Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is calling for the expulsion of Republican members for challenging the electoral votes this week as “sedition.” From the outset, I opposed this challenge as unfounded. However, think about this demand (which has been raised by others). Rubin wants to expel members who joined challenges allowed under a federal law (on the very same grounds that Democrats have made in past elections). Indeed, she declares “Every Republican bears a responsibility for what happened on Wednesday, whether or not they participated in a seditious attempt to overthrow our democracy.” So Republicans who opposed the challenge and denounced the violence should still be punished or blamed?
Moreover, Rubin objects to how these members used “disinformation” to incite violence but proceeds to misrepresent both the law and the record. For example, she singles out figures like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) who stated previously that he did not believe that Vice President Michael Pence had the authority to simply “send back” such electoral votes.
Rubin states these members “knew the objections were baseless. They saw the violent results triggered by disinformation, yet they doubled down on Republicans’ sedition.” As is often the case in her columns, Rubin seems to reconstruct reality to fit her preferred conclusion. She accuses these members of “inciting” rioters by making the very same challenge brought by Democrats in past elections involving Republican presidents. She does not call for those Democratic members to be expelled.
In January 2005, Boxer joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. I was working for CBS in that election and shared concerns over the voting irregularities. At the time, Boxer argued that Republicans had engaged in voter suppression that contributed to Bush’s victory. The media and Democratic leadership was highly supportive. Indeed, many who are condemning the challenge today heaped praise on Boxer in 2004. There was no hue and cry in the media over anti-democratic measures and refusing to respect the election results. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the current challenge an assault on democracy but, in the 2004 election challenge, she praised Boxer’s challenge as “witnessing Democracy at work. This isn’t as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, as frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy.”
Notably, many Democrats like Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., raised analogous complaints over voting systems and insisted that “as Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.” Sen. Dick Durbin has also denounced the challenge this year but took to the Senate floor to praise Boxer in 2005. He declared “Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”
Moreover, it is not “sedition” to use a federal law allowing for such challenges. Sedition is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law. Indeed, these members stated that they wanted to highlight the voting irregularities just as Boxer did in 2004. The use of such a law is not an invitation to riot. Moreover, when liberal groups rioted at the Trump inauguration, Rubin did not blame Democratic members refusing to recognize Trump as the legitimate president.
During Trump’s speech, I was tweeting out objections to his statements and defending those he was attacking. I have denounced the speech as reckless and wrong. However, the effort to weaponize this incident against Republican members is unfair.
What is most chilling is Rubin’s absurd standard proposed for the expulsion of members:
Each chamber can enact a simple rule: “No member shall retain a seat if he or she endeavors to overthrow the results of an election, file frivolous lawsuits seeking to do the same or seek to pressure any election official to change the results of an election.”
Under that standard, any member who filed a lawsuit deemed “frivolous” by Rubin or others could be expelled. Likewise, any challenge to electoral votes under the Electoral Count Act is clearly viewed by Rubin to be sedition . . . unless you are a Democrat. So we have seen a slew of meritless lawsuits over the last four years from Democratic members. The lawsuits were dismissed. Would they also be expelled? Rubin is calling for a federal law that would allow an entirely subjective standard for the expulsion of members.
Fortunately, the Washington Post cannot rewrite the Constitution for allow for such mob rule. What Rubin is suggesting would raise serious constitutional problems as a majority party punishes members for taking positions or filing cases that it deems “frivolous” or seditious.
For full disclosure, I clashed with Rubin over her personally attacking me for a theory that I did not agree with in a column that I did not write. I also challenged her on an equally bizarre column where she wrote about my impeachment testimony with a clearly false account of a “concession” pulled out of me by counsel Norm Essen, the very same source that she used in a later column that misrepresented the holding in an appellate case involving Trump. That false account was never corrected the Washington Post.
The reason that columns like this are being printed is that they are largely protected from contradiction in most of the mainstream media. Indeed, in siloed media like the Washington Post, readers are largely protected from opposing views. Rubin can misrepresent an actual holding and not be subject to a correction. This proposed expulsion standard is an attack on free speech and representational rights. Yet, it is being applauded by those who want to use this riot to cleanse Congress and cancel opposing viewpoints.
Boxer’s objection had evidence behind it.
2004: Unnecessary, very long queues in minority neighbourhoods in Ohio. 1 objection intended to highlight a problem.
2020: 50 court cases with no evidence, 12 senators and a majority of Republican representatives voting to dump millions of votes.
Trump’s objection has indisputable FACTS behind it. It is a FACT that Pennsylvania and other states conducted their elections contrary to state law as enacted by the state legislature. The allegations regarding Dominion and suspicious actions by those tasked with counting the votes are simply too fact-intensive for me to comment on without spending hours and hours studying them. But it is a certainty that a number of states conducted an illegal election in a way that favored Biden.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that mail in ballots were NOT unconstitutional. Why do you Trumpsters keep on lying about this?
At the end of the day, there is no “there” about Dominion. All of the “allegations” have been disproven.
Why would anyone care what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said? It’s not infallible, and in this case the court doesn’t even have jurisdiction. We’re talking about a federal question. You’re not even paying attention.
Are “JD” your initials rather than an abbreviation for Juris Doctor? Because it’s hard to believe that your’e a J.D. but know so little law. You don’t even name the case you’re discussing. There was more than one case in PA about mail-in ballots.
Are you talking about Kelly et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., where SCOTUS responded “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied”? Are you talking about Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar et al., where SCOTUS simply said that certain mail-in ballots should be segregated, which the state was already doing? SCOTUS didn’t say that the PA Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction.
It’s not “a FACT that Pennsylvania and other states conducted their elections contrary to state law as enacted by the state legislature.”
It’s not “a certainty that a number of states conducted an illegal election in a way that favored Biden.”
No court agrees with you.
You’re evil.
… William_JD says, looking in the mirror.
“All of the “allegations” have been disproven.”
You are in for one very large and extremely unpleasant surprise, Natacha.
50 court cases with no evidence,
The term ‘no evidence’ does not mean what you fancy it means.
The complaints about Ohio in 2004 as promoted by Marc Crispin Miller and others concerned voting machines. John Kerry did not think the complaints worth pursuint.
Such a challenge is legally allowed.
By her reasoning, Pelosi would have to be expelled because she questioned the electoral count and voting integrity when Bush was declared the winner over Gore.
This will all be forgotten the next time Democrats are concerned about the vote. Apparently, they already have amnesia from 2016 to 2020 when they claimed Trump was an illegitimate president who stole the election, and worked for Russia. That’s all fine. They’re folk heroes, in fact, for making such claims. But demanding an investigation into voting irregularities is treason if Republicans do it.
Does anyone see how the Democrats are setting themselves up as a ruling class with special privileges, trying to destroy dissenters. Gee…where have we seen that before in history and how did that go for the people…
It’s literally “privilege” — “priv- as in private and “lege”, as in lex, legis (feminine) = law. Special classes get special law.
“Don’t rush to judgment on assault on Capitol.”
“All may not be (and likely is not) what appears. Evidence growing that fascist ANTIFA orchestrated Capitol attack with clever mob control tactics.”
– Congressman Mo Brooks, R-Ala.
ANTIFA was not involved per the FBI. All of those insurrectionists who have been identified so far, including the woman who died, are all White Supremacists, Q-Anon, gun rights advocates and other right-wingers, identified by their Facebook posts. This includes the a-hole wearing the horns, who appears at all Trump rallies. The so-called “call to arms” by ANTIFA that is being disseminated in right-wing media is fake, as is a hand tattoo that is not ANTIFA. All lies.
Trump caused this because he is a sore loser, a narcissist and pathological liar.
The FBI has lost credibility.
The FBI also spent 4 years chasing a Russian Collusion hoax when they knew Hillary paid for the fake dossier, and they had fake FISA bills. Sorry, but the FBI made their beds, when they laid down with the fleas of the Democrat party to push the hoax that divided us more than the Obamas did.
Violent BLM / Anita member John Sullivan was caught on camera inside the Capitol. Talking to Anderson Cooper about the event Sullivan said he was not at the Capitol as part of the protest but did not specify what exactly brought him there. Sullivan said he was able to get inside through a broken window.“Protesters weren’t really, like, trying to burn anything down, they weren’t really trying to break anything, their main motive was to make it into the chambers,” Sullivan said. And in that process, one woman was shot and killed, and Sullivan was standing right next to her when it happened. “I remember looking into her eyes and seeing the lifelessness and understanding that she was dead,” he said. Of course Anderson never asked why he was there. Why would this violent leftist be there if this was only Trump supporters? Sullivan has quite a long record of taking place in violent actions but never seems to be punished for it. PTNews Network
Natacha, you’re making that up.
1. The FBI is not trustworthy.
2. White supremacists do not exist, so none of the :insurrectionists” could have been white supremacists.
3. The guy with the horns wasn’t an insurrectionist. He was a goofball who just stood in the lobby enjoying being the center of attention.
“White supremacists do not exist,” says a guy who must be delusional.
“The guy with the horns wasn’t an insurrectionist.”
Sure he is. He’s a right wing Trump supporter and QAnon follower who goes to lots of Trump rallies and claims Trump won. He’s known as the QAnon Shaman and has been profiled by journalists more than once. His name is Jake Angeli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Angeli
“ANTIFA was not involved per the FBI”
You provided no citation to back that up, and the FBI hasn’t had nearly enough time to conduct a proper investigation.
Further, there were Antifa members picked up by facial recognition at the capitol, and the actors acted exactly like Antifa.
A lot of them only made half-ass attempts at trying to look like Trump supporters. But their actions gave them away, anyhow.
You’re a pathetic little worm, Natacha. Like an Orc from a Tolkien novel.
“there were Antifa members picked up by facial recognition at the capitol, and the actors acted exactly like Antifa.”
No, there weren’t.
Craig Silverman: “UPDATE: The Washington Times has removed its false story claiming that a facial recognition company identified Antifa members among the Capitol insurrectionists. My report: https://t.co/oiHtsaeLJX Archive of the original Wash Times piece: https://t.co/18BC06H6SA“
“ANTIFA was not involved per the FBI”
Citing the FBI is like citing the SPLC. They’re both crazed left-wing liars.
Featured
Breaking! Law Enforcement Confirms Antifa Posed As Patriots, Stormed Capitol
The Alex Jones Show
January 8th 2021, 10:54 am
https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-live-red-alert-the-purge-has-begun/
Bread and circuses … nothing more and less.
As I mentioned before …
The Criminal Midas(es)
The “media” have profitized (neologism intended) the election and the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
Before the election of President Trump, the New Times, [Washington Post] CNN, MSNBC and almost all of the so-called “main stream media” (MSM), monopolistic corporate news businesses, were barely making a profit, particularly MSNBC was losing huge sums.
Then the New York Times declared itself “the resistance” and CNN and MSNBC became C.I.A. stenographers, which resulted in the businesses become gigantically profitable.
Lawyers, tenured professors, political ideologues, media pop stars and “celebrities” of every hue and form could and did receive “air time.”
Jeff Zucker and Mark Zuckerberg among numerous other media demigods feed the pubic, particularly the Electoral College vote losers and the politically “knowledgeable and anonymously informed,” received wisdom that “The Donald” had stolen from them the pre-ordained and the god (their god) given right to a female president and a “Democrats” victory.
What followed and what continues to follow is no more, no less than bread and circuses.
This was aided by and augmented with the “Russians did it, the Chinese it,” in other words, “the other.”
The wars of Aggression, the war crimes, the National debt, the National deficit(s) and the deterioration of the nation’s physical infrastructure and the nation’s emotional, psychological and medical health mean nothing compared to American Exceptionalism,
The Earth’s Last Best Hope,
The Indispensable Nation, and
The One Indispensable Nation.
USA,USA, USA, number 1!
The so-called “criminal Midas,” or Midas Criminals, which is it?
Why am I wrong?
dennis hanna
I have a legal question for the lawyers. (Answers please, no seeking non lawyer opnions!).
I read yesterday, somewhere, that if Trump is successfully impeached, he cannot be elected again. Is this true?
If true, would explain the current efforts—implausible to me given the short remainder of Trump’s term.
Thank you.
No, it’s not true. He would have to be impeached AND CONVICTED, and disqualification from future office would have to be part of the sentence.
Thank you William JD! Is that conviction in the Congress or a court of law? Could they write this into the sentencing of a successful impeachment conviction?
The impeachment is the indictment in the House. The trial is in the Senate.
People like her ignore history when it suits them. When it doesn’t suit them, they rewrite it or erase it.
Turley reflexively sets his sights on Jennifer Rubin & the Washington Post while ignoring:
The Wall Street Journal editorial board said “This was an assault on the constitutional process of transferring power after an election. This goes beyond merely refusing to concede defeat. In our view it crosses a constitutional line that Mr. Trump hasn’t previously crossed. It is impeachable.”
National Review editor Rich Lowry said “Trump has been engaged in a grotesque, but utterly characteristic, display of failed leadership since he insisted late on Election Night that he’d won big.”
3 of Trump’s former cabinet members said Trump should be removed from office. Ben Sasse says he will support Trump being impeached. The editorial board of the St Louis newspaper which endorsed Josh Hawley now says “He should do Missourians and the rest of the country a big favor and resign now.” Senator Danforth said “The biggest mistake in my life was endorsing Hawley.”
Turley ignores all of that & desperately attempts to draw a straight line between Boxer’s objections in 2005 & Trump inciting tens of thousands of his supporters to march to the Capitol & stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory. JT remains stone cold silent about Trump vowing to primary every single Republican who voted to certify the Electoral College votes, attacked Pence for not overturning the election & demanded that Georgia’s Republican governor resign for certifying Biden’s victory in his state. Instead, he predictably plays to his base & takes aim at Pelosi, Durbin & the media.
No comment on the Wall St Journal editorial board saying what Trump did was impeachable, JT?
+10
Elvis Bug
It is instructive to read Mr Turley’s opinions & experiences because it gives us a view into how weak but decent & well-intentioned persons fall victim to ruthless people. Eventually Mr Turley too will be destroyed. How or when this will be done by the Left is, of course, anyone’s guess; and I don’t believe he is high on their list of their targets. But they do not forget. This is how they also consolidate their power & extend it in our society: through soft destruction. Now, what does this teach us? What must we learn from these ineffectual & self-defeating efforts of a well-intentioned, law-abiding, conscientious man such as Mr Turley? It means you must fight fire with sword and fire. Interpret that as broadly as you wish. To quote a very great mind on this simple question: “a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.”
Amicus, what you said applies to the Republican party too.
Rubin is correct.
Here’s the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 3:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
This part of Constitution doesn’t ignore other parts. And it certainly doesn’t apply — alone no less — under what just happened versus what has happened before.
“elector of President” means running for president. A sitting president cannot lead an insurrection . Facts are hard for you leftist bots.
Maybe someone needs to hand the Commie/fascist Dim/Rinos the pictures/videos of the known antifa terrorist currently being investigated for their leadership the 7th by Pelosi/Schumer/McConnell etc..
It’s still a unfolding story.
Note the caption under Jennifer Rubin’s photo: “Conservative Columnist for The Washington Post”
I have read her crap for decades. She is as conservative as Maxine Waters. The Post doesn’t allow real conservatives on its property so, in an effort to show its “diversity” and at the same time benefit from the “false flag” ruse favored by some, it has mislabeled Rubin.
Ha! Ha! I didn’t see that before. I guess she or the WA Poo is just pretending to be “conservative” to fulfill some quota.
These Dims are the height of hypocrisy
JT, you’re a liar when you say that the Republicans challenged the EC votes “on the very same grounds that Democrats have made in past elections.”
The PROCESS was the same, because the process is determined by congressional rules, but the GROUNDS were not the same.
The Democrats challenged on the basis of grounds like voter suppression.
The Republicans did not challenge on the same grounds, they did it after losing dozens of lawsuits, and they did it right after insurrectionists stormed the Capitol Building.
Choose to tell the truth, JT. It’s a better choice all around.
Voter suppression? LOL Tell us very voter who was denied the chance to cast his or her ballot. Even Boxer couldn’t cite one.
Calling JT a “liar”? Bad form even for you but then again you don’t know a fact from an opinion and which of them can be true/false versus good/bad.
Small but important point…..in order to “Lose” a Suit….it must be heard in court and evidence must be presented and testimony heard and cross examined and a decision by a Judge or Jury siding with the Defendant must be entered into the Record.
Not one of the Cases was heard….thus no evidence or testimony was examined….and no decision was made on the MERITS of the Case.
You’re wrong that “Not one of the Cases was heard….thus no evidence or testimony was examined….and no decision was made on the MERITS of the Case.”
Some of the cases were heard and others weren’t. Some of the judges looked at the evidence and others didn’t. Cases were dismissed on combination of standing, laches, and merits. Trump won 1 case.
Thank you for saying that.
Push hard enough and the civil war goes hot.
A Bridge Too Far!
Jen is deranged. Trump broke her. She is perfect for the “Washington Post”
I think you may be right. I saw her talking on one of the cable news shows, noted her gestures, her intonation, her choice of language and quite apart from what she was saying I thought ” that lady is nuts.”
It is a collection of characteristics you would recognize at once in a bag lady crawling out of her sidewalk tent in the Los Angeles ‘Fashion District’.
Let’s “impeach” Jeff Bezos (WaPo, Google, Amazon) for repeated selective-fact coverage, opinion presented as fact, and slanted coverage designed to stoke division and manipulate voter perceptions. I do not excuse what happened, but let’s spread out the accountability a little more…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/abc-demands-cleansing-trump-movement-from-america/ar-BB1cyVJ7
‘ABC demands ‘cleansing’ Trump movement from America’
And Trump is Hitler?
it’s ethnic cleansing right under the surface, we all understand that. get rid of the white guys inclined to rednecky impulses
replace them all with women in pantsuits, lgbtq advocates, and assorted minorities, who are all more malleable than crackers
and when whitey is a minority, then he’s really in trouble
that’s the unspoken subtext. or well some are speaking it out loud, calling the protesters racist without evidence
but they dont need evidence because “systemic racism” makes all crackers racist, right?
one day the protests wont be peaceful and they wont be from normal citizens, they’re going to come from operators
No, systemic racism doesn’t “make all crackers racist”
Strange that you think “white guys inclined to rednecky impulses” are an ethnicity.
You think “when whitey is a minority, then he’s really in trouble” like other minorities?
A Republican is RepubliCon. Get it? Con men. Canned goods women.
Watching the politicians and the media demonize conservatives reminds me of what happened at Versailles in 1919.
– The Allies put all the blame for the war on Germany.
– The Allies rewrote history to ignore their bad actions.
– The Allies imposed a punitive peace on Germany that built resentment.
– The Allies continued “sinning”, confident that they had won.
The consequences were the German myth of “the stab in the back” that laid the foundation for a vindictive second round.
monument:
Good analogy but the Allies prevailed because they disarmed the Germans forcing them to rebuild quick and cheap.
It was not just the Germans who considered Versailles a harsh and unfair settement. Keynes wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace as a critique of the treaties, the Italians were livid because they believed their victory had been ‘crippled’ at Versailles, and the Austrians and Hungarians spent much of the interwar period trying to overturn the treaties.
The postwar treaties (not just Versailles) carved up the enemy empires using the principle of self-determination, but then created smaller states with the same minority problems as the empires, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia among them, helping Mussolini and Hitler gain power and creating fascist movements in all of Europe. The settlements were harsh and arbitrary, and they fueled resentment throughout central and southeastern Europe.
The stab in the back had legs because the Germans surrendered while their forces were outside Germany. Ludendorff convinced the Kaiser to do so after the Italians had forced Austria-Hungary to surrender on November 4 and the French began to move toward Austria. He did not have the forces needed to protect Bavaria.
If the Democrats continue on their present course, they will almost certainly leave half the country bitter and angry, not the ideal outcome of an election, and the thing is that during the lockdowns the only truly esssential workers were not people like Bezos, but the underpaid workers at Amazon who shipped the packages and the overworked delivery guys at UPS who brought them to the doors of the people sheltering in place.
The postwar treaties (not just Versailles) carved up the enemy empires using the principle of self-determination, but then created smaller states with the same minority problems as the empires, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia among them,
None of the treaties created Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. Both states were assembled in the last weeks of 1918 by rapid action of the local elected officials in those territories. The treaties provided international recognition of those states and of a particular set of borders. And, no, they did not have ‘the same’ problems. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had communal fissures (though only in Yugoslavia were they implicated in wrecking the constitutional order). The other Balkan states had a dominant nationality with modest minorities. Ditto Austria, ditto Hungary. As for Poland, the borders established in the ground conflicts just after the war left a country whose population was 68% Polish, 20% Slavs NOS, 8% Jewish, and 2% miscellaneous. The neuralgic ethnic conflicts in Poland, Hungary, and Roumania were with the geographically scattered and predominantly urban Jewish population. The Hapsburg monarchy also had a geographically scattered, predominantly urban Jewish population. Partition did not change that.
NB, the Hapsburgs Roumanian territories were appended to the extant Roumanian kingdom. The Polish territories were appended to Congress Poland and adjacent territories.