s time to discard some of these prison of 2 ideas options. There are less restrictive options available. If that’s the case, implement them, not the draconian options that Gov. Evers, Gov. Walz and Gov. Whitmer have adopted.

This is the United States. We’re the most innovative nation in recent history. The notion that we have to be trapped in a prison of just 2 ideas isn’t part of our national DNA. Let’s apply common sense. Let’s innovate our way out of this just like we’ve our ways out of other calamities.

Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democrat governor, now has to deal with a lawsuit brought by Republican lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos filed the lawsuit in Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court. If the court sides with the Republican leadership, which seems likely, it will be a stinging political defeat for Gov. Evers.

The GOP leaders are seeking to take away Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm’s ability to make unilateral decisions during public health emergencies and instead require her to gain their approval before taking action. They say the Evers administration’s actions are outside the bounds of the law. “Purporting to act under color of State law, an unelected, unconfirmed cabinet secretary has laid claim to a suite of czar-like powers, unlimited in scope and indefinite in duration, over the people of Wisconsin,” the complaint reads.

First, let’s see what the evidence is before making judgment. That being said, if the Republicans’ description is right, then Gov. Evers and Secretary Palm would likely be heading for a defeat.

All state constitutions must meet the US Constitution’s provisions on separation of powers and checks and balances. It isn’t likely that the Democrats’ Great Lakes governors’ shelter-in-place orders would meet constitutional muster. With a single person making the decisions, it’s impossible to legitimately say that there’s a check on that person’s balance.

These Democrats (Walz, Whitmer and Evers) have overstepped their authorities. It’s just a matter of time before someone questions Gov. Walz’s authority. If nothing else, some GOP House member should challenge Walz’s authority. It isn’t a matter of whether the judge likes or doesn’t like Gov. Walz’s intentions. The only thing that matters is whether Gov. Walz has the authority to strip Minnesotans’ constitutional rights from them.

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” One way that the people petition the government is through our representatives. Taking away their policy-making authority for an extended period of time strips the people of that essential right.

These protests and lawsuits aren’t going away until these governors stop acting like autocrats. Whitmer, Walz and Evers think they’re above the will of the people because they want to do good as defined by them. The Constitution limits what governments can do, not what people can do.

Last Friday, Jay Inslee decided that protesting was “fomenting domestic rebellion”. Inslee, a former congressman, thinks that protesting his decisions, and the decisions of other governors, is harassment. If he can’t take the heat, he should get his rotting carcass out of the proverbial kitchen.

Here’s what Inslee said:

Inslee derided the president’s tweets as “unhinged rantings.” “His unhinged rantings and calls for people to ‘liberate’ states could also lead to violence,” Inslee’s statement said, according to Q13 FOX. “We’ve seen it before. The president is fomenting domestic rebellion and spreading lies even while his own administration says the virus is real and is deadly.’

What a total wimp. Do any of these Democrats have a spine? If they do, I haven’t detected it yet. This is part of the Democrats’ discredited playbook. Democrats insist that anything that a Republican says might “lead to violence.” When Gabby Giffords was shot, people immediately indicted Sarah Palin for the shooting. The shooting was done by Jared Loughner, a troubled young man with mental issues.

Democrats need to stop telling whoppers like this. Their incendiary language is disgusting, dishonest and disheartening. It’s got to stop immediately.

Inslee is one of those idiots that think the planet will die within the next 12 years if we don’t stop climate change. He’s essentially a socialist who thinks that government isn’t intrusive enough. If you follow his career, you’ll see that he’s just a cookie cutter politician. Apparently, Inslee’s brain is prohibited from accepting original thoughts.

Here’s what Gov. Inslee told Anderson Cooper:

First, you heard it. Gov. Inslee, one of the furthest left Democrats ever to run for president, said that his executive order was the law of the land. That’s stunning. Shelter-in-place orders aren’t laws. They’re guidelines that aren’t enforceable in the best of conditions. Each state constitution must comply with the US Constitution’s system of checks and balances. An executive order is just that — an order from the Executive Branch. There’s no check or balance in a system like that. The executive signs it. It’s filed. That’s it in terms of process. Further, shelter-in-place orders aren’t the law of the land because they violate the First Amendment because people have the right to protest. The Supreme Court ruled that speech is protected. Further, they ruled that political speech is the highest form of protected speech. Period. Anything that violates the Constitution is unenforceable. Period. If Inslee thinks that he can enforce laws that violate the Constitution, I’d love seeing him try. He’d get his butt kicked by the federal courts in a New York minute.

Later, Gov. Inslee pulls a stunt that’s commonplace with Democrats when he said “To have a president of the United States willfully try to inspire people of the United States to disobey the law and possibly violate the law with potentially fatal consequences is unbelievably irresponsible.” Is Inslee now interested in going into mindreading? Does he think that he’s the next Nostradamus? First, he’s wrong on the Constitution, then he’s making projections about possible maybes? That’s as solid as a house built on quicksand.

There’s a reason why this idiot dropped out early. He’s nuttier than AOC.

DFL Gov. Tim Walz has acted like he’s an autocrat that isn’t accountable to the people. Steve Drazkowski wants Gov. Walz to experience a little accountability. The DFL leadership is fighting to protect Gov. Walz because, well, Gov. Walz is a Democrat. Therefore, he must be protected at all costs. (At this point, the lion’s share of the Twin Cities media is obligated to either nod in agreement or genuflect and kiss Gov. Walz’s ring.)

Rep. Drazkowski isn’t nodding in agreement, genuflecting or kissing Gov. Walz’s ring. In fact, he’s attempting to restore constitutional sanity to the DFL majority in the Minnesota House. Obviously, Draz (that’s his nickname) has his hands full. Getting the DFL to listen to the Constitution is virtually impossible. Just ask Tucker Carlson about that:

Rep. Drazkowski is a warrior for the Constitution. He’s also a warrior of the principle of checks and balances. Here’s how he fought the fight for the people’s voice to be heard:

These orders do not make sense. People are allowed to go to a union meeting, but not a church service. They can get an abortion but not a kidney transplant. They can buy booze and medicinal marijuana, but they can’t camp in a state forest. If we don’t terminate the governor’s emergency powers, we will be ceding the authority of the Legislature, and the voice of the people, to one person. It is the Legislature’s role, as the voice of the people, to set state policy, not one chief executive.

Gov. Walz’s decisions have already devastated Minnesota’s economy. Thanks for acting unilaterally, Gov. Walz. Thanks for killing livelihoods and life dreams. I’m sure Minnesotans are satisfied.

If you look at our neighboring states, you will find that the states that have not instituted stay at home orders against their people have a death rate per million people due to COVID-19 equal to or lower than Minnesota’s. North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa, states very much like ours that directly border Minnesota. They have decided to protect their people and their economy. We can do the same.

If you listen to Gov. Walz’s briefings, you won’t hear him talk often about the economy. Jan Malcolm, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, is present at all of the briefings. I don’t see the commissioner of DEED there often, though. That indicates Gov. Walz’s priorities.

There’s supposed to be a balancing act between public health and economic vitality. Gov. Walz has unilaterally, but with the DFL’s steadfast assistance, focused just on Minnesota’s health.

Based on this article, I’m betting that this coalition will fail:

Similar to the groups of governors on the East and West Coasts, the seven states (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, and Kentucky) will be looking at four main factors: sustained control of new infections and hospitalization, an enhanced ability to test and trace, a sufficient health care capacity to handle any surges, and best practices for social distancing in the workplace.

If these governors haven’t noticed, these are already part of President Trump’s blueprint of guidelines. They’re starting from a position of extreme caution. With the exception of Indiana and Ohio, these states are governed by pointy-headed liberals. Whitmer, Walz, Evers and Beshear aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. Pritzker isn’t a heavyweight, either.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn’t the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief, which closed by saying “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That’s a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings. What’s clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats’ court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution’s limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals’ rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one’s government, the right to defend one’s family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. Article III wasn’t written to give Democrats political victories it couldn’t earn through the legislative process.

Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn’t what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution’s mandates.

Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

The Democrats’ warped thinking is actually a little frightening. After it became clear that the Democrats faced an uphill fight on witnesses, Democrats started with a new chanting point. According to Speaker Pelosi, President Trump “He will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”

Using Pelosi’s logic, there’s no need for acquittal since President Trump wasn’t impeached. You can’t be impeached if you weren’t allowed the right to counsel during the investigation. You can’t be impeached if you weren’t allowed to call witnesses during the investigation. You can’t be impeached if transcripts of depositions (taken in the downstairs bunker, aka SCIF) were kept offlimits to House Republicans while those testifiers testified in front of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, aka the House Impeachment Committee.

Speaker Pelosi’s vitriol didn’t stop there. After criticizing President Trump with her made-up, arbitrary opinions, Pelosi trashed his defense team:

“I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making. I don’t think they made the case. I think they disgraced themselves terribly in terms of their violation of what our Constitution is about and what a president’s behavior should be.”

Trusting in Pelosi’s understanding of the Constitution is as foolish as taunting a cobra with quick movements. I won’t be nice about this. Pelosi’s understanding of constitutional principles is situational. She cares as much about the Constitution as she cares about the homeless in her district.

President Trump’s defense team didn’t need to make a case. It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove that the defendant committed a crime. This isn’t the United States of Hirono, where Republican defendants (think Brett Kavanaugh) are required to prove their innocence.

In the Constitution written by Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, not the Constitution imposed by Pelosi and Hirono, defendants are presumed innocent. In the courts, the prosecutor has the burden of proving its accusations. Pelosi wasn’t finished with the misinformation. Here’s more misinformation:

“Some of them are even lawyers. Imagine that you would say — ever, of any president, no matter who he or she is or whatever party, if the president thinks that his or her presidency … is good for the country, then any action is justified, including encouraging a foreign government to have an impact on our elections. [That] is exactly what our Founders were opposed to — and they feared.”

As usual, Pelosi omitted a key part of what was actually said. In his presentation, Professor Dershowitz talked about 3 situations. One situation is where the president acts solely in the country’s best interest without regard to whether it helps him politically. That, he said was perfectly fine but fairly rare.

Another situation is the president did something for thoroughly corrupt reasons. Think Nixon demanding kickbacks. He said that’s a situation where the president isn’t above the law.

The third situation is where a president does something in the national interest but does it with an eye on how it’ll help him politically. Professor Dershowitz said that’s fairly common and is ok. President Bush used to say that “good policy is great politics.” Would Pelosi disagree with that statement? I can’t imagine she would.

The Democrats haven’t done a thing to make people more prosperous or more safe. Democrats haven’t done a thing to prevent human trafficking on our border or homelessness in our streets. San Francisco, the city that Pelosi represents, used to be one of the world’s most beautiful cities. Now, it’s literally a feces-infested dump just a block or 2 outside of the rich people’s gated community.

It’s time to throw these disgusting people out of office en masse. They’ve hurt the US enough.