Portman’s Principled Stand: A Response To The Cincinnati Enquirer

Below is my column in the Cincinnati Enquirer in response to a column criticizing Sen. Rob Portman for his vote to acquit former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. Portman (who recently announced that he will not run for reelection) is one of the most thoughtful and decent figures in Congress. James Freeman Clarke once said “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of his country.” I have spoken with Sen. Portman on constitutional and legal issues for years and he always epitomized what Clarke meant about a true statesman.  His decision not to seek reelection was a blow for the Senate as someone who was eager to work with the other party on finding solutions to our growing national problems. That is why I felt I had to respond to a recent column by Opinion Editor Kevin Aldridge. I have no doubt about Aldridge’s good-faith disagreement with the verdict. However, we need to reach a place where we can disagree on such issues without questioning each other’s integrity or honesty. To that end, I want to thank the Cincinnati Enquirer (and Mr. Aldridge) for having the integrity of running my column.  This is the essence of dialogue and we may find that what divides us is not nearly as great as what unites us as citizens.

 

Here is the column:

 

Bertrand Russell once warned that only fools “are always so certain” when “wiser people (are) so full of doubts.” Of course, certainty has its advantages. It can cut off the need to address arguments or even recognize that any argument exists. That is increasingly the case in our age of rage.

For example, the second Trump impeachment trial raised a host of long-standing questions that have long been debated among academics, including the trial of former officials. Rather than recognize such close questions, many have claimed that there are no real arguments about the constitutionality of such trials.

That certainty was expressed recently in an editorial by Opinion Editor Kevin Aldridge criticizing Sen. Rob Portman for voting to acquit Trump based on his view that the Constitution limits Senate trials to the removal of a sitting, not a former, president. Mr. Aldridge is certainly no fool and I understand his disagreement with the verdict is heartfelt. However, he claims that “many” scholars dispute that a former president cannot be tried. That is true. It is also true that many believe that this is a close question and others believe that such trials are clearly unconstitutional.

For those of us who have resolved the question on either side, most of us recognize it is a very close question. Indeed, over 20 years ago, I recognized the value of such trials and the historical arguments in favor retroactive removals. I still believe that but, over the last couple decades, I have come to view the jurisdictional question more narrowly. I hold the same view as Portman that the better textual and policy arguments disfavor such trials.

We are not alone. Among those making these arguments was Justice Joseph Story whose famous commentaries are treated as the gold standard on the Constitution and the intention of the Framers. He wrote not long after its adoption and is one of the most cited authorities on such interpretations. He distinguished our impeachments from those in Great Britain on the basis that the latter could impeach former officials.

Story wrote, “If then there must be a judgment of removal from office, it would seem to follow that the Constitution contemplated that the party was still in office at the time of the impeachment. If he was not, his offense was still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.”

There were only two attempts at a retroactive removal. The first occurred only a few years after the adoption of the Constitution when some of the signers were in Congress. One of those signers was William Blount who was tried after being expelled from the Senate. He did not even show up and the Senate dismissed the case without a trial.

The second case was that of former Secretary of War William Belknap. In his case, almost half of the Senate voted to dismiss the case as unconstitutional and lost by only around five votes to dismiss the case. It then acquitted him.

Not much has changed since 1876. This remains an unresolved issue and the threshold vote in the Trump trial failed by roughly the same five votes. He was then acquitted. The point is not to denounce those in the majority as craven partisans or clearly wrong. Neither is Portman who followed a position supported by academics, historical figures, and prior senators going back to the earliest days of the republic.

Aldridge also wrote that the arguments against the Trump trial were clearly wrong since he was impeached by the House before leaving office. That is not true. The use of snap impeachment was unwise but constitutional. You can have a constitutional impeachment and an unconstitutional impeachment trial. It is like saying that a court must try a case because a grand jury properly indicted an individual. Courts can dismiss such cases on constitutional or legal flaws. Likewise, the Senate’s authority to try a case is based on an independent standard and inquiry. The Constitution says that the required vote is to remove “the President” from office. Only then can the Senate consider the discretionary penalty of disqualification from future office.

Finally, Aldridge criticized Portman for favoring the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton while opposing conviction of former President Donald Trump. I have faced the same baseless criticism. I testified in favor of Clinton’s impeachment because even Democrats (and later a federal judge) agreed that Clinton committed perjury in office, a felony crime. Trump was not accused of a crime in his first impeachment and in both impeachments the record was insufficient to convict on the non-criminal articles. Moreover, in the second impeachment, the trial itself was subject not only to prudential concerns over a “snap impeachment” but constitutional concerns over a retroactive removal. There is nothing hypocritical in Portman’s positions on the Clinton and Trump impeachments.

In our age of rage, certainty is often eagerly embraced like a warm and protective blanket. It allows us to dismiss opposing views and even (as here) long-standing constitutional debates. Yet, it is not enough to call for our leaders to “vote their conscience,” but then condemn them for reaching an opposing position. We can all have good-faith disagreements on the underlying historical and constitutional questions. However, it is unfair label others as partisan or hypocritical merely because they reached honest and reasoned conclusions different from your own.

Portman was one of the members who honestly debated the constitutional concerns over a retroactive removal. I know because I spoke to all of the GOP senators. He reached his decision despite his condemnation of Trump’s speech. Like many, he voted not out of fealty to Trump but to the Constitution.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachments and served as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment trial in the Senate.

217 thoughts on “Portman’s Principled Stand: A Response To The Cincinnati Enquirer”

  1. “Portman (who recently announced that he will not run for reelection) is one of the most thoughtful and decent figures in Congress.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Portman is the very personification of thoughtful and decent. Appreciation, congratulations and kudos to Portman. America is in the death throes of the final assault by communism. America doesn’t want “thoughtful and decent.” America doesn’t want their love. America doesn’t want their respect. America wants their fear. America wants their fear for cause and no quarter. George Washington was not seeking thoughtful and decent when he crossed the Delaware. George Washington was seeking freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; nothing more, nothing less and no quarter.

  2. Turley writes:

    “Portman was one of the members who honestly debated the constitutional concerns over a retroactive removal. I know because I spoke to all of the GOP senators. He reached his decision despite his condemnation of Trump’s speech. Like many, he voted not out of fealty to Trump but to the Constitution….”

    BS. In his role of GOP house attorney, of course JT will defend his team and always does. Apparently a months long assault (aided by JT) on our election process and an attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters and upend our long history of a peaceful transfer of power is not much of a threat to us and our constitution, while a minute and perpetually unclear argument about impeaching a former president is a much more critical matter.

    Yeah, right. What a hack.

  3. We get $1400 once. They get it every week for 15 weeks! The BidenBucks bill pays federal employees up to 15 weeks of paid leave at $1400 per week if they have to stay home to virtual school kids. —->>>

    “The U.S. House version of the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” – a $1.9 trillion emergency aid package to help America recover from the coronavirus pandemic has an extra perk for federal workers: Enhanced paid time off if your child is enrolled in a school that isn’t back to full-time, in-classroom instruction.

    Critics call it a personal bailout for bureaucrats. It is funded through a new $570 million family leave account exclusively for federal workers.

    While millions of parents struggle to work from home with kids who are enrolled in shuttered or partially shuttered schools, and millions more left the workforce or lost jobs to care for their at-home children, evidently parents in the federal bureaucracy need their own, personal Covid-19 bailout.

    Buried on page 305 of the House bill released late last Friday night (included after the bailout details for states and localities), is a new Treasury Department fund called the “Emergency Federal Employee Leave Fund.”

    $570 million in the new fund is available through September 30. Federal employees caring for others due to Covid-19 are eligible for paid leave. Among those eligible are those who are “unable to work” because they are caring for school-aged children not physically in school full time “due to Covid-19 precautions[.]”

    The new Fund allows a federal employee “caring for a son or daughter” to qualify for the paid leave, specifically:

    “if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, if the school of such son or daughter requires or makes optional a virtual learning instruction model or requires or makes optional a hybrid of in-person and virtual learning instruction models, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to Covid-19 precautions;”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/23/paid-to-stay-home–coronavirus-aid-bill-pays-federal-employees-with-kids-out-of-school-up-to-21k/?sh=3f003b661223

    1. …the most thoughtful and decent figures… has to cut the mustard sometime.
      To quote Leo Durocher in 1946, Nice guys finish last!

  4. “Portman’s Principled Stand”

    Didn’t Cuomo take a principled stand. We have to believe women and we have to believe Blasey Ford. He even won an Emmy. Isn’t he the Democrat that killed thousands of seniors?
    ——

    Former Staffer Accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo of Sexual Harassment

    Joshua Caplan24 Feb 2021

    A former aide accused New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) of unwanted sexual advances in a blog post published Wednesday.

    Lindsey Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and special adviser to Cuomo, said Cuomo repeatedly touched her body, attempted to kiss her on the mouth, invited her to play “strip poker,” and overtly objectified her, documenting her experiences with screenshots of emails and texts in a Medium post.

    Boylan alleges that Cuomo’s top female staff members “normalized” the governor’s conduct. In 2018, she says, she began to “speak up” after Cuomo allegedly kissed her without consent, but her superiors “reprimanded” her:

    Continued:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/24/former-staffer-accuses-gov-andrew-cuomo-of-sexual-harassment/

      1. The accusations against Trump lasted over 4 years. While the accusations against Cuomo were flowing he got an Emmy and you were clapping your hands. Now suddenly the talking points have gone against Cuomo and suddenly you change your mind.

        Take note how Anonymous the Stupid follows lock step to the tune of the leftist talking points. No brain of his own.

        1. Allan the Abusive Troll continues to respond with insults. Abusers shouldn’t be indulged as if they’re trying to engage in good faith.”

          1. Anonymous the Stupid continues to rant without saying anything.

            The amazing thing is, that when Anonymous the Stupid adopted the new talking points from the left that turned against Cuomo, Anonymous the Stupid was still clapping his hands over the Emmy.

            LOL, what a fool.

  5. Strange but true:

    Jen Psaki (WH Press Secretary): “We have a number of unaccompanied minors, children who are coming into the country without their families. What we are not doing that the last administration did was to separate those kids, rip them from the arms of their parents at the border. We are not doing that.

    Is she a space cadet? Unaccompanied kids can’t be ripped from their parents arms. Their parents aren’t there. (doubly distressing was the TV commentator didn’t take note of that error.)

      1. Anonymous the Stupid is Stupider than Shite. The rest of the transcript doesn’t have to do with the error pointed out in that paragraph. Typical of Anonymous the Stupid sending out links that are meaningless to what is being pointed out.

        Unaccompanied kids can’t be ripped from their parents arms.

    1. I caught that as well. The Dems have said basically the same thing for the last 5 years. How, exactly, can a ‘family’ be kept together if there is no ‘family’. She also spoke about sending them back they way they came if they couldn’t be held in a facility…..what? was she talking about having them walk back home?

      1. This is akin to Orwell’s doublespeak, but a less intelligent version of it. However. it seems to work with those that don’t think and that includes TV commentators who I expect to actually listen to the words said.

        A note, the response by one of our anonymous characters above indicates the level of intellect presently utilized by the left. The statement was clear to you. The intellectually challenged leftist above had to find a criticism, but not knowing what he was talking about tried to drown the reader by using links containing a lot of verbiage (the entire statement), but nothing that was on target.

  6. Well it would seem some of the House Democrats have taken their disdain for our citizens right to bear arms to new low. Now they want to use their passion for gun control to effectively disarm the President. So instead of the adage when seconds matter, law enforcement is just minutes away; being just a domestic security issue, now they believe that should apply to our ability to respond to foreign threats as well. 25th amendment anyone?

    Congressional Democrats sent a letter to President Joe Biden this week urging him to give up his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, Politico reported Tuesday.

    The lawmakers said they want to reform the “the decision-making process the United States uses in its command and control of nuclear forces.”

    Currently, only the president has the authority to launch U.S. nuclear weapons. Though he has advisers available to consult on any such decision, there is nothing that says he must.

    And that is worrisome, the 31 Democratic letter-signers stated, citing actions of both former Presidents Donald Trump and Richard Nixon:

    [V]esting one person with this authority entails real risks. Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.

    While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering an attack, there is no requirement to do so. The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.
    The passage above included footnotes linking to stories of former President Trump threatening a nuclear attack on North Korea, Nixon Defense Secretary James Schlesinger’s concerns about outgoing President Nixon’s stability in the days before he resigned, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s futile demand that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remove the nuclear football from Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

    Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the letter, said in response to the Politico report, “Vesting a single person with nuclear authority entails real risks. I’m leading a group of my colleagues with @RepTedLieu in calling for reform to our nuclear command-and-control structure. It’s time to install additional checks and balances into this system.”

    The letter offered a number of alternatives, including:

    Requiring officials in the line of succession, beginning with the vice president and the House speaker, “to concur with a launch order”;
    Requiring certifications from the defense secretary and the attorney general that a launch order is valid and legal, as well as “concurrence from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff and/or the secretary of state”;
    Requiring both a declaration of war and specific authorization from Congress before a nuclear strike can occur; and
    Creating a council of congressional leaders that would regularly meet with the executive branch on national security issues and require the president to consult with at least part of the council before using nuclear weapons.

      1. If you widened the aperture on your critical-thinking a skosh, you’d realize my comment reflected the Democrat’s broader view that individual or national security is not to be trusted to an individual. We already have a system to evaluate and declare people incompetent. If the President is incompetent, then why elect him and why not use the 25th amendment?

        1. Trump was incompetent. He was elected because of a relic from our slave-owning past known as the Electoral College.

          1. So you don’t like the United States, their 50 state elections and the genius of the equilibrium afforded by the electoral college.

            You obviously prefer the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

            Why don’t you move to Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos or North Korea?

            Everyone votes in those nations.

            Everyone votes for the sole Communist Party Candidate.

            If you seek incompetent, treasonous and entirely useless occupants of the oval office in modernity, you seek Obama, Bush and Carter.

            President Donald J. Trump was the greatest U.S. President in American history.

          2. Anonymous the Stupid wasn’t a history major so we have to tolerate his Stupidity.

            He’s adopted the1619 project. What a fool.

            1. Allan the Abusive Troll continues to respond with insults. Abusers shouldn’t be indulged as if they’re trying to engage in good faith.

              1. “Allan the Abusive Troll continues to respond with insults. Abusers shouldn’t be indulged as if they’re trying to engage in good faith.”

                Anonymous the Stupid is angry. He has been called out for his insults, obstruction and Stupidity. He is recognized for what he is, abhorrent. He likes to strut around being nasty but he is seeing blowback from multiple people. Not knowing what else to do he increases his Stupidity as a defense mechanism thinking making things up and lying will solve all his problems.

                Anonymous the Stupid responded 5 times to a single post of mine that was my response to someone else. There were numerous insults to many persons on this blog. I don’t know how many were directed at me, but perhaps a couple of dozen. I am not going to respond to all tonight. Maybe I will do so tomorrow.

                1. Allan continues to project his own weaknesses onto others.

                  S(tupid) Meyer is angry. He has been called out for his insults, obstruction and Stupidity. He is recognized for what he is, abhorrent. He likes to strut around being nasty but he is seeing blowback from multiple people. Not knowing what else to do he increases his Stupidity as a defense mechanism thinking making things up and lying will solve all his problems.

    1. Laughable, if someone launched an attack against the U.S. in the time it would take all the players to give concurrence the U.S. would be a wasteland. First they would have a debate then they would form a committee.

      1. Karen, dropping a nuclear bomb doesn’t do anything to prevent an attack that has already been launched or to minimize the damage from an attack that has already been launched, so your scenario is nonsensical. Our nuclear capability did not prevent Pearl Harbor, and had there been this kind of requirement, there’s no reason to think that it would have changed the timing of the US dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        1. “Our nuclear capability did not prevent Pearl Harbor”

          Pearl Harbor was in 1941. The first atomic bomb test was in 1945.

          I wonder which anonymous this is.

        2. dropping a nuclear bomb doesn’t do anything to prevent an attack that has already been launched or to minimize the damage from an attack that has already been launched, so your scenario is nonsensical.

          It’s called deterrence. It works with rational actors that don’t like the idea of being annihilated. The basic principle of deterrence is what makes rational citizens follow the law. Then you have preemption. which is more like prevention. What these Democrats are proposing would move us from a posture of deterring a first strike, to putting us in the crosshairs of a preemptive first strike. It would be akin to criminals coordinating an attack on the police stations while they were in the ready room discussing their assignments. Prevention has been our policy towards nations like Iran and North Korea.

          So, if I were to sum up the Democrats entire strategy on self-defense, whether it was on the global stage or domestically, it would be this: Eliminate deterrence, do not profile for preemptive action and prevent countries (citizens) from being armed in the first place. Sounds like World Peace to me. Something like our 2020 Summer of Love.

          1. Duh.

            Deterrence also exists with what’s proposed. The proposal copied below in no way eliminates deterrence.

            Requiring officials in the line of succession, beginning with the vice president and the House speaker, “to concur with a launch order”;
            Requiring certifications from the defense secretary and the attorney general that a launch order is valid and legal, as well as “concurrence from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff and/or the secretary of state”;
            Requiring both a declaration of war and specific authorization from Congress before a nuclear strike can occur; and
            Creating a council of congressional leaders that would regularly meet with the executive branch on national security issues and require the president to consult with at least part of the council before using nuclear weapons.

            1. Deterrence also exists with what’s proposed. The proposal copied below in no way eliminates deterrence.

              The only thing it will deter is the President from having the authority to launch nuclear weapons. It would have the same effect as if you prevented law enforcement from using deadly force until authorized by a panel of bureaucrats.

                1. No it wouldn’t, though that won’t prevent you from pretending it would.

                  Pretending huh? If you’ve ever served in the military or law enforcement, you’d know it is the logical conclusion. And that is why you will never reach it.

                    1. As a start, LE may make a decision to use deadly force in seconds, immediately after perceiving a threat.

                      The decision to drop an atomic bomb is not a decision made after a few seconds consideration.

                      Yours is a false analogy, a kind of logical fallacy.

                    2. LE may make a decision to use deadly force in seconds, immediately after perceiving a threat.

                      Damn, you are one daft individual. I said:It would have the same effect as if you prevented law enforcement from using deadly force until authorized by a panel of bureaucrats.

                      Unless you have the panel of bureaucrats doing ride-alongs…everywhere, LE is not making deadly force decisions in minutes, let alone seconds.

                      Put the effing shovel down. You’re really embarrassing yourself.

            2. “Duh.”

              That might be one of the more intelligent comments of Anonymous the Stupid today.

              The perceived delay of response provides a window of opportunity for one’s enemy. I’m not saying that certain controls shouldn’t exist rather letting the enemy know that the window of time is longer allows them to strike and destroy our ability to retaliate. MAD was based on the ability to strike back with one’s full ability. Lessening that ability makes MAD less effective.

              But then this discussion is with Anonymous the Stupid who said “Our nuclear capability did not prevent Pearl Harbor” He had to be informed that Pearl Harbor was in 1941. The first atomic bomb test was in 1945. History is not his strong suit. He should hide his head in shame. But instead, he will pretend it wasn’t him. LOL

              1. So says Stupid Meyer. Much of it isn’t true, but that’s his schtick. He’s desperate for attention. Gotta laugh.

  7. “Portman (who recently announced that he will not run for reelection) is one of the most thoughtful and decent figures in Congress.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Portman is the very personification of thoughtful and decent.

    Appreciation, congratulations and kudos to Portman.

    America is in the death throes of the final assault by communism.

    America doesn’t want “thoughtful and decent.”

    America doesn’t want their love.

    America doesn’t want their respect.

    America wants their fear.

    America wants their fear for cause and no quarter.

    George Washington was not seeking thoughtful and decent when he crossed the Delaware.

    George Washington was seeking freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; nothing more, nothing less and no quarter.

    1. “George Washington was not seeking thoughtful and decent when he crossed the Delaware.”

      Good point, George.

  8. The real Robert Portman is an haut bourgeois bore whose care in law and politics has been a continuous tapestry of careerism. He’s John Danforth without the complete absence of irony.

    1. “most of the GOP’s blue-collar growth took place during the presidency of Trump”

      It’s the populist movement, and it is not just in the US.

      That’s why the elitist globalists had to get rid of Trump by hook or crook. But getting rid of Trump is not going to stop it, and Biden’s puppet masters are already cranking up the middle eastern empire building again. Which will only serve to make things worse for them.

  9. The main problem with Eldridge’s article is that he starts out by saying Portman is “on the wrong side of history.” There’s no such thing – history is history, the record of what happened. “Right” and “wrong” sides only exist in the minds of the petty.

    1. If you’re not familiar with the idiom “on the wrong side of history,” it means that at some point in the future, when people look back at Portman’s decision, it will be pretty universally agreed that Portman’s choice was wrong (that he should have voted in favor of removal and disqualification), even though it may not be agreed on now that his decision was wrong. It’s a common enough idiom and has been around for at least a century.

      It often isn’t petty at all to think about right and wrong sides. Those who supported Hitler are on the wrong side of history.

      1. “It often isn’t petty at all to think about right and wrong sides. Those who supported Hitler are on the wrong side of history.”

        Those that promote leftist bile, cancel culture, censorship, fraudulent voting, etc. are on the wrong side of history and some can very easily be confused with a Hitler type individual, naive or foolish.

      2. What this —-ing communist is trying to say is that those who support the clear meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are on the wrong side of history; that all you actual Americans are on the wrong side of history; that to mitigate and assuage your false, imagined and phantom guilt, you must bow in fealty to the still illegitimate, wholly unconstitutional and derived-of-violent-nullification-of-the-Constitution “Reconstruction Amendments and the 19th Dumbmendment, and you must transfer your wealth and private property to minorities.

        Now you go get to doing that right now, fellas.

        You heard me, git!

  10. Joe Biden: The Pedophile in Chief

    “Biden cancels Trump’s ‘Operation Talon’ Program that Targeted Sex Offenders Living in U.S. Illegally”

    https://humanevents.com/2021/02/24/biden-cancels-trumps-operation-talon-program-that-targeted-sex-offenders-living-in-u-s-illegally/

    “Biden’s administration recently cancelled Operation Talon, a Trump administration program aimed at removing convicted sex offenders living in the United States illegally.

    Though the program seems to be something everyone should support, it clearly isn’t. Why would anyone want sex offenders to remain in the country?”

    1. The billionaires, as a group, want more sex offenders running amuck in America. Crime is a problem for everybody besides billionaires. Crime keeps us off balance, busy fighting over fiddlesticks, so that we do not gang up on the billionaires and punch their ticket. Sal Sar

    2. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has canceled an operation that targets illegal immigrants with convictions for sex crimes, former head of the agency Thomas Homan told Fox News. ‘On Wednesday, February 3rd, another email went out to the field shutting down the national Operation Talon, that sought to arrest at-large illegal aliens with sex crime convictions to include child molestation,’ he said.
      “The Washington Post first reported on the development, reporting that Talon targeted sex offenders and that it had been planned in the final weeks of the Trump administration. An ICE official told the outlet that the Biden administration has nothing to do with the decision, but that it was possible staffers set it aside while awaiting new instructions from the administration. … An ICE spokesperson told Fox News it was not able to confirm or discuss future operations until they are complete.”
      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-illegal-immigrants-sex-crime-convictions-homan

      So ICE itself disputes that this decision was made by the Biden Admin. I wonder why Trump waited until the last weeks of his Admin. to plan this operation.

      “On Biden’s first day in office, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum directing immigration agencies to focus their enforcement efforts on three categories: threats to national security, threats to public safety, and immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally on or after Nov. 1. The memorandum was a departure from practice during Trump’s administration in which immigration agencies were given wide latitude on who to arrest, detain, and deport. But people convicted of sex offenses against minors still qualify for enforcement. The memorandum defines public safety threats as incarcerated people “who have been convicted of an ‘aggravated felony’” as defined by a specific section of immigration law. That section begins: “The term aggravated felony means … murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor.” …” (excerpt from a related Denver Post article)

      1. Operation Talon is suspended. Period.

        If Biden cared, he would have immediately reinstated it weeks ago.

        “I wonder why Trump waited until the last weeks of his Admin. to plan this operation.”

        He didn’t wait until the last weeks to “plan” Operation Talon.

        Why did Obama do nothing for 8 years?

        1. The Fox article says “Talon … had been planned in the final weeks of the Trump administration.” If you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll read it.

          I don’t answer loaded questions. I consider them a form of trolling. Aim to have a sincere exchange and provide evidence that “Obama [did] nothing for 8 years.”

          1. It was launched late in Trump’s Presidency. The planning stages began back in 2019.

            “provide evidence that “Obama [did] nothing for 8 years.”

            The proof is in the complete lack of pudding. You’re the one throwing rocks at Trump due to when it began.

            So feel free to provide evidence of the Obama-Biden admin’s version of Operation Talon.

            BTW, you failed to explain why Biden has done nothing to reinstate Talon. You’re an empty vessel, who seems to be incapable of anything other than repeating talking points.

            1. “The proof is in the complete lack of pudding”

              You haven’t shown a “complete lack of pudding.” You’re relying on a fallacy known as begging the question.

              “feel free to provide evidence of the Obama-Biden admin’s version of Operation Talon.”

              I didn’t assert anything about “Obama-Biden admin’s version of Operation Talon” (your phrase), so I have no burden of proof for it. If you’re curious what they did, look it up for yourself instead of trying to offload your research onto me. I’m not your unpaid research assistant.

              “you failed to explain why Biden has done nothing to reinstate Talon.”

              That you want me to explain doesn’t create a burden on me to explain. Again: I only have a burden of proof for the claims I actually make. I’m not a mind-reader and don’t know why Biden chooses to do or not do things. For all I know, Biden doesn’t think it necessary given the existing memorandum about threats to public safety.

              “You’re an empty vessel …”

              As I’ve tried to make clear elsewhere in the comments, I will not waste my time with someone who chooses not to have a civil, sincere exchange. If you insult me again, I will not respond further.

              1. “I didn’t assert anything about “Obama-Biden admin”

                You never do because you can’t. For such a bitter and insulting person you take offense awfully easily. Why do you think people wish to talk to you? They don’t. People are providing things you run away from.

                1. Poor Allan runs around after CTHD like a little puppy trying to get her attention. Too bad he’s rabid.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid is angry. He has been called out for his insults, obstruction and Stupidity. He is recognized for what he is, abhorrent. He likes to strut around being nasty but he is seeing blowback from multiple people. Not knowing what else to do he increases his Stupidity as a defense mechanism thinking making things up and lying will solve all his problems.

                2. LMAO at the idiocy Allan the Abusive exhibits in telling CTHD “Why do you think people wish to talk to you? They don’t.” He is talking to her while proclaiming he doesn’t want to. Maybe he has multiple personality syndrome.

                  She ignores him because he is abusive. Allan can’t deal with someone who refuses to accept his abuse.

                  1. I see that Allan is on another tear, today. He obviously feels emboldened by the self-serving remarks of mespo727272.

              2. “I didn’t assert anything about “Obama-Biden admin’s version of Operation Talon” (your phrase), so I have no burden of proof for it.”

                Translation: Obama-Biden did nothing for 8 years, and you’re too committed to dishonesty to admit that they did nothing.

                You also falsely claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t really his laptop. That’s how completely devoted to dishonesty you are.

                Severe confirmation bias combined with low intelligence sums you up.

                1. What was your previous name, “Walsworths”? You’ve only been trolling under this name for a couple of weeks, but here you are making claims about what someone said months ago — a claim that you don’t back up in any way with evidence.

                  Hmm, I’ll have to think about who you sound like.

  11. A reminder that Trump was impeached while in office, and he could have been tried while in office were it not for Mitch McConnell’s refusal to recall the Senate from its recess for the trial.

    Moreover, Turley fails to deal directly with argument against it being a “close” question that a President impeached while in office can be tried after he leaves office. He refers people back to his January 22 column, which clearly doesn’t deal with the subsequent arguments that present the case more clearly. Here’s an example of one that Turley should have read (and perhaps did read) and should address:

    From Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford), a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian:

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 6, states: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The key word is “all.” This clause contains no reservation or limitation. It does not say “the Senate has power to try impeachments against sitting officers.” Given that the impeachment of Mr. Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment.

    Article II, Section 4, states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This provision does appear applicable only to sitting officers. But it does not limit the power of the Senate to try, which comes from Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. It merely states that removal from office is mandatory upon conviction of any sitting officer. No lesser sanction will suffice.

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, states: “Judgment 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, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Read together with Article II, Section 4, this means that the consequence of conviction on impeachment must include removal from office, may include disqualification from future office, and may not include any other sanction. The first sanction is limited to sitting officers, which makes sense. The second sanction is not so limited.

    Some argue that the conjunction “and” in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, implies that the sanction must include both removal and disqualification, and that because removal of a former officer is not possible, disqualification must also not be allowed. But the clause does not say that both sanctions are required; it says that the judgment may not go beyond imposition of both sanctions.

    I have not seen any answer to this textual point from those who think the trial of Mr. Trump would be unconstitutional. They ignore the fact that he was properly impeached (at least, insofar as timing is the issue), and they ignore the text of Article I, Section 3, Clause 6, which states that the Senate may try “all” impeachments. They conjure up a limitation on the Senate’s power by a misconstruction of the sanctions limitation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. And, of course, they bolster their argument with motivated reasoning about consequences for the republic, which are no more persuasive than the motivated arguments coming from the other side.

    I suppose that if there were powerful historical evidence that this was not the understanding of the founders, we might have a debate between text and historical understanding. But the historical evidence supports the text. …

    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/28/impeaching-officials-while-theyre-in-office-but-trying-them-after-they-leave/

    1. The Democrats failed in their impeachment. Trump is now gone but the fear is quite apparent. Democrats are afraid of being exposed, but it will happen and they will hopefully turn on one another until the party returns and supports our Constitutional Republic.

      Guys and Gals like you watched Cuomo and applauded with him getting an Emmy for Covid. They demeaned the Florida governor De Santis for his actions regarding Covid. You guys provided all sorts of “proof” that was basically a lie.

      Now we see Cuomo potentially being indicted for things he was applauded for and we find that Rick de Santis without destroying Florida’s economy came out as one of the best in handling the crisis. The demographics pointed to the fact that Florida should have been much harder hit but that it wasn’t. That demonstrates that the left didn’t know what it was doing, but de Santis did. Whether it is Covid, crime or other things the left has been very destructive.

    2. “he could have been tried while in office were it not for Mitch McConnell’s refusal to recall the Senate from its recess for the trial.”

      You leave out the fact that there were never going to be enough votes in the Senate to impeach him either time.

      You also leave out the fact that the House failed miserably to follow the procedures for impeachment clearly outlined in the Constitution.

      So you are obviously either ignorant or a liar.

      1. “You leave out the fact that there were never going to be enough votes in the Senate to impeach him either time.”

        It isn’t a fact. It’s your assumption/opinion (one that’s shared by some and not by others), and there’s counterevidence for at least some of the Senators, including McConnell: he said that he believed Trump to be guilty; had Trump been tried while in office, McConnell couldn’t have used the excuse he used against voting to convict.

        “You also leave out the fact that the House failed miserably to follow the procedures for impeachment clearly outlined in the Constitution.”

        How about you quote the section of the Constitution that you’re referring to, and we’ll see whether it’s a “fact” or is only another claim that you mistakenly characterize as fact.

          1. Commit, very interesting. You admit that a comment displayed under Anonymous should have been by you CommitedToHonestDiscussion. I have been commenting here for sometime now and my comments have never been attributed to anyone but myself. Having trouble keeping track of all those personalities are we?

            1. Poor TiT is trying so hard to get CTHD to respond to him after she told him that she wasn’t going to respond again because he’s a troll. The problem is: he tries by trolling again.

              Hey TiT, maybe you’re not attentive enough. Here’s mespo noting that one of his comments appeared as Anonymous –
              https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/22/a-date-which-will-live-in-infamy-the-other-scandal-from-the-capitol-riot/comment-page-2/#comment-2064798
              I’m sure that you’ll be as much of a troll to him now too, right? Go ahead, ask mesblow if he’s having trouble keeping track of all those personalities.

              And your own comment is showing up with the wrong icon. Maybe you’re projecting when you ask about having trouble keeping track of all those personalities.

              1. The thought that came to mind when Commit declared that she would no longer respond to my comments was, “don’t worry Anonymous will jump in and do it for her.” Maybe a tag team? Maybe the same team in the same mind. Commit says to Anon. Let’s have a nice cup of tea. You can raise the cup and I’ll sip the tea and next time I can raise the cup and you can sip the tea. I love you Anon. I love you Commit. Did you take your pills?

                1. Hey TiT, you should talk to Arty. He’s been claiming for months that there’s a single liberal commenter here, a guy Arty calls “Gainesville,” and the rest are just sock puppets of the Gainesville guy. He says we’re all paid by Correct the Record. What d’ya think? Are we the Borg?

    3. A reminder that Trump was impeached while in office, and he could have been tried while in office were it not for Mitch McConnell’s refusal to recall the Senate from its recess for the trial.

      A reminder that the House skipped phase 2 of their own guidance on the impeachment process. The obvious reason was that phase 2 would not conclude prior to January 20th 2021 and they wanted to book a vote to impeach prior to the President leaving office. The Senate majority leader was under no constitutional obligation to recall the Senate from recess to accommodate the House’s truncated impeachment process.

      The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

      1. Gee, Olly, apparently when you said “I stopped reading Commit … long before the election” (https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/22/a-date-which-will-live-in-infamy-the-other-scandal-from-the-capitol-riot/comment-page-1/#comment-2064806), you weren’t being honest.

        “the House skipped phase 2 of their own guidance”

        Yes. As your quote notes, that’s only how it “generally proceeds,” not how it always proceeds and not how It’s constitutionally required to proceed.

        I didn’t say that McConnell was under a constitutional obligation to recall the Senate from their recess. Neither was he constitutionally prevented from doing so. It’s a fact that he refused to, and had it not been for his refusal, Trump could have been tried while in office.

        1. you weren’t being honest.

          Saying that I stopped reading your comments long before the election, doesn’t mean it’s a lie because I chose to read your cited comment.

          I didn’t say that McConnell was under a constitutional obligation to recall the Senate from their recess.

          However you lead your comment with that point, as if it had any constitutional merit. It doesn’t.

          It’s a fact that he refused to, and had it not been for his refusal, Trump could have been tried while in office.

          Irrelevant. It’s also a fact, that had Pelosi proceeded with phase 2 of the house impeachment process, Trump would have never been impeached again while in office. Also irrelevant, but a point you have omitted from consideration. Once again, you’re lying by omission is on display.

          You can parse all the words you want to make a point, but all you’re doing is proving you have no interest in anything other than partisan thuggery.

          1. “I chose to read your cited comment.”

            Obviously. Which means that you didn’t stop.

            “you lead your comment with that point, as if it had any constitutional merit.”

            No, I said nothing and implied nothing either way about the constitutionality of McConnell’s choice not to call the Senate back from recess. If you inferred something about constitutionality, the problem is with your inference, not with my statement.

            “Irrelevant”

            No, it’s not irrelevant, given the number of Republican Senators, including Portman, who claimed that they voted against conviction because Trump was no longer in office.

            “you’re lying by omission”

            I’m not. Moreover, you engage in the very same behavior that you criticize me for: you omit things that aren’t part of your argument. Yet I don’t see you saying about yourself that you’re “lying by omission.”

            “you have no interest in anything other than partisan thuggery.”

            That’s false too, and you should figure out how to have a discussion without pretending to read people’s minds. You cannot, as you show here and have shown previously.

            1. Obviously. Which means that you didn’t stop.

              Nope. It only means I chose to read that comment. you should figure out how to have a discussion without pretending to read people’s minds.

              I said nothing and implied nothing either way about the constitutionality of McConnell’s choice not to call the Senate back from recess.

              Which is why it was irrelevant. It was a procedural path McConnell chose to follow, not dissimilar to the choice made by Pelosi.

              you omit things that aren’t part of your argument.

              Not if they’re relevant to my argument. The difference between you and I is I rely on all the facts and evidence to lead me to an objective conclusion. I’m neither Republican or Democrat. I’m Independent. I don’t care which political party is exposed by the truth. I care about our institutions of government for the direct purpose of securing the citizen’s right to life, liberty and property. You on the other hand begin with a conclusion and cherry pick your facts and evidence to support it. Meanwhile, the facts and evidence you’ve purposely omitted undermine your conclusion.

              Thanks for the reminder of why you’re not worth my time. You can now have the last word.

              1. “you should figure out how to have a discussion without pretending to read people’s minds.”

                I didn’t pretend to read your mind, Olly, I noted the fact that you read and responded to my comment this morning, which proves that you hadn’t completely stopped reading my comments. I made no claim about your *thoughts*, only about your *actions*.

                “Which is why it was irrelevant.”

                No, it’s not irrelevant, for the reason I already explained and that you are silent about.

                “Not if they’re relevant to my argument. ”

                Sure you do. For example, you just omitted here that more than one Senator, including McConnell, claimed to have voted against conviction because the trial occurred after Trump was out of office, which makes it relevant that McConnell chose not to call the Senate back into session. It’s totally relevant to your claim that McConnell’s choice “was irrelevant.”

                “You on the other hand begin with a conclusion and cherry pick your facts and evidence to support it.”

                No, I work hard to avoid cherrypicking, and I’ve more than once introduced evidence that contradicts something I’d said and noted that I was wrong.

                Notice that you are choosing to leave the exchange without addressing your false argument that McConnell’s choice “was irrelevant.” C’est la vie.

        2. Commit. So the House creates an impeachment with no opposing witnesses allowed. They created the condensed version to try to fit it in before Trump left office. I thought that you were an equal treatment under the law kind of guy. Then we see the fiasco of the Senate not allowing witnesses to allowing witnesses then back to not allowing witness. When you joined in you made it one to many clowns in the clown car. The clown car is in dire need of a tune up.

          1. “When you joined in you made it one to many clowns in the clown car.”

            Tit knows all about clown-cars, owning one herself.

            1. Anon, you are defending a trial with no witnesses allowed. Please tell us your position on injustice under the law. We would love to hear it. Your clown car is now driving at 50 over the limit.

          2. Thinkitthrough, I’m a woman, not a “guy,” and impeachment in the House is analogous to indictment, not to a trial. The trial occurs in the Senate. It is not a criminal trial. When you say “equal treatment under the law,” what law are you asserting Trump was not treated equally under?

            “we see the fiasco of the Senate not allowing witnesses to allowing witnesses then back to not allowing witness”

            You list a sequence of 3 actions. The first of those never occurred. I’ll remind you that after the Senate voted in favor of allowing witnesses, Trump’s lawyers *agreed* to allow the article about Rep. Herrera Beutler’s statement to be entered into the recored in lieu of calling her to testify, when the latter would have then enabled them to cross-examine her and to propose that their own witnesses also be called (though the Senate would have decided on a case-by-case basis which witnesses to call and which to reject). Castor and Trump’s other lawyers could easily have refused to agree to this if they’d wanted witnesses to be called.

            Castor’s statement: “Senators, Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if the -, if Representative Herrera Beutler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued February 12, 2021, and the former president’s counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time.”

            Trump’s lawyers also could have asked that additional evidence be entered into the record, as was agreed with Herrera Beutler’s statement. They did not.

            *After* Castor made that statement, Raskin said “Managers are prepared to enter into the agreement, and he read the statement into evidence. Sen. Leahy then asked if there were further motions about witnesses, and Castor said “Mr. President, the President’s counsel has no further motions,” and Raskin said “Mr. President, we have no further motions.”

            So if you have a problem the Senate’s ultimate decision not to hear witnesses (as I do), Trump’s lawyers bear as much blame for that as the House Managers and the Senate.

            As for your insults, stop. Figure out how to disagree with someone without resort to that. If you do not, I will refuse to respond to you just like I refuse to respond to other abusive people here, including Allan and Young.

            1. Commit. You made a long post to tell us that the Democrats would not allow witnesses. Then you tell us that when they thought they had a witness all of a sudden they wanted a witness. One little overlooked problem got in the way. Their witness would have had to raise her right hand and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Oops, maybe not such a good witness after all. With this little problem in mind the Democrats caved. The Democrats were in charge. Why didn’t they go all in if they thought they really had something. Damn that little oath to tell the truth. The Republicans didn’t press the issue because they had already won their case. Your just angry because you were the last one out of the clown car.

            2. Thinkitthrough continues to insult, so the conditional clause of my last sentence — “If you do not, I will refuse to respond to you just like I refuse to respond to other abusive people here, including Allan and Young” — is now true, and as a consequent, I will not respond further to Thinkitthrough.

              I will simply reenforce that both Trump’s lawyers (who are not Democrats) and the House Managers (who are Democrats) *jointly* agreed not to call witness, and the entire Senate (which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats) agreed to that by *unanimous* consent.

              I would have preferred that there be testimony, and I wrote both of my Senators and called their offices to say so, but unfortunately, they chose not to.

              1. Commit, the Democrats in the Senate were in charge. They could have called their witness. What an opportunity missed. If their witness had the goods on Trump they would have had their man. Why did they back off at the very edge of victory. It’s not that you won’t respond to my comments, it’s that you can’t respond to my comments. Rest assured I will respond to your comments.

              2. Commit, you contacted the Senate to ask why they didn’t allow testimony. Did you ever stop to think why your Democratic heroes didn’t want witnesses then wanted witnesses and then didn’t want witnesses. Maybe their assessment of their position and it’s possible political repercussions is a little more acute than yours. They don’t listen to you on the right and they don’t listen to you on the left. It must be lonely in there.

              3. ” “If you do not, I will refuse to respond to you just like I refuse to respond to other abusive people here, including Allan and Young” — is now true, and as a consequent, I will not respond further to Thinkitthrough.”

                Committed to dishonest discussion brought cancel culture to the blog. This is a part of cancel culture I like. No further need to discuss pages of worthless, irrelevant material that very frequently is based on lies of omission and comission.

                1. Allan, you’re the one posting pages of worthless, irrelevant material that very frequently is based on lies of omission and comission.

                  1. “Allan, you’re the one posting pages of worthless, irrelevant material that very frequently is based on lies of omission and comission.”

                    Funny, Anonymous the Stupid, nothing sticks to me but loads stick to you. I wonder why. Could it be that you are a liar by nature and Stupid at the same time?

                2. BTW, Allan, only a troll would conflate refusing to accept your abuse with cancel culture.

                  Do you hit your wife and kids, and then tell them that if they object, they’re part of cancel culture?

                  1. “Do you hit your wife and kids”

                    No. Why would I do that to those I love?

                    By the way, how is your therapy going? Is your wife out of the hospital? I hear she was beaten up pretty bad. Out on bail, huh?

                    1. You clearly don’t have control over your behavior, Allan, and you clearly get off on abusing people, that’s why you’d do it.

                    2. Let me sign the for you:

                      SM

                      …whiich stands for Stupid Meyer aka Allan the Abusive

                3. You clearly don’t understand what “cancel culture” means, Allan the Abusive. As is often the case, you disparage others’ intelligence while demonstrating your own lack thereof.

                  Choosing not to respond to abusive people like you and TiT is healthy. It is not an example of cancel culture.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, I clearly understand what cancel culture is but you do not. It is an attempt to silence other people. Committed to Dishonest Discussion didn’t announce what she did so that others would not respond to her. She did so because in the back of her mind she wished others would cancel them out as well. Of course that will not happen. That was just her wish.

                    You are too stupid to examine anything deeper than skin deep. I just demonstrated that point to the blog you regarding slavery and all you could do was to provide a three word response that was neither intelligent or proper.

                    You need to reevaluate your life and get an education. My comments to the immense numbers of insults to me and others will come under an anonymous label or not come at all.

                    I hope others will throw away the anonymous offerings that are in line with Anonymous the Stupid’s intellect.

                    1. CTHD is simply abiding by Turley’s request, Allan, “Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them. They are trolls and live under cyber bridges for a reason.”

              4. “I would have preferred that there be testimony, and I wrote both of my Senators and called their offices to say so, but unfortunately, they chose not to.”

                What you keep avoiding is the fact that the impeachment was dead in the water when it left the House thanks to Pelosi and company failing to follow any of the constitutional guidelines in their rush to get it into the Senate.

                So, it was nothing more than political grandstanding, and therefore your beloved Democrats knew it would never result in anything other than a week wasted on the Kabuki theater designed to degrade anyone who didn’t vote for the crooked old clown with Dementia named Biden.

                Just to make it even more of a joke, they had no case.

              1. “So many words, so little to say.”

                Wow, Allan-SMeyer @ 5:42.. You’ve finally managed to get something right. That sums up your comments, perfectly.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, it’s nice to hear you agreeing with me. You also say Commit’s got so many words, so little to say.

                  1. Allan the Abusive, you’re having difficulty tracking the conversation again. Anon. at 7:19 PM was noting that YOU have so many words and so little to say. It’s yet another example of you projecting your own weaknesses onto others.

  12. Aldridge is a pastor, journalist and an apparent angry man. Nowhere in his credentials did I find lawyer, constitutional scholar or even government servant, Bottom line he doesn’t have the chops to champion either side of what JT calls “a close question” though my guess in most citizens would find it the height of farce to impeach and remove a guy from elected office after he’s been de-elected – the ultimate removal from office. All in all, Aldridge is critiquing a man, Portman, universally recognized as a thoughtful and considered constitutionalist and lawyer. Aldridge thus has all the credibility of the drunken bleacher bums at Yankee Stadium who used to criticize Joe Dimaggio for … well … reasons satisfactory to only them. JT’s response is thoughtful and refined, like the man himself, but one wonders if Aldridge, with a clear lack of experience in matters of law, is the right addressee. Aquilarum, non capit muscas

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, thanks for making it easy to show how you got your name.

                The big question is whether or not you have learned that looking at one’s credentials is not a personal attack. You now realize how Stupid you were. Right?

                  1. I guess by now everyone knows that you are Stupid and can’t discuss content. Keep it up Anonymous the Stupid.

                    1. S. Meyer is now using his brilliant (/sarc) strategy of posting anonymously to alert others — to “let them know which comments are worthwhile.”

                    2. Why shouldn’t other bloggers know when there is no content in the discussion and Anonymous the Stupid is flashing his Stupidity all around. Take not how many Stupid comments without content you have made in the past hour.

                      I am now letting you have the last word to provide you a bit of dignity but I see you have taken advantage of it.

                  1. “No one disrupts this blog more than S. Meyer.”

                    Anyone that is following knows I am trying to move the discussion forward and you keep obstructing such movements by being yourself, Anonymous the Stupid.

                    Let’s go back to the difference between a personal attack that you made and a discussion of credentials made by another. It is clear you wish to obstruct normal discussion.

                    1. “Anyone that is following knows I am trying to move the discussion forward…” — SMAllanMan

                      Sure you are, buddy.

                      Newsflash: You’re a control freak.

                  2. Allan is a troll. He will never stop trolling. Unfortunately, that places other commenters in a lose-lose situation, especially when Allan attacks them personally, as he often does (and as he has done with me in the past): either you choose not to feed the troll, and his abuse and faulty reasoning and errors of fact remain unanswered, or you respond to his trolling and waste your time on someone who will never stop trolling, and he then abuses you further. Personally, I’ve chosen the former. I stopped responding to him last May or June.

                    An apt aphorism that’s often attributed to Mark Twain, though it wasn’t written by him: “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” The same can be said of arguing with trolls: they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

                    Allan disrupts the blog so much because people choose to respond to him. While I understand the desire to respond to his abuse and faulty reasoning and errors of fact, the blog would probably be better off if he were shunned. He’ll still disrupt the blog even if he’s shunned, but I doubt it will be as disruptive as it is now (though I might be wrong, he might lash out even more if people ignore him, hoping that he’ll get the engagement he wants by becoming more abusive).

                    1. Totally get it, CTHD.

                      Note to self: stay away from the soft balls. Way more trouble than they’re worth.

                      EB

                    2. To The Class:

                      “Allan is a troll. He will never stop trolling. … Allan disrupts the blog so much because people choose to respond to him. While I understand the desire to respond to his abuse and faulty reasoning and errors of fact, the blog would probably be better off if he were shunned. He’ll still disrupt the blog even if he’s shunned, but I doubt it will be as disruptive as it is now (though I might be wrong, he might lash out even more if people ignore him, hoping that he’ll get the engagement he wants by becoming more abusive).”
                      ***************************
                      Now supra is an example of a pure personal attack (pretty weak but a personal attack nonetheless) for those keeping score at home and not an attack on credentials. There is a silver lining, however, as even our resident dunce has something of an insight to offer the group. Not about Allan, of course, he being his/her/its intellectual superior but about how when caught in a obvious faux pas doubles down with the crazy to avoid embarrassment. Thanks Allan for getting the buffoon to expose him/her/it-self.

                    3. “Another idiot heard from @ 11:10.”

                      But the idiot saying that cannot say why and can only insult no matter what is said. That means Anonymous the Stupid is responding again.

                      Go ahead and respond to this empty of content. Then you will have a choice to grab what dignity you have or undress yourself further. To let you destroy your own dignity I likely will not respond. The other bloggers can judge for themselves what type of fool you are.

                    4. “Allan is a troll.”

                      If you comment and make remarks that another wishes to answer or if you spout mistruths which you so often do, they are open to responses. The best way not to have any responses you don’t like is to be honest and not attack. When you attack a third party or idea have proof and cover both sides of the bases instead of essentially lying through omission.

                      You don’t respond to a lot of people on the blog because your comments have been weak, frequently hot true and you do’t like being disputed or being wrong which happens all too frequently.

                      You can also spare yourself by leaving me out of your discussions. In fact you should probably leave out anyone with a brain.

                    5. “Not about Allan, of course, he being his/her/its intellectual superior…” — The Mesbloviator

                      Too funny. What’s even funnier is that Allan will believe it… They’re a couple of blowhards. lol

                    6. Anonymous the Stupid, there is no question that virtually everyone on the blog is more intelligent than you. You can’t stand the fact that God didn’t provide you with brains. Is that why you tend towards a dislike of religion?

                    7. Allan, emboldened (falsely) by mesblowhard, soldiers on…like the little idiot he is.

        1. A challenge to credentials was appropriate, in fact it was necessary because I don’t think Turley mentioned that in his response. In fact, I don’t think Turley’s op-ed would have been published if he did. That leaves the reader in the dark.

          You are to be thanked, not criticized, for mentioning the lack of credentials. Unfortunately Anonymous the Stupid is always on the attack to obstruct normal discussion and get noticed. He is a type of flasher with clothes on. Why Anonymous the Stupid made it personal is part of his psychological make up and insecurities. He was neither man enough nor smart enough to explain why you shouldn’t have advanced our knowledge involving credentials in order to expand what is known about the situation..

          I thank you for that knowledge that I didn’t think about.

          1. “I thank you for that knowledge that I didn’t think about.”

            Which amounts to everything, apparently.

            1. Another insult by Anonymous the Stupid who can read and copy words without understanding what they mean.

              No, I am not familiar with Aldridge so I didn’t know his credentials. Mespo was kind enough to inform the blog of the credentials he lacked. You were Stupid and called that a personal attack. Why? Can you provide a better reason than you don’t know the difference between a personal attack and asking one for their credentials? Did you not have some education?

              1. Mespo strayed into personal attack right here: “Aldridge thus has all the credibility of the drunken bleacher bums at Yankee Stadium who used to criticize Joe Dimaggio for … well … reasons satisfactory to only them. “

                1. You said: “Nice attack on entirely personal grounds.”

                  Do you know what the word “entirely” means? His discussion of credentials was reasonable. Had you not been Anonymous the Stupid you would have brought this up at the time. Aldridge may be what Mespo describes or not, I don’t know.

                  But you were too Stupid and lazy to bring that up. The statement about credentials was additive. Additions to knowledge advances the discussion forward. You took the discussion to the toilet.

                  1. You said:
                    “Nice attack on
                    entirely personal grounds.”

                    Do you know what the word “entirely” means?

                    His discussion of credentials
                    was reasonable.

                    Had you not been Anonymous the Stupid
                    you would have brought this up at the time.
                    Aldridge may be what Mespo describes or not,
                    I don’t know.

                    But you were too Stupid
                    and lazy to bring that up.
                    The statement about credentials was additive.

                    Additions

                    to knowledge

                    advances the discussion forward.

                    You took the discussion to the toilet.

                    -Allan 2021

                2. Aninny:

                  “Mespo strayed into personal attack right here: “Aldridge thus has all the credibility of the drunken bleacher bums at Yankee Stadium who used to criticize Joe Dimaggio for … well … reasons satisfactory to only them. “
                  ************************
                  That’s rhetoric you uneducated clod not personal attack. I didn’t say Aldridge was a drunken bleacher bum. I said he had the credibility of one on this topic. That means he has zilch, zero and nada. Rhetoric is an effective way of saying something in a memorable way. It does take some knowledge of literature, organized thought and a degree of wit. These are qualities foreign to you, I know. But being this obtuse just defies description. Allen’s right. You’re just too dumb to comment here.

                  1. Mespo has all the credibility of the drunken bleacher bums at Yankee Stadium who used to criticize Joe Dimaggio for … well … reasons satisfactory to only them.

                  2. “That’s rhetoric you uneducated clod not personal attack.”

                    Gee, I find this a good entry into your super smart insight into the differences between rhetoric and personal attack, Mesbloviator.

                    And you spelled Allan’s name wrong, genius. I find you staggeringly dumb, possibly more so than even Allan. Don’t drink and type, Big Mess.

                    EB

                    1. The one whose entire life revolves around a spellchecker app.

                      EB, Mespo is correct when he spells the name Allen and he would be correct to spell it Alan or Allan. Do you know why? He has a brain and you do not.

                    2. The one…
                      whose entire life
                      revolves around…

                      a spellchecker app.

                      EB, Mespo is correct
                      when he spells
                      the name Allen

                      and he would be correct
                      to spell it Alan or Allan.

                      Do you know why?

                      He has a brain…
                      and you do not.

                      Allan 2021

                      EB

            2. Anonymous says:February 24, 2021 at 10:10 AM

              “I thank you for that knowledge that I didn’t think about.”

              Which amounts to everything, apparently.

              ____

              lol

              S. Meyer-Allan is hard at it today.

              Hey, SMAllanMan —

              Did you get your blog-monitor photo taken this morning? Did you wear the right beanie?

    1. I’ll wager there are very few journalists who are not Dunning-Kruger exemplars. What they know is how to produce copy on deadline and how to construct paragraphs according to spec. These are real skills. Except for those with a discrete beat who learn things academics and true professionals cannot, or those who once had a serious technae, they cannot do much but act as transmission belts for people who do know something. The late Elizabeth Neuffer was serious business, because she’d traveled to places that few academic specialists had been to and in circumstances which few people other than soldiers would be advised to enter. The least serious are people who write topical commentary for a living. What’s utile about them is that they often have a clear sense of their own normative biases and can construct coherent arguments, but they don’t know anything. Look at Ross Douthat, a middle-aged man who has occupied his entire adult life offering opinions (opinions not leavened with much horse sense – he took Christine Blasey Fraud seriously).

  13. If your intent by going the Impeachment route is to remove a sitting President….and he resigns as a result of the pending Impeachment….you have accomplished your goal without having to go through the Impeachment process.

    Seems easy enough logic to follow .

    Nixon left when told of his prospects….of conviction.

    Perhaps modern impeachments are being done for reasons that are insufficient to cause the person being Impeached to resign. based upon the merits of the case being presented.

    You might consider the failed first impeachment of Trump where Professor Turley testified in a Hearing and gave advice to the Democrats upon how to craft a winning case….which fell upon deaf ears.

    The second Impeachment failed because there was no investigation or hearings to build a case….and went forward despite Professor Turley offering up his sage advice…..and it too failed.

    Both Impeachments were based on such flimsy and bogus claims that the Defendant was confident of being found “Not Guilty” that he felt no need to Resign from the Office.

    Perhaps Aldridge should focus his attention to those causing the failure of the first Impeachment…..which had the Democrats done an effective job of documenting the High Crimes and Misdemeanors thought to have been committed by Trump there would have. been a different outcome.

    They are the ones that need scrutiny for motive and performance….not the Defendant, his Counsel, or the Jury.

      1. The realities of the age is that the Democrats are willing to do anything to get rid of Trump and prevent him from having a voice. This is not a new Democrat phenomenon. Democrats have merely gotten more brazen and more crazy. Democrats are willing to sacrifice the Constitution to get their way.

        A lot of ignorance has been displayed by Democrat leaders and that ignorance is tearing the nation apart. The defenses of the Democrat establishment are personal attacks on others along with the shut down of free speech. Some people are too naive to understand the dangers and the grave risks being taken.

          1. Typical insult by Anonymous the Stupid. Are you too Stupid to respond to what was written? Your hatred of our Constitutional Republic is well known. Your problem is that you cannot intellectually defend your position. That is why you use insult and obstruction.

            The following is what you blame Trump for but you can’t even make that case. However one can see your prejudice when you dismiss very bad actions taken by Democrats. These are actions you support and some of them are outright racist. Your lack of ability to add more than an insult or leftist sound bit is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNRpr8hYH6M

            Includes some bad racist acts of Charles Schumer trying to purge African Americans from his local community. I was unaware of this before. Horrible!

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, everyone can notice that all you have done is insult while I add content.

                That demonstrates your Stupidity that you continue to display and flash.

                Do you now know the difference between a personal attack and a discussion about one’s credentials? You hide from those things that make a fool of you.

                Are you a racist approving of Charles Schumer using power to move African Americans out of their homes so he can get more votes? If so you are a racist and so far you haven’t proven otherwise.

    1. @Ralph: Removal from office is only one part of the penalty. Disqualification from holding office in the future is the other part. I’m sure that you simply forgot this.

      1. “Removal from office is only one part of the penalty. Disqualification from holding office in the future is the other part.”

        He was already removed from office thanks to the massive overt election fraud that was a classic example of a soft coup.

        The sole purpose of the 2nd impeachment was Kabuki theater designed to vilify and villainize everyone who voted for Trump.

        But the fraud will all be exposed.

        1. The purpose was disqualification from future office, as the Constitution allows.

          “the fraud will all be exposed.”

          What are you waiting for? If you have evidence that fraud occurred, present it now.

          1. “What are you waiting for?”

            I am not the person you need to worry about.

            But believe me. You should be extremely worried.

    1. There are two parts to the impeachment, but they are totally separate in the Trump case neither of which has any merit and the later part has a disputed legal standing.

      Once again Anonymous the Stupid is being insulting. This time the insult is against Turley who permits Anonymous the Stupid to flash the blog on a continuous basis.

      1. This guy probably logs out, logs back in (using an alias), and then “likes” his own comments. What a twit.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, since there is no content in what you say and only insults that are stale I’m going to let you have the last word on this one so you have time to recoup some of your dignity.

        1. Nope, I can’t like or unlike anyone, but you must be miserable being Stupid. Go ahead keep flashing it.

          1. S. Meyer-Allan-Anon @ 10:34 said: “Go ahead keep flashing it.”

            smh

            (“Flash” is one of S.Meyer-Allan’s favorite new words. Maybe he’s been watching “Chuck.”)

  14. I remain convinced that the “cutting” factor in determining this question is: Why would the founders want to allow an impeached sitting President to escape penalty by simply resigning?

    1. Why would the founders want to allow an impeached sitting President to escape penalty by simply resigning?

      This question was addressed in JT’s post.

      Story wrote, “If then there must be a judgment of removal from office, it would seem to follow that the Constitution contemplated that the party was still in office at the time of the impeachment. If he was not, his offense was still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.”

      1. Story fails to address high crimes that are not statutory crimes. For example, if a foreign country invaded us and the President chose not to do anything, that’s a high crime but not a statutory crime.

        1. So if for instance a President blocked illegal immigration enforcement to effectively allow a foreign invasion to our country, that would be an impeachable high crime? Good point. Welcome to the conservative movement.

          1. According to you, what foreign country invaded the US?

            According to you, what President has “blocked illegal immigration enforcement” and what law did he block enforcement of?

            1. According to you, what foreign country invaded the US?

              You don’t read so good. I didn’t say a foreign country invaded us.

              According to you, what President has “blocked illegal immigration enforcement” and what law did he block enforcement of?

              Again, I didn’t say any President had done that. I used your example of a high crime and presented you with a hypothetical. Notice how you instantly went on the defense by wanting to know what country, what President and what law. Does the country or President or law matter to answer the question? If we have immigration laws, is a President committing a high crime if he/she orders the law to not be enforced?

              1. “I didn’t say a foreign country invaded us.”

                I know. I guess I was too subtle in pointing out how you were moving the goalposts.

                “If we have immigration laws, is a President committing a high crime if he/she orders the law to not be enforced?”

                Depends on the law. Many statutory crimes aren’t high crimes. I gave a specific hypothetical of an invasion by a foreign country because the failure to act to protect the US against invasion by another country IS a high crime.

                Again, my point was that Story fails to address high crimes that are not statutory crimes. You’re asking about statutory crimes that may not be high crimes. If you want to argue that your example IS a high crime, you’re going to have to get more specific than “blocked illegal immigration enforcement to effectively allow a foreign invasion to our country.” Are you talking about blocking all immigration laws?

                1. Then let’s establish where/what the goalposts are.

                  For example, if a foreign country invaded us and the President chose not to do anything, that’s a high crime but not a statutory crime.

                  How do you define foreign country invaded us?

                  1. Suppose a foreign government orders its military into the US to take possession of some of our land, and the President simply cedes possession.

                    1. Suppose a foreign government orders its military into the US to take possession of some of our land, and the President simply cedes possession.

                      Well, that’s a laydown…yes.

                      Suppose it wasn’t ordered by a foreign government, but rogue elements of their military…
                      Suppose it wasn’t military at all, but rather civilians, leaving their country of origin to enter the United States…

                      Suppose the President doesn’t simply cede possession, but orders our border enforcement agencies to allow them entry into our country and release them while they await a court hearing…

                      What’s the difference between a foreign government ordering their people (civilian or military) to illegally enter the United States and our government ordering our border security apparatus to permit foreigners illegal entry into the United States?

                    2. let’s just come out with it. the billionaires for decades have been trying to swamp the native born american population with foreigners, to harass, annoy, and bedevil us; to lower native born workers’ wages, to provide new excuses for more bureaucracies; and most of all, to undermine us demographically, to essentially, vote a new people from abroad, because they do not like us. indeed the group of the billionaires hates us. and their servants are legion. Sal Sar

                    3. Sal, like businessmen not all billionaires are bad people. The leftist Billionaires do not support American values, the American family, American jobs and standard of living. They will sell America down the drain to expand their companies and in a number of years after they are dead their companies will gradually be absorbed by America’s enemy.

                      The problem is if you only focus on the word billionaire you have lost the battle.

                  2. Allowing people entry into our country and releasing them while they await a court hearing isn’t a high crime. Whatever you mean by ceding possession, you and I are clearly interpreting that differently. I was talking about a military occupation where the foreign country asserts ownership, and the President does nothing to fight that.

                    “What’s the difference between a foreign government ordering their people (civilian or military) to illegally enter the United States and our government ordering our border security apparatus to permit foreigners illegal entry into the United States?”

                    A foreign government has no legal authority over people or property the US, except in their embassies. It’s not comparable to the federal government at all.

                    1. Allowing people entry into our country and releasing them while they await a court hearing isn’t a high crime.

                      Is it a high crime to purposefully not faithfully execute the laws of the United States? We have immigration laws. If the President issues an EO to suspend the enforcement of our immigration laws, isn’t that in direct violation of his/her oath of office? Isn’t that usurping the power of the legislative branch?

                      A foreign government has no legal authority over people or property the US, except in their embassies. It’s not comparable to the federal government at all.

                      No they don’t. Under current statutes, does our federal government have the legal authority to waive enforcement of immigration laws? If so, then they aren’t laws at all, but suggestions, open to the discretion of the current administration. Wouldn’t that be something the individual states might find objectionable, especially border states that will bear the burden of such a capricious enforcement of border security?

                      I’m just a citizen here, but I’m beginning to believe we are interpreting the separation of powers and the rule of law differently.

                    2. “Is it a high crime to purposefully not faithfully execute the laws of the United States?”

                      It might be. Arguably, Trump was guilty of that.

                      “If the President issues an EO to suspend the enforcement of our immigration laws, isn’t that in direct violation of his/her oath of office?”

                      If he suspended enforcement of all immigration laws, yes, I’d consider that a failure of his fiduciary duty and an impeachable offense, but it’s sometimes possible for the President to legally reduce the impact of a law with an executive order. We’d have to look at the actual wording.

                      “No they don’t.”

                      What does “they” refer to? The only plural noun in the preceding sentences was “people” and “embassies.”

                    3. If he suspended enforcement of all immigration laws, yes, I’d consider that a failure of his fiduciary duty and an impeachable offense, but it’s sometimes possible for the President to legally reduce the impact of a law with an executive order.

                      All? So then some laws are laws and some are not laws? Hmm. Perhaps the oath needs to be amended to reflect the laws the President approves of.

                    4. You said “the enforcement of our immigration laws.” Sounded like you meant all of them, but if you meant something else, just clarify what you meant.

                      “then some laws are laws and some are not laws?”

                      All laws are laws, by definition.

                      My point was that I don’t think there’s a way to legally suspend enforcement of all laws, but there’s sometimes a legal way to suspend enforcement of specific laws. It depends on the text of the specific law and on the wording of the EO. Many President sign Eos that suspend enforcement of some things in a legal way. IIRR, Trump signed an EO legally suspending some aspects of ACA enforcement.

Leave a Reply