People like New York Times writer David Leonhardt are distorting truth in real time.
In what can only be described as mental self-flagellation, I subscribe to a New York Times email list called ‘The Morning’ for a daily briefing of headlined news. I take no pleasure in reading it nor do I garner any meaningful news, but it makes it easy to see their hypocrisy and doublespeak when it’s sent right to my inbox.
"*" indicates required fields
For the morning of January 12th, regular writer David Leonhardt outdid himself with his delusions. Below, I have segmented and italicized his article, after which I provide commentary.
“If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time.”
Those two sentences are factually correct. So far, so good. Trump has under two weeks remaining in office. Any impeachment hearings or trials would not conclude by the time Joe Biden’s inauguration takes place. That being said, there are ulterior motives. Keep reading.
“But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trail can happen after January 20.”
There is a clause in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7) that reads: “Judgment in the 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.”
I am not a legal scholar, but this seems a legitimate route, ungrounded, disingenuous, or otherwise. The United States’ own website for deciphering the Constitution makes this statement on disqualification: “The immediate effect of conviction upon an article of impeachment is removal from office,1although the Senate may subsequently vote on whether the official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.”
“And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics.”
You’re damn right it could alter the future of American politics. President Trump is loathed, abohored, and hated – at some point there aren’t even words strong enough to describe the vitriol and animus the media and political left have for him. Insofar as he is a political opponent, it makes sense he is attacked, but they have gone nuclear in their vengeance and scorn. Above all else, what is most frustrating is that none of it is grounded in reality.
If Democrats pursue this agenda, it will not matter one iota whether or not they succeed. The die will have been cast for political and societal anarchy. The first impeachment was a sham, the second would be as well, and disqualification would arise only out of political motives. Do they really think Trump is the worst figure in American history? They would have to in order to justify these next steps.
If Republicans somehow managed to win back both the House and Senate, as well as the White House, down the road, what would stop them from doing the same? When the United States and the Soviet Union both had more ICBMs than they knew what to do with, mutually assured protection – the threat of the other guy doing something drastic – ensured world peace. Right now, both parties have operated under the pretense that they don’t like what the other side does, but they also don’t want it to come abc and bite them. Remember when Harry Reid made the Supreme Court process a simple majority vote?
If Democrats push this through, it releases Republicans from ever having to show decorum again. They could simply vote out a Democrat because they didn’t like him or viewed him (or her!) as a political threat. When Democrats say Trump steps on the Constitution, this is one more example of how it is all backwards.
“It’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how radical a figure Trump us. He rejects basic foundations of American government that other presidents, from both parties, have accepted for decades.”
In the original article, there is a hyperlink for the phrase “rejects basic foundations of American government.” Do you know where the article linked to? It simply goes to another New York Times piece written just a few days prior to this by the same author [italics used for my emphasis]. That link can be found here.
They never have any proof of his radicalism. Do you know what is radical, though? Pushing through statehood for heavily-Democrat territories without consideration of an off-setting conservative state. Radical is supporting months of BLM riots and lootings. Radical is phishing a narrative that America is racist. Radical is increasing taxes and breaking the middle class. Radical is convincing people that communism is good and free market principles are bad. Radicalism is telling people living in the best country in the history of the world that they are victims and entitled to goodness knows what.
“He has tried to reverse an election result and remain in power by persuading local officials to commit fraud. He incited a mob that attacked the Capitol – and killed a police officer – while Congress was meeting to certify the result. Afterward, Trump praised the rioters.”
Yes, Trump is trying to reverse the election results. Who doesn’t? Hillary and the left are still saying the election was stolen in 2016. Stacey Abrams still thinks she’s the rightful governor of Georgia. The pretend concern for adhering to elected results in appalling. At any rate, there is evidence that fraud took place and there are a lot of questions as to how Biden won. If seeking answers to those questions now constitutes trying to “reverse an election,” well, the concepts of truth and objectivity are truly dead.
Also, what happened to Officer Brian Sicknick is horrible. There is no debate on that point. However, the New York Times and David Leonhardt can spare us all the faux outrage over his passing. Indeed, Officer Sicknick is the first police officer whom the left finally cares about. We witnessed riots against police for months on end; suddenly they care?
Most insidious is the claim that Trump “praised the rioters.” The hyperlink for that phrase can be found here. The link itself goes to a Variety piece that leads with – get ready for it – an introductory sentence saying “Facebook, in an unusual action removed President Trump’s video post to D.C. rioters telling them to ‘go home.’” Even the article says that Trump told his supporters to go home, which he did.
“This behavior was consistent with Trump’s entire presidency. He has previously rejected the legitimacy of election results and encouraged his supporters to commit violence. He has tried to undermine Americans’ confidence in the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the military, Justice Department prosecutors, federal judges, the Congressional Budget Office, government scientists, government health officials, and more. He has openly used the presidency to enrich his family.”
This is just more lies. The FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and other governmental, bureaucratic boondoggles are decidedly anti-Trump. They seek power over truth and service to the American people. So, yes, he called them out. People at the Times can live in an imaginary world where the Deep State doesn’t exist, but I watched the Mueller Investigation reveal passionate leftists who hated the incoming president while revealing nothing that it purported to explore, namely collusion with Russia.
As has already been pointed, it is fraudulent for David Leonhardt to express outrage over the mobs at the Capitol while standing behind riots from Black Lives Matter or Antifa. Of course, this fool wrote in September that the “American right today has a bigger violence problem than the American left.” Basically, he is pretending that riots by Biden supporters in many urban centers across America for months on end did not happen, or he is choosing to simply ignore them.
In response to the claim that he and his family enriched themselves…I mean, you couldn’t be more obtuse or deceitful if you tried. Has he heard of the Clintons? The Bidens? I am even willing to concede on this point, maybe Trump did enrich himself! I do know that he didn’t take a salary while in office, so there’s that, but fine, let’s say his businesses thrived for the past five years. It goes back to selective outrage. If you are mad at Trump, but completely ignore Clinton, Biden, Obama, and all the rest of the scummy politicians that live lavishly after a life in office, then your opinion is about as useful as my infant’s formula poops.
“In the simplest terms, Trump seems to believe a president should be able to do whatever he wants. He does not appear to believe in the system of government that the Constitution prescribes – a democratic republic.”
Of all the lies, the biggest one told right now is how Donald Trump hates the U.S. Constitution and how Democrats love it. Here are just a few of the constitutional hindrances on leftist totalitarianism:
- The First Amendment – Democrats want to outlaw “hate” speech. What is hate speech? Hate speech is anything they don’t want to listen to or compete against. It has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with power. When it happens in the private sector, Twitter being the most obvious example right now but far from the only offender, it is just as scary. But the political left endorses all matters of speech restrictions.
- The Second Amendment – Simply put, the Democrats hate guns, gun owners, and the idea of gun ownership. Joe Biden’s own website said it supported an annual tax on every privately owned gun. He wants to dismantle the NRA. It has been said elsewhere and bears repeatings: The Second Amendment protects all other amendments.
- The Electoral College – Democrats miss the point on our nation being a constitutional, federated republic. They think when we say America is a democracy that all votes, in a national election, should count equally. This is false. Their votes count in state elections. There is no such thing as a national, popular vote. Simply majorities do not work, the founders knew it, and it’s a terrible idea. But, Democrats know they can advance their agenda through this process so the College has to go.
- The Supreme Court – This is not technically a constitutional issue, but it does raise the question of how the Court was envisioned by the founding fathers and how the political left sees the court as simply rubber stamping their agenda. We will wait and see how the court packing goes. Is there any reason they wouldn’t try at this point? The Supreme Court might be the last stand for conservatism.
- The Addition of New States – Like the Supreme Court, the ability to include new states in the Union is fine, but like packing the Court with new justices, the matter of adding new states simply because of their influence on national elections is dangerous. Even leading up the Civil War, new states were added that provided a balance of power. What a phrase – balance of power. That notion is dead, thanks to the left.
“Yet there is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Repiblican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.”
We can only hope.
“If he is disqualified, it’s impossible to know what would happen, but this much is clear: A singularly popular figure who rejects basic tenets of American democracy would no longer be eligible to lead it.”
David Leonhardt, what are the basic tenets of American democracy that your side still supports? Enlighten us. Moreover, which ones has Trump ruined? I made my case. Please make yours – but with facts this time, not your personal hatred of the man peacefully leaving office. (You made that stupid assertion, too).