text:
Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law	 January 11, 2021 January 10, 2021
How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on my concerns over the planned "snap impeachment" this year. In my view, impeaching on the speech alone would raise serious concerns over the use of impeachment in the future. Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration. Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to "take back the country" and "fight for the country." The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of "snap impeachments" but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters. The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment. As with the calls to use the 25th Amendment, there are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option. There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.
As I have said, there could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue. As with the 25th Amendment claim, such evidence would be found from within the White House and through a traditional impeachment inquiry.
Here is the column:
Author Franz Kafka once wrote, "My guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted." Congressional Democrats appear close to adopting that Kafkaesque standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. In seeking his removal for "incitement," Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term.
Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his speech to supporters before the Jan. 6 rioting at the U.S. Capitol. Like many, I condemned that speech as it was still being given, calling it reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. However, Trump's speech does not meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code. Indeed, it would be considered protected speech by the Supreme Court.
When I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on a clear crime but that Congress historically has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. In this current controversy, any such comparison would quickly dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers "to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Such electoral-vote challenges have been made by Democrats in past elections under the Electoral Count Act, and Trump was pressing Republican lawmakers to join the effort on his behalf. He stated: "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we're going to walk down – and I'll be there with you – we're going to walk down … to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to "try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue." Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.
The governing legal standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio. As a free speech advocate, I have long criticized that 1969 case and what I consider its dangerously vague standard. However, even Brandenburg would treat Trump's speech as protected by the First Amendment. Under that case, the government can criminalize speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump's 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.
Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.
What is even more unnerving are the few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke passionately against the draft in World War I and led figures like President Wilson to declare him a "traitor to his country." Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, the new favorite term of today's Democratic leaders to denounce Trump and Republican members who challenged the Biden victory.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. The court dismissed Debs' free speech rights and held that it was sufficient that his words had the "natural tendency and reasonably probable effect" of deterring people from supporting the war.
That decision was a disgrace — but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric deemed to have the "natural tendency" to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully would not be a defense. It would be as if Debs first denounced the war but also encouraged people to enlist. This standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment — attributing conduct of third parties to a president for the purposes of removal.
Democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own statements being given incriminating meaning by critics. For example, conservatives have pointed to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) calling for people to confront Republican leaders in restaurants; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) insisted during 2020's violent protests that "there needs to be unrest in the streets," while then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said "protesters should not let up" even as many protests were turning violent. They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity.
The damage caused by this week's rioting was enormous — but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a "snap impeachment" for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very danger that the Framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process meant to require deliberative, not impulsive, judgments, the very reference to a "snap impeachment" is a contradiction in constitutional terms. In this new system, guilt is not to be doubted and innocence is not to be deliberated. It would do to the Constitution what the rioters did to the Capitol: Leave it in tatters.
Parler Shutdown In Latest Attack on Free Speech On The Internet
DC Attorney General Looking Into Arresting Trump and Others
704 thoughts on "How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance"
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters | altnews.org
"This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president."
– Comrade Van Jones, November 9, 2016
If there was a whitelash in 2016, what happened to "Whitelash 2, The Sequel?"
If people loved Comrade Van IJones' "whitelash" so much in 2016, what stopped them from voting for it in 2020?
The American Communist Deep Deep State, that's what.
"Whitelash 2, The Sequel" was cancelled due to "China Flu, 2020," the WMD released by China, nine months before a presidential election, to remove President Trump in order to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America and to impose global communism.
Trump won! Gallup: President Donald J. Trump Is The Most Admired Man in America in 2020.
The 2020 election was corrupted and the vote counts were tampered with.
America is now an oppressed and enslaved one-party communist state.
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters - Globalist News | #Globalist
TURLEY is now just an embarrassing HACK!
True. He's a paid Fox pundit.
George W says:
James Madison warned us of what is happening today!
"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
― Federalist Papers
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both"
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions. "
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree"
"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power."
"Despotism can only exist in darkness, and there are too many lights now in the political firmament, to permit it to remain anywhere, as it has heretofore done, almost everywhere."
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Gallup: The Most Admired Man in America, 2020
Indians were not subjected to four years of the lies, omissions, propaganda and indoctrination of the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) American mainstream media, social media platforms, politicians and ideologues.
Posted on January 11, 2021 by Raymond Maxwell
Open Letter to Members of the Congressional Black Caucus
Dear Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Dear Brothers and Sisters:
I write to you as a private citizen, though I have met many of you in an official capacity over the years, on CODELS (Congressional delegations) to countries where I have been assigned (London, Cairo, Accra, Baghdad; I was usually the faceless guy handing logistics) and in your DC offices for briefings on issues and visits to countries my offices covered.
I watched from overseas last year as your votes formed a solid wall of support for the first Trump impeachment effort, a flawed attempt based on the flimsiest of evidence, to buttress charges we now know to be, at best, arbitrary and capricious. Everyone of you stood up and parroted the charges, then parroted the evidence supporting those charges. We now know it was all political theater that could not pass muster in the Senate. You all behaved with great discipline, even poise, and I am sure your performance pleased the Speaker of the House.
But you were not elected to please the Speaker of the House. You were elected to represent your constituents in your Congressional districts. As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, you represent the interests of African-Americans in general. Many of you have roots in Southern states. Your grandparents or your great-grandparents moved from the south to the north and west as part of the Great Migration. I have spoken with many of you personally and I was pleased to learn some of you have relatives in my home state of North Carolina and even in my hometown. You represent the inter-generational communities that produced you, the spiritual wombs that bore you, so to speak.
You honor us with your great and noble accomplishments. But you dishonor us when you allow yourselves to get caught up in fakeness and fraud, in sleight-of-hand maneuvers to accomplish political gains that have very little to do with your communities back home. To put a fine point on it, this new impeachment effort is pure political maneuvering, at best a personal rivalry that does not concern you or your constituents.
I urge you to reflect, to think critically, and to ask yourself, what's in this for the people I represent? I urge you to think and act strategically. I urge you to think twice before selling your precious vote cheaply in the halls of the greatest government ever known to humankind. This is your moment to shine, a moment your ancestors prayed for. Don't blow it. History is recording your actions.
Raymond D. Maxwell
https://raymmaxx.wordpress.com/2021/01/11/january-11-2021/
They cannot step out of line in the Democrat Caucus. Party line MUST be followed OR ELSE they pay the penalty under Pelosi's strict authoritarian rule. This is the opposite of 'fweedom.'
Not to worry.
The Communist Party Political Officers are hard at work.
Communist propaganda and indoctrination are being pervasively and vigorously propagated and diffused.
REGARDING ABOVE:
We have no idea 'who' Ray Maxwell is or 'why' he should matter. And the poster here has totally failed to tell us 'why' we should care.
surimike says:
And we have no idea who you are, or why we should give any care. Go crawl back under your rock.
We do not need to know.
What is true is true regardless of who speaks it.
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters – notmainstreamnews.us
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters – SHTFGO
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters – True News Hub
Pingback: Attorney: Trump Impeachment Sets Precedent Presidents Are Responsible For Actions of Their Supporters – Summit News
Pingback: 'Any president' could be impeached under Dem precedent, Turley warns | CauseACTION
thecensoredamerican says:
"The damage caused by this week's rioting was enormous — but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a "snap impeachment" for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very danger that the Framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard"
The damage from a new precedent for 'snap impeachment' certainly would pale the damage caused by last week's rally & march, since there was very little property damage done in the mostly peaceful protest.All of the casualties were on the protestors side, except one officer who's family wants it kept quiet. There was no arson, no widespread looting – nothing remotely approaching Portland, Seattle, Minnielalaland. Why aren't Ted Wheeler & Jenny Durkan & Jacob Frey impeached? Why isn't Congress investigating them or cutting off federal funds? Why hasn't Twitter closed their accounts? No enormous damage was done in Washington on January 6th except for the snap electoral college vote.
What a pack of lies! No one has yet to tally the property damage. We don't know how 'light' it was. And people don't die in "mostly peaceful protests". Congresspeople had no idea how safe they would be while sheltering in barricaded rooms. For all they knew, a hostage stand-off would result.
Right – there is hours of video.
There is no graffiti on the walls. No fires were set.
A low barrier was pushed over
A few windows were broken – I beleive 3 and that is about it.
All of this was done in an illegal effort to certify and election in a private congressional session immune from the public.
I have no doubt the windows will be expensive – it is the capital – everything is expensive.
But the claim we do not know is nonsense – the video and pictures are all available to all of us.
Compare that to ANY BLM protest – even a purportedly non-violent one.
I would note that BLM broke down the gates to a gated communtiy and marched accross private property threatening the the McCloskeys on there own lawn. Not a single protestor was arrested – yet the McCloskeys have been indicted for ….
Pointing a non-functional pistol at protestors.
"Justice for Ashli!!!"
John Say,
There was to it than what was on video. People were defecating in the hallways. Sensitive electronics were stolen, laptops, files. and ransacking offices etc. That is much more than 'just a few windows were broken". To diminish the violence of the event is to be complicit in it's approval.
Nobody claims the BLM was non violent.
Incorrect. Pointing a non-functional pistol at anyone is still a crime. Whether a weapon is loaded or not, pointing a firearm arm is a crime. Police officers kill people for pointing a gun, functional or not, at them. It's still a threat.
"There was to it than what was on video. People were defecating in the hallways. Sensitive electronics were stolen, laptops, files. and ransacking offices etc. That is much more than 'just a few windows were broken"."
Then you have actual evidence of that. Regardless, I have no problems prosecuting those who did what you described.
But I have watched lots of video and seen none of that.
We live in the video era – if you do not have video, it probably did not happen.
I am not quite so GenX as you there. But you should still be able to produce real evidence – you know not "hearsay" not sworn affadavits from people who saw something. But actual evidence.
You do realize that I am going to be able to tease you on your stupid claims of what is evidence forever.
"To diminish the violence of the event is to be complicit in it's approval."
Then lets be clear. I do not support deficating in hallways or stealing anything, or ransacking offices"
I do not support political violence AT ALL – unless government is lawless.
We are not at a degree of lawlessness that would justify insurection or rebellion.
But make no mistake – contra what even Trump has said they are legitimate responses to lawless government.
Right. I have some swamp land for sale.
Regardless, compared to Portland what happened at the capital was tame.
Compared to many BLM protests across the country this was tame.
These protestors MOSTLY did not get into conflict with law enforcement.
They did not inherenly obey law enforcement but they MOSTLY treated them with respect.
Things got out of control with Ofc. Spicnick and there is too much I do not know about that yet.
But what happened was not justified.
At the same time in no BLM protest did a police officer aim at a protestor and shoot them in the head.
All kinds of violence was being done to police and they did frequently respond – but they did not murder a protestor.
Further BLM rarely structured themselves as actual protests. You do not protest government by breaking into Macy's.
I can understand protesting police at police stations – but NOT burning them down, or blowing them up.
There is little comparison.
Do you agree that the objective of the Capital protestors was to influence or even prevent the certification of the election by congress ?
Whether you like it or not that is a perfectly legitimate political objective of citizen protestors.
You think that is stupid.
Just as I think defunding the police is one of the stupidest things BLM can do.
But both are legitimate political objectives.
Those at the capital were focused on their objective – they went to the capital – not Walmart.
As with most unrest a few got out of hand. But the focus was still on the objective – not Burning down McDonalds.
"Incorrect. Pointing a non-functional pistol at anyone is still a crime."
"Whether a weapon is loaded or not, pointing a firearm arm is a crime."
"Police officers kill people for pointing a gun, functional or not, at them. It's still a threat."
That is correct – it is a threat – it is not a crime.
When you are defending your own private property from tresspassers it is also a legal threat.
There is no free speech rights on private property. There is no protest right on private property, There is no petition the government right at private property.
Capital protestors went to the Capital to demand senators and congressmen refuse to certify the election.
Left wing Protestors went to Sen. Hawley's DC home to demand that he certify the election.
NOT THE SAME THING. They were free to go to his senate offices – not his home.
Public Property != Private Property.
Every public official in the nation has the absolute right to be free from intimidation in their homes.
But not in their jobs.
" And people don't die in "mostly peaceful protests".
And yet they did – all summer.
"Congresspeople had no idea how safe they would be while sheltering in barricaded rooms."
Your fears do not make someone else's actions a crime.
" For all they knew, a hostage stand-off would result."
For all they knew the moon would crash into the earth.
Do you have a valid argument.
Congress should have stayed in session and proceeded. the Protestors would have come in and shouted, and chanted,
And congress critters could decide on their own how to vote.
When the left is afraid of the prols – this country is in trouble
John say.
Police officers who :"fear for their lives" have justified other people's actions for a crime. It is one of the reasons why BLM became a movement.
John Say, the mob chanted and called for legislators to be rounded up, There were calls to hang the VP. Trump supporters were captured on film carrying zip ties like those used to arrest protesters. The threats were real and the justifications for use of force correct.
Congress could not stay in session. The intent of the mob was to disrupt the session and they did. Again the chants from the crowd involved threats of physical harm and hanging. Furthermore rioters were armed with clubs, fire extinguishers, and who knows what other weapons. None of that was conductive to what you claim they were there for. Smashing thru windows and beating up cops would not be acceptable to you if they were democrats or BLM.
Please read the actual law – I provided it to you.
You can not just suddenly "fear for your life" and shoot people. There must be a real specific immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Your personal emotional state – no matter how real to you does not justify doing ANYTHING to another. Especially not violence.
Again please read the law – there is nowhere in the law a justification fo the use of deadly force because there are people nearby with zip ties. What people say does heighten threat levels – but it is not sufficient alone.
Again there must be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Deadly force is always a last resort.
People like you told us that It was not acceptable for an Atlanta Police offficer to shoot a man running aware who fired a taser at them.
Generally I agree. But there is a minor problem that the law (and the city of atlanta) had already defined tasers as deadly force.
You can resist actual deadly force with deadly force.
I think Tasers are a serious show of force, – But I think it is too far to use them to justify killing.
Regardless, nothing at the capital reached the level of someone firing a taser.
Congress could not stay in session."
There are two choices – open the building to the public and hold congress.
Or close it and do not.
Both options were available. Congress tried to create another.
I do not beleive there was a justification to either shutting down congress or the building.
You beleive there was. Fine.
But there is no justification to closing the building to the public but remaining in session.
There is either a credible threat in your mind – or not.
You can not have it both ways.
"The intent of the mob was to disrupt the session and they did."
Yes, that is often what petitioning government, assembly and free speech are about.
The Kavanaugh protestors certainly disrupted congress.
"Again the chants from the crowd involved threats of physical harm and hanging"
If you believe that – then congress should have closed the building and gone how.
"Furthermore rioters were armed with clubs, fire extinguishers, and who knows what other weapons."
Mostly they were armed with guns. And yet they did not shoot anyone.
The fire extinguisher came from the capital. No one brought a fire extinguisher with them.
"None of that was conductive to what you claim they were there for."
Mostly it was. You just do not accept that quite litterally petitioning government, protesting is FORCEFULLY making a demand.
"Smashing thru windows"
Don't lock a public building from protestors.
"beating up cops"
Again the police violated the capital procedures.
You do not engage protestors unless they are actually violent.
You can not get itno a fight with a protestor and then claim they were violent.
Just to be clear – they WERE forceful. They were going to get into a public building during the hours it was supposed to be open to the public during a session of congress which was supposed to be public.
Further you can not say would would have bappened had congress behaved legitimately – because they did not.
I do not care if the capital police setup a barracade on the capital steps and only allowed people through who did not carry guns and clubs and fire extinguishers and zip cuffs. But if congress was in session they were required to let them in.
What we have here is congressional democrats violating rules and norms to try to make themselves look like victims.
You say they they should be protected from violence and weapons. So do not allow weapons in the capital.
So long as that is a norm – I have no problem.
I would have no problem with many armed protestors marching arround the outside of the capital while unarmed protestors went into the capital and chanted "hang pence".
":would not be acceptable to you if they were democrats or BLM."
And yet we accepted the disruption done by the Kavanauh protestors.
It is not different.
All that is different is congress tried to play a game here and make themselves look like a victim.
YOU THOUGHT TRUMP WAS CRAZY? MAYBE A LITTLE FOR SURE
CONGRESS AND PELOSI HAVE BEAT HIM BY A WIDE MARGIN WITH THIS INSANE STUNT
1. It is not and has never been a Democracy. Source.. Constitution
2. Those of us who took an oath to Our Constitutional Republic have no grounds to be loyal to a Socialist Autocracy.
3. Our loyalty is to our Constitutional Republic.
4. Not to a socialist autocracy
5 Even if the military did break their oath of office.
Trump was crass and unsavory with a huuuuge ego which we all disliked.
Trump was the most effective and best President in American history.
Pingback: How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance | ZeroHedge – Blithe Spirit
What Trump Actually Told The Rioters
Here The New York Times shows us what Donald Trump said to his legions of supporters Wednesday morning near the White House:
"Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder. …
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
"When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to."
"I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. … And I actually — I just spoke to Mike. I said: 'Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage.'"
"I also want to thank our 13 most courageous members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Josh Hawley. … Senators have stepped up. We want to thank them. I actually think, though, it takes, again, more courage not to step up, and I think a lot of those people are going to find that out. And you better start looking at your leadership, because your leadership has led you down the tubes."
"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …
"You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen. These are the facts that you won't hear from the fake news media. It's all part of the suppression effort. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it. …
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. … We are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote, but we are going to try — give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."
From: "Incitement To Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before The Mob Stormed The Capitol"
The New York Times, 1/10/21
Trump is clearly saying he has no intention of conceding defeat. The whole purpose of this event is to stop the certification of his defeat.
"peacefully and patriotically protest" were words that he used. if you get "incitement" from that then you're crazy or a liar./
this impeachment idea is very very unwise and very untimely. 2 weeks left and the guy is gone anyhow. So. Is Pelosi totally nuts? She's the one who needs removed
That is, unless they actually WANT to provoke more violence, Congress that is. That's what's happening now. They're inciting it with this idiotic stunt
Sal Sar
TRUMP IS SAYING HE WILL 'NEVER' CONCEDE.
Trump couldn't be any clearer on that. Every Trumper is there for the purpose of stopping the certification of Trump's defeat.
We can't let incumbent Presidents choose not to recognize election results. That's not how democracy works. Trump's election claims lost in 50 courts. There's a reason why.
We can't let the usurpers with their phony Our Democracy take over OUR Constitutional Republic and turn it into a Socialist Autocracy. Iit was their rioters just like their BLM and their Antifa. Just a bunch of Trotskyites
Actually it is how democracy works.
Where in the constitution does it say that anyone must concede and election ?
It is not in there anywhere.
This is a bat$hit crazy argument.
There is no constitutional requirement for congress to certify the election. They have not on several prior occasions. There have been democratic objections to the certification of every republican.
Trump in lost in the same courts that allowed the lawless election to procede in the first place. By doing so the courts undermined their own credibility.
Regardless this whole left wing nut argument of yours is stupid.
Trump is never going to concede the election – and under the circumstances he should not.
But the election was certified. It should not have been. But it was.
As a consequence Biden will take office with a giant cloud of illegitimacy hanging over him.
That is what happens when you run a lawless election.
And you can expect this all to get worse.
Antifa and BLM have made it clear that if they are not happy with Biden they will riot.
Unlike the past 25 years you know have an engaged right that has seen from Antifa/BLM that the way to get what you want is violence.
We can expect increasing violence from both sides.
We can even expect violent clashes between them. I hope that I am wrong – but I doubt it.
The lawless election has left democrats incredibly weak and fragile, and has given them full responsibility for everything that comes.
"There is no constitutional requirement for congress to certify the election."
The 12th amendment specifies that congress certify the election.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;— The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,…"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12
The nature of counting the votes and confirming that the majority of the votes went to the winner IS certifying the election as a whole.
Nope. The existance of a proves and a vote means that those voting are free to vote as they wish.
There is a constitutional requirement to go through the process.
There is no constitutional requirement to vote in a specific way.
The constitution has provisions for exactly what happens if that does not occur.
I would further note that the constitution
"Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;"
The legislature in these states speficied the manner in which the electors should be chosen.
The State FAILED to follow those laws.
Therefore the electors appointed by the state executive are constitutionally illegitmate.
I would note – this has happened before – in 1876 long after the 12th amendment was ratified.
You are plain black letter and historically wrong.
Congress is required to follow the process in the constitution.
They are NOT required to vote as you claim.
Citizens are free to demand that they vote otherwise.
And in the past they have done so.
In atleast every single election since 1983 Democrats have objected to the certification of the election.
They are constitutionally permitted to do so.
"Trump in lost in the same courts that allowed the lawless election to procede in the first place. By doing so the courts undermined their own credibility. "
The courts, all of them, correctly ruled that no election laws were violated. Claims that they were could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence or evidence that was not credible in court. It is pretty clear that you do not understand how the justice system works.
This election showed the attempts at deceit by republicans allied with the president and failed spectacularly when case after case, even by trump appointed judges, was dismissed our outright thrown out.
"The courts, all of them, correctly ruled that no election laws were violated."
Absolutely false. Even the PA supreme court recognized it was violating the PA constitution, but it did so anyway because …. Covid.
But there is no covid exception to the constitution.
"Claims that they were could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence or evidence that was not credible in court. It is pretty clear that you do not understand how the justice system works."
Actually it is pretty clear that you do not understand the social contract. Which BTW trumps your poor understanding of the justice system.
We have had corruption of all sorts in government for our entire history.
Your argument is quite litterally that because you got away with lawlessness – that there was no lawlessness.
As noted before the supreme court of the US in 1857 devided that those of african descent were property.
Are you saying that decision was moral ? Just ? Constitutional ? Lawful ?
Much of the country STILL disagrees with you – and that is a spectacularly large problem for YOU.
There is even surprisingly large support for the capital protests.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Nothing in that text says that the people can not aboilish the government (by force if necescary) if a bunch of courts say they are wrong.
Did the founders have the permission of the courts to revolt ?
There is no doubt the elections were lawless. We can all read the plain text of the law and the state constitutions.
It the courts rule up is down, or down is up – that does not change that up is up and down is down.
The legitimacy of government – and that includes the courts rests on the trust of the people.
Currently trust in the federal govenrment is below 40%. And it has been declining since 2000.
While there are right/left differences – plenty on both sides do not trust government.
I would note that polls regarding whether the election results were legitimate are actually getting worse.
While trust in the results by democrats has risen a small amount – Trust by both republicans and independents has plumetted.
Not only don't people Trust the results of the presidential election – but nearly all of those who do not trust the presidential election do not trust the GA senate elections.
There is broad support for Trump's concession – even among republicans.
But beleiving that it is time to stop fighting is not the same as beleiving the election was lawful – it clearly was not.
I would note these polls are not tests of whether the eleciton was lawless. They are tests of whether it was fraudulent.
The election was lawless. That is outside any doubt. There is also no doubt there was fraud – that is always true.
There is great – and rising doubt of the results.
You do not seem to grasp that you are wrong on TWO counts.
First because the people are right – the election was lawless – that is self evident.
But second because people BELEIVE the election was lawless.
As of Jan 10. 23% of Republicans beleive the election results. Only 44% of independents and only 79% of democrats.
The support of independents and republicans has dropped slowly every week since the election.
You have lost this argument.
You have lost – both because you are wrong, and because the people beleive you are wrong.
and ultimately that is what matters.
The legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed.
If a plurality of people – if even a significant minority of people do not beleive the election was legitimate – then the government was not legitimate.
Anonynous, +10
Actually we can let incumbent presidents choose to not refognize election results.
You really do not seem to get this.
No one is obligated to agree with others.
Trump and all his supporters are free to not accept the results of this election – even if they were wrong about fraud and lawlessness.
Whether the process was legitimate or not – Trump will not be president after the inauguration. His term will expire and he will not have the obligations or the authority of president.
The same will eventually happen to Joe Biden.
It will happen whether he likes it or not.
It will happen whether he aggrees or not.
No one is required to agree with the law.
Everyone is obligated to follow it.
That is quite important.
You expect all of us to follow the laws that Say Trump is no longer President on Jan 20.
But those are laws – no different from the laws that you violated in this election.
YOU do not get to pick and choose which laws will be enforced.
There is ZERO difference between Trump losing presidential power following the dictates of the law and the governors and election officials being required to follow the constitutions and election laws of their states.
If the Supreme Court had accepted Texas's lawsuit and decided, nope Trump is president – you would have been outraged.
But that action would have been MORE lawful than the election you just conducted.
We can debate fraud. But there is zero debate that the election was not conducted according to the law.
You should not be surprised that Trump supporters are angry – and bordering on violence over your lawlessness – because you would have been angry and violent had any court heard any of Trump's claims.
One of the huge problems with your arguments is they are not consistent.
In left wingnut world – the courts are absolutely right – when you get the outcome you want, and completely illegitimate when you do not.
The fact is the courts are right when they follow the law and the constitution and wrong in all other cases.
And we get to decide that. And the larger that we is the less legitimate government is, and that ultimately leads to violence – legitimate violence.
Let me ask you – if Trump had conspired to get 4M fraudulent votes – and won the election, and the courts refused to look at that fraud – would you have quietly acquiesced ?
We know better – the left rioted when Trump was elected in 2016 – even though the election was perfectly legitimate.
He said that AFTER they rioted and broke into the Capitol.
It ain't in that speech he gave them prior to the march.
Like Turley, you speak half truths.
Seig Us No Heils Comrade Collective. Your truth twisting is not backed by any valid source as usual and is the normal bullshevikism of the socialist autocracy. The party's truth has no relationshipi to any valid form of morals, values and ethics than did that of Hitler and Stalin.
Michael, explain why Trump's election claims were tossed out of every court.
wiseoldlawyer says:
How many of those cases were filed by Trump?
alice wonderland says:
no standing
Yes, according to our courts no one has the right to challenge a lawless election.
Because the courts f;ed up by allowing the states to proceed lawlessly – in many cases defering judgement until after the election – when they discovered that there the only way to compel a lawful election was to throw out millions of votes.
And because the courts were scared $hitless that any ruling for Trump would result in mass riots buring and looting – and they were likely right.
No evidence was credible or presented in court to assert the claims being made. States followed their laws correctly, Including the amended portions their own legislatures created. Nothing you stated is true. Your need for it to be true is only wishful thinking. You have no proof that the courts allowed states to proceed lawlessly. This is why no court, even conservative ones didn't and couldn't rule in Trump's favor. It was simply a matter of lack of evidence and baseless claims proven in court by the president's own lawyers.
Still at this I see.
"No evidence was credible or presented in court to assert the claims being made. States followed their laws correctly"
Please read the PA SCOTUS decision – they had no doubt what the law said. They had no doubt what it intended.
They just openly ignored it. They made no secret about it.
They claimed their choices were "reasonable" – failing to gather that the court is not the legislature, Their "Choices" are limited.
The law and constitution as written. PERIOD. Not what they would prefer they were.
Regardless, the court does not even pretend it is following the law. It just pretends it is allowed to change it.
The court even manages to evade a non-severability clause.
The legislature said – as is very common in laws, that if the courts find problems or feel they can modify one part of the law – then the whole law fails.
Whethere you like it or not severability is a very important legal issue.
All the provisions of PA Act 77 that the court mangled were non-severable. The legislature said – Take them as they are – the whole together or strike the whole law. There is no option between.
PA SCOTUS took note of the non-severabilty clause – and then ignored it.
"Including the amended portions their own legislatures created."
There are no relevant amendments – this is a fiction created by the PA Dept of state After the PA scotus decision.
"Nothing you stated is true."
And yet it is.
"Your need for it to be true is only wishful thinking."
No it is true because that is what the law and the constitution clearly state.
"You have no proof that the courts allowed states to proceed lawlessly."
Of course I do – the actions of the state are not permitted by the law, and the court allowed them to anyway.
It is that simple.
"This is why no court, even conservative ones didn't and couldn't rule in Trump's favor."
Nope, they did not do so because before the election they hoped that whatever the outcome it would not be close so the issue would not matter. And they were terrified of more BLM/Antifa violence.
And afterwords they discovered they had made it worse not better. They had a razor thin election and even a small ruling in favor of Trump would result in rioting throughout the country.
"It was simply a matter of lack of evidence and baseless claims proven in court by the president's own lawyers."
Nope. Lawless government does not require lawyers to sort out.
It is not even the domain of lawyers.
When govenrment is lawless – all rights, including the right to initiate violence revert to the people.
Your oddball court claims are both wrong and irrelevant. You wonder why 1984 is the most popular book on Amazon ?
Because we are all learning we live in Oceania – where the meaning of the law changes with the moment. Where there really is no such thing as law or even meaning – there are just rulers and we must kowtow to them.
And you wonder why violence is near certain to increase from the right.
Get your act together – return to lawful government. Because the only fix for lawless government is violence – regardless of what Trump says.
All of Trump's comments, tweets, speeches are public.
There is no incitement to violence.
There were four things that happened in the capital that were wrong.
One police officer was hit with a fire extinguisher during a tussle and died – the protestor should be prosecuted.
One police office shot an unarmed protestor – that police officer should be prosecuted.
The capital was lockedown to prevent public access – which is improper when congress is in session.
Congress is answerable to the people. These people had the right to petition the government – to demand that the election not be certified.
A lawless election was certified.
John Say, your argument that "these people had the right to petition the government- to demand that the election not be certified." Is hugely flawed for several reasons.
This was not a lawless election. You argue the courts didn't judge cases on the merits, but that is patently false. They all did or couldn't because there was no evidence to present or hearsay was presented as evidence, or evidence they did present had no credibility or merit. All judges clearly explained their reasoning and in great detail. Nothing was deemed unlawful.
These people were not "petitioning" the government, They were trespassing unlawfully on government property by force. Rather that bring up a petition all that was being done by theses people was pure chaos and destruction of property. Calls to hand the VP and round up lawmakers is NOT how you petition government. The people had already petition government by going thru the courts and their own legislatures. That process already played out. It was over.
Trump kept denying the facts before him due to his own disillusioned belief in his own lies. Because all his avenues of legally challenging the results failed, the only option left to him was to encourage his supporters to take matters into their own hands. The speech he made prior to the assault on the capitol was a tacit go ahead to his supporters to do what they did. Trump never called for calm or to leave the capitol until he was pressured to do so. That alone proves he intended to allow that to happen.
The rioter tried to force himself into a secure room where lawmakers were still in, The security officers correctly used force to stop the threat. Unfortunately as it is with every police action an innocent bystander got killed instead. Based on the law that police officer will not be prosecuted due to the fact that he was doing his job. It's ironic that you say he should be prosecuted when it was those very actions that caused the BLM protest in the summer.
Simply put, the election was lawful and it is that simple fact trump supporters cannot grasp because they expected their choice to win. It was an expectation that was falsely guaranteed by the president's very own lies. Reality proved to be a harsh reminder that many could not accept.
"This was not a lawless election."
False and irrelevant.
"You argue the courts didn't judge cases on the merits, but that is patently false."
Again the ultimate legitimacy of the courts rests with the people – not the courts.
A surprisingly large and apparently GROWING plurality have rejected the courts conclusions.
Regardless your argument is circular.
You are always free to petition govenrment – even if you are wrong.
I do not support the arson, rioting and looting by BLM protestors.
Further there are sompletely wrong about systemic recism in policing and about defunding the police.
But they are still free to protest, petition government, assemble.
They are even free to act lawlessly – TO GOVERNMENT – not private parties, if government itself is lawless.
The legitimacy of a right does not rest on your or the courts beleif that right is being excercised well.
In fact free speech, free assembly, the right to petition government only exist if they are still rights when you are completely wrong.
You will rarely find people trying to supress speech they beleive is correct.
Only what is wrong.
Do you think anyone on the court beleives that burning american flags is a good thing ?
"If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag," Scalia said. "But I am not king."
And yet Scalia is the author of several SCOTUS decisons determining that flag burning is constitutional.
I right is not the priviledge to do what others agree with. It is the freedom to do something nearly everyone does not agree with.
It is the freedom to do so even if you are actually wrong.
"They all did or couldn't because there was no evidence to present or hearsay was presented as evidence, or evidence they did present had no credibility or merit. All judges clearly explained their reasoning and in great detail. Nothing was deemed unlawful."
Your argument is complete nonsense, as well as irrelevant to the discussion. There have been very few hearings on the merits – these were mostly in legislatures. There is no final decision by any court that is on the merits. There are very few cases in which evidence was even heard. You have this fixation on hearsay – most of the affadavits are not hearsay, regardless hearsay is quite frequently accepted as evidence. If you overheard other plotting a crime – that is admissible.
"These people were not "petitioning" the government,"
That is precisely what they were doing. They came to congress demanding that they do not certify the election – that is black letter political petitioning govenrment.
"They were trespassing unlawfully on government property by force. "
You can not tresspass on public property.
"Rather that bring up a petition"
What do think chanting "stop the steal" is ?
That is petitioning government.
" all that was being done by theses people was pure chaos and destruction of property."
You seem to be confusing this with a BLM riot.
These people broke into public buildings that were not supposed to be locked to petition their senators.
There was no arson. not wanton destruction of property – only destruction of unconstitutional barriers,
"Calls to hand the VP and round up lawmakers is NOT how you petition government."
Out founders tarred and feathered government representatives – and you think merely chanting is not petitioning ?
"The people had already petition government by going thru the courts and their own legislatures."
There is no such limit to the right to assemble, to free speech, to petition.
You have the right to speak on a subject – whether the courts have decided that subject.
You have the right to assemble on a subject – whether the courts have decided that subject.
You have the right to petition government on a subject – whether the courts have decided that subject.
Are you saying that after Dred Scott was decided – blacks must always and forever be property – because the court has spoken ?
"That process already played out. It was over."
Due process is a burden that GOVERNMENT must meet.
There is no due process requirement for speech, assembly, or petitioning government.
BLM protestors are entirely wrong about the issues. That has no effect on their right to protest.
"Trump kept denying the facts before him due to his own disillusioned belief in his own lies."
Back to Trump again ?
Regardless, as I said before – the courts have been "trumped" by the plurality of the people.
"Because all his avenues of legally challenging the results failed,"
That is what happens when government is lawless,. and that is why violence becomes more likely after.
That is why it is critical for government – the courts to follow the law – which they did not do.
You can not get arround this.
You keep making appeals to authorities that are only legitimate if trusted by the people.
The law is what the courts say because the people accept that – once they do not – the courts are WRONG.
It actually does not matter if the people are factually incorrect, They are the ultimate authority on the law.
"the only option left to him was to encourage his supporters to take matters into their own hands."
They did that on their own.
I guess you think everyone else is sheep – because you are.
Most of us think for themselves.
"The speech he made prior to the assault on the capitol was a tacit go ahead to his supporters to do what they did."
I guess you can not read.
Words have meaning.
"Trump never called for calm or to leave the capitol until he was pressured to do so."
He is not required to.
We agree he did not want calm, and he did not want supporters to leave the capital.
"That alone proves he intended to allow that to happen."
Nope and not relevant.
"The rioter tried to force himself into a secure room where lawmakers were still in,""
False an irrelevant.
Alishi did not try to force herself in – though could have legitimately done so.
Others were breaking the glass, atleast one other reached through to try to unbarricade the door.
The "room" was a public lobby that was unconstitutionally closed.
The lawmakers had left, but even if they had not – law enforcement can protect lawmakers from actual attacks.
Not fear of attacks. If you are unwilling to stand up in front of your constitutents and explain yourself to their statisfaction you are not entitled to be a lawmaker.
Being president is not a right, Being a senator is not a right. Being a representative is not a right.
Petitioning government is a right. Assembly is a right. free speech is a right. protest is a right.
Voting is a right, the rule of law is a right.
BTW Violence is an actual right. We mostly cede that right in return for the rule of law.
When government fails to provide the rule of law – when govenrment is lawless, the individual right to initiate violence against government returns.
When you break the social contract – there is no government.
"The security officers correctly used force to stop the threat."
Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
The about is specific to law enforcement in the US CFR – but pretty much exactly the same language is in the law of every state.
The rest of the law provides specific examples of when deadly force may be used.
The example used for defense of others is "sabatoge of an occupied facility by explosives"
Deadly force is allowed to aprehend someone – But ONLY it they are actively engaged in an act that will cause death or serious bodily harm to another.
Even if your claims regarding the shooting of Alishi were correct – the act would STILL be murder.
Alishi had no weapon. She presented no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone.
She could have been spitting in Pelosi's face and the officer could not shoot her.
The police are not justified in using deadly force against anyone committing a crime.
They are not justified in using deadly force against anyone committing a felony.
To be clear – FORCE, and DEADLY FORCE are not the same.
There were many things the officer could have done – most would have violated policy, but they would not be murder.
They would likely not have been a crime.
Shooting Alishi was a crime.
In my state it even rises tot he level of premeditated.
"Unfortunately as it is with every police action an innocent bystander got killed instead."
First you claim that the Officer was justified, now Alishi is an innocent bystander.
Regardless the officer raised his gun, Aimed and fired.
It appears from the video that he Aimed at Alishi's head.
Regardless of what he "aimed" at – he was firing at head level.
BTW law enforcement firearms training explicitly teaches officers to shoot at the enter of mass.
There are multiple reasons for this.
The first is headshots look like executions. Further you are aiming at a smaller object and if you miss – you may hit something really bad.
The next is that you are less likely to miss the torso and more likely to actually stop what you hit whether you kill it or not.
A head shot that does not kill someone does not likely stop them.
And contra left wing nuts – Police never try to shoot people in the arms of leggs. That does not stop them.
You are only allowed to use deadly force where there ie an immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury.
If that is the case the objective is to STOP the attacker.
"Based on the law that police officer will not be prosecuted due to the fact that he was doing his job."
He was not and there is no "only doing my job" exception to the law on deadly force.
He will not be charged because Congress was terrified of their own constituents and willing to murder them to feel safe.
"It's ironic that you say he should be prosecuted when it was those very actions that caused the BLM protest in the summer."
But it is not. George Flyod was not shot.
If it is determined that the Officer was the direct cause of Flyod's death – then he is guilty of manslaugther or reckless indifference homicide. That has not been determined yet. It is near certain that a clear duty of care was violated – Flyod was visibly in the midst of a drug overdose and he was taken into custody. The police/city were then responsible for his health. At the very least there is a significant lawsuit.
I have no problem with those who protested George Floyd's death.
I have no problems with the protestors even if it turns out that Floyd's death was the unavoidable result of a fentanyl overdose.
You do not have to be right to protest.
Burning and looting Target is not protesting.
"Simply put, the election was lawful"
Nope – you lose that based on the actual law.
The fact that the courts as you say have found otherwise makes that WORSE not better.
It is bad when the executive is lawless, it is worse when the courts are complicit.
In the end the people decide what was lawful, and whether they trust government.
They do not.
"and it is that simple fact trump supporters cannot grasp because they expected their choice to win."
That is irrelevant. Clinton supporters expected her to win in 2016. She did not.
They protested – all legal.
Some engaged in looting and arson – not legal.
Clinton supporters beleived the election was stolen – for stupid reasons.
They are entitled to beleive stupid things, They are entitled to protest for stupid reasons – and they did.
"It was an expectation that was falsely guaranteed by the president's very own lies."
"Reality proved to be a harsh reminder that many could not accept"
The reality is that the election was lawless.
That does not tell us whether the result was changed by fraud.
That the courts failed to remedy the lawlessness BEFORE the election
only makes it worse. It makes the courts complicit.
I disagree with the post election court decisions.
But there is a fundimental difference after the election.
Before the election the courts could have ordered that election laws and state constitutional requirements were met.
After the election there is no actual fix for a lawless election.
The courts failed by refusing to allow the immediate investigation of credible allegations of fraud.
But the courts no longer had a lawful choice.
The most lawful and constitutional option was for SCOTUS to take the TX case.
SCOTUS could have determined that those states that did not follow their own laws and constitution can not certify the election.
That is very close to what SCOTUS did no 2000. They required the courts iN FL to follow the actual FL law.
The differences is that in 2000 the claim was NOT that the election was fraudulent or lawless, it was that the state court was not following the state law or the constitution.
The next lawful option was for the congress to refuse to certify the election.
Contra your claim they are not required to do so and they have chosen not to do so in a fraudulent election before.
Frankly I WANT these idiots to go forward. It makes them look even more deranged.
"Trump is clearly saying he has no intention of conceding defeat."
Correct – there is no requirement that he do so.
"The whole purpose of this event is to stop the certification"
Correct – and that is perfectly constitutional.
It has even happened several times before.
In fact it has happened in an instance that is very similar – where there was known election fraud in a number of states.
You may not like what Trump said. You may disagree, but you do not seem to grasp that you are not entitled to have anyone else agree with you.
Both you and Trump are obligated to follow the law and constitution. He did.
He was unlikely to get what he wanted – but he was free to try.
You could have stopped all of this by conducting the election according to the state laws and constitutions.
But then the outcome likely would have been different.
You could have stopped this by accepting real scrutiny of the elections in the lawless states.
But you did not.
A plurality of people beleive this election was stolen.
However the manner in which he chose to try was both unethical and in some cases illegal. That is not only wrong, but also undemocratic given his choices in how he wanted it.
But then the outcome likely would have been different. "
State laws and constitution were followed. The PA supreme court ruled the law was followed. In GA multiple audits and hand recounts confirmed that the laws were followed. In GA republican officials who were trump allies could not agree with the president's assertions since the facts did not conform to the president's claims.
If this is the standard by which we are to decide things then would you agree that because a sizable plurality of people who believe the president should be removed invoking the 25th amendment or impeachment is warranted? This is both your and Turley's logic.
"In GA multiple audits and hand recounts confirmed that the laws were followed."
Which election? The general or the runoff?
As you will find out, the runoff was a different animal. Yet it was the same animal.
"Stupid is, as stupid does", fits perfectly.
Rhodes, only one election had multiple recounts and audits. You should have been able to figure out which one it was, But if you still have trouble figuring it out . It was the general. The one Trump is upset about, The one Trump himself asked for two recounts, both of which confirmed he LOST.
But we can't – because no election had multiple recounts and audits.
There have only been two actual audits that I am aware of.
Antrim county did a partial audit and the results were damning. 5000+ votes shifted from Biden to Trump.
Further an independently done partial audit of some of the DVS voting machines found a 68% rate of rejecting ballots to adjudication.
While that expert represented a Trump litigant. that result has been confirmed by published data in Fulton county.
Separately Raffensberger counducted a signature audit in Cobb County in GA. Cobb County is one of the least likely Democratic counties in GA to have fraudulent mailin ballots, and yet there was a 0.6% rejection rate of ballots in that audit – sufficient that if True just in Fulton county the results would have flipped.
Those are the only actual audits I am aware of.
GA did not audit the state. It did not recount paper ballots. It conducted a machine recount of the post adjudication scans.
Sen. Cruz asked for an actual audit in the 6 states that are key to this.
A real audit must be independent. Businesses do not audit themselves – outside accounting firms do.
Not only should we audit the 2020 election. We should put in place procedures that ALL elections are audited.
A real properly done independent random audit would disincentivize the vast majority of election fraud.
A properly done audit that was part of the normal course of elections would be relatively easy and would radically increase the probability that every single election fraud claim that Trump supporters have made would be impossible in the future.
A properly designed random audit would be quite easy and require few resources and would with near certainty catch ALL systemic fraud.
And it would increase the odds that smaller scale individual election fraud would get caught.
I would note that many areas of business and finance do these all the time.
This is not rocket science.
But our states go as far as possible out of their way to do as little as possible to ensure the integrity of the vote, and what little they do is done the most inefficiently possible and the least likely to identify a problem.
In GA specifically there was an expert pannel that recomended a specific method for randoming auditing the election in real time requiring very limited resources with a high probability of identifying nearly all problems. This recomendation was made BEFORE the election.
GA rejected it. It was offered again post election as a better alternative to the faux recount.
GA rejected it.
Then that is the end of it.
"However the manner in which he chose to try was both unethical"
Incorrect and irrelevant.
"and in some cases illegal."
"That is not only wrong, but also undemocratic given his choices in how he wanted it."
We are not a democracy. You still do not get that.
Even if Biden is president – legitimately or not, even if he has minority support – which he really does not.
Democrats may not do whatever a majority of us wish.
As I said – we are not a democracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with undemocratic choices.
There is something inherently wrong with infringing on the rights of others – even those who are in the minority.
Rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
"State laws and constitution were followed. The PA supreme court ruled the law was followed."
Nope. This is not a difficult issue.
5 of the 6 states constitutionally bar mailin elections. PERIOD.
The courts are supposed to enforce the constitution as written – not as they prefer it were.
Most of the world grasps that mailin voting is an abysmally bad and fraud prone idea.
If we did not get massive fraud in 2020, we will soon enough if we continue.
I beleive every single contested state requires observers throughout the ballot handling and counting process.
Those observers have the power to object, and those ballots objected to are later arbitrated.
That did not occur.
Not only is that the law – it is obviously good practice.
Elections are the means by which government gets our consent. without trust in elections – there is no consent and no legitimate govenrment.
Following the law and the constitution is NOT the only requirement for a trusted election.
But it is the FIRST requirement.
And contra your claims the courts are NOT the final authority.
Government only exists with the consent of the governed. Courts can not give consent for us.
There are many other laws that were not followed in each state.
Contra your claim the courts did not for the most part find otherwise.
What they claimed ot have found was that the lawlessness did to alter the outcome of the election.
To the extent possible courts should NEVER be put in the position to decide what would have occured had the law been followed.
There was no hand recount in GA. Several people have testified under oath to how the recount was conducted.
There is no conflicting testimony.
" In GA republican officials who were trump allies could not agree with the president's assertions since the facts did not conform to the president's claims."
False. You frame the world as right and left. Trump represents 75M american people. He does not represent every republican elected official.
Reffensburger in specific lied multiple times.
As noted there was no actual hand recount. BTW there was also not a wide spread audit.
The machines were used to test the machines – that does not work.
Aside from lying he rejected an actual carefully designed random audit that would have put to rest claims of machine fraud that would have been easier. When those in government deliberately aviod the easiest and most accurate tests, and insteed choose an approach guaranteed not to find problems – they are not to be trusted.
Raffensberger did the same thing with signature matching. First he got boxed in to a stupid consent decree regarding signature matching. GA is a Voter ID state. There must either be very high quality signature matching – or there can not be mailin ballots.
When challenged he was required to fight for signature matching all the way to the US supreme court. Instead he bailed.
We do not mangle our laws to suit the wishes of deep pocket litigators.
After that he promised a state wide independent verification of mailin ballot signatures. Trump only wanted Fulton County – as only errors in fulton country would likely alter the outcome. instead Raffensberger did a random verfication of signatures in Cobb county – an affluent area that much more narrowly went to Biden that was not independent. And still they found an uncured error rate of over 1% which would have been sufficient to flip the election. But they went through with curing – which is not legal. The state can not fix ballot errors. The entire point of requiring accurate information on a ballot is to weed out fraud. State curing a ballot is like the teacher giving you the test answers during the test. Regardless STILL they Refered 33 of 5000 ballots to GBI as probably fraudulent. That is a 0.66% rate. Enough to tip the state in a country where fraud was highly unlikely.
I would further note that was the results of signature matching only – that is a single fraud related issue. Signatures from voters who left the state – would match – no one checked for those.
You claim Biden won all the court cases. That is not all he "won". As noted he got states to violate their own election laws. He got them to count without observers, and on and on and on.
Without winning on every single issue at every single place Biden would have lost this election.
In 2016 the left was livid over Comey's anouncement that he had reopened the Clinton email investigation. Concurrently NBC leaked the Hollywood access tape. That is how elections (and life) go.
Even in a football game – your analogy – every umpires call does not go against one team, every pass thrown by that team is not intercepted. In the real world somethings go one way some the other – not necessarily equally.
But in the real world people rarely shoot the moon. The odds against it are incredibly high.
Most people realize that it is not likely that every claim Trump or supporters made would prevail. But for Biden to win every single thing had to go his way. Every court – before and after the election had to go his way. Each of 6 states had to all violate their own laws and constitutions. The courts – federal and state had to all 100% of the time allow this. Observers had to be forced out of countining centers in 6 cities and the courts had to turn a blind eye and later claim it was diminims. The press had to cover for him every step.
They had to hide the Hunter Biden scandal. Big Pharma and FDA had to hide the fact that the vaccines were successful and imminent.
If this is the standard by which we are to decide things then would you agree that because a sizable plurality of people who believe the president should be removed invoking the 25th amendment or impeachment is warranted? "
Nope. Please read the 25th amendment – it does not work as you claim. If you do not like that – rewrite it.
As I said before the FIRST requirement of trust in govenrment is that it follow its own laws. It is not necescary that we all like those laws.
But when government does not follow those laws – there is no trust.
As to impeachment – you have already tried one Faux impeachment, if you wish to go with another – have at it. I am not stopping you.
You might succeed in removing Trump and barring him from running again.
But you will harm yourself doing so – and I am all for that.
Or you might fail – and harm yourself doing so.
Regardless, all you do is reinforce the beleif that Trump actually won.
I do not think that Trump is running in 2024. But the threat of a Trump 2024 campaign clearly terrifies democrats.
If you beleive Biden won in 2020 – why do you think he or Harris will lose in 2024 ?
They will be the incumbents – they have 4 years to build a record of success that weil get them re-elected.
Clearly you not only do not beleive you won in 2020, you do not have faith that what you will do as government will make things better.
Regardless, Have I ever said you can not impeach Trump ? Nope. Nor BTW has Turley.
I am all in favor of your screwing yourself.
Already been over that. If Trump violated the law – have DOJ prosecute.
That is another stupid thing that I would be happy to see you do.
Perfectly correct. Not only does a plurality beleive the election was likely fraudulent – that view is slowly growing.
Those court decisions that you fixate on did not persaude anyone.
BTW I would note that many of the things Trump asked of the courts should ALWAYS occur.
Not just contested elections.
We should ALWAYS independently audit elections.
We should ALWAYS thoroughly investigate allegations of election fraud
We should ALWAYS verify that those voting are elegible to vote.
Pingback: 'Any president' could be impeached under Dem precedent, Turley warns – American Broadcasting CommUnity
Pingback: How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance – American Broadcasting CommUnity
Here, allow me to correct your untruths and half truths.
1. He's not being impeached for the actions of his supporters. He's being impeached for incitement to riot, which is a crime in this country that you dance around so cleverly that I think you and Rudy Giuliani ought to team up and try out for "Dancing with the Stars". You two would make a great couple.
2. Constantly claiming "but what about these people rioting" doesn't excuse this event, and you ignore the fact they went into Congress, some armed, with the intent of overthrowing the government, following marching orders they'd just received from the President of the United States. Your "but you let Johnny do it" defense is worthy of a toddler, not a law scholar.
3. A police officer was murdered by the very mob the President sent to congress to quote "fight" and to "stop" Congress from doing their work for the day. You ignore this slain police officer and his mourning family, while defending the actions of the most visibly mentally unbalanced President the countries ever known. I swear if Trump ordered a firing squad for congress, stood there yelling "ready, aim, fire" your defense would be "well he didn't actually tell them to shoot them, he said "fire" which could have multiple interpretations….".
A police officer was killed by an angry mob sent to the Capitol by the President.
And you still think that doesn't approach even a "misdemeanor" by our President (which btw isn't required to impeach).
You see nothing morally or ethically wrong with what he's done, if you did you'd acknowledge he could be impeached on moral and ethical grounds alone for sending a mob to the Capitol to "fight" to overturn our election that resulted in them murdering a Police Officer.
Watching you double down here, tap dancing desperately to save yourself and your wholly untenable defense of this ranting, insane lunatic in the White House is like watching Giuliani melt down at the press conference.
The only thing missing is the hair dye and or makeup streaming down the side of your face. Of course, we can't see you so….
Thersites says:
Got any proof?
mespo727272 says:
Aninny:
You mastered circular reasoning yet again, i.e. Trump's guilty because he's guilty. Now let's move on to you providing the verbatim speech language that amounts to a clear call for imminent lawlessness in the minds of reasonable folks, i.e., "Let's burn down the ROTC building." And your concern for the police is touching, if a tad hypocritical. The Left hates the cops until it suits them otherwise.
@MessPOS, you're just a worthless piece of s#$ troll who's lived in this blog for 20 years talking crap and trolling anyone and everyone. I ain't no liberal you worthless piece of sh#$, and when I want the opinion of a neonazi ambulance chaser, you'll be the first scumbag I poll.
"He's being impeached for incitement to riot, which is a crime in this country"
Then you can much more easily have DOJ prosecute him.
That will not occur because it is almost as stupid an idea as impeaching him and because
Trump did not incite violence.
"They went into Congress, some armed, with the intent of overthrowing the government"
No they went into congress with the intent of confronting there representatives.
The expectation – which you well know was to use there presence to persuade more of them to vote against certifying the election.
This is no different from the Kavaugh supporters who descended on the capital and successfully persuaded several senators to vote against confirmation.
I know that you do not grasp this – but being armed is not a crime. It is a right.
Not a single protestor shot anyone – they easily could have – I saw atleast one semi automatic AFTER the airforce vet was shot.
The only people who shot anyone were the capital police. Neither the officer nor anyone else was threatened with death or serious bodily injury, The corridor behind him was empty at that time. The only officer hurt in this got into a physical altercation with a protestor which was prohibited.
I would note the ARMED PROTESTORS – fully understood the law regarding the use of firearms.
While the capital police officer did not. He should be prosecuted for murder.
"Your "but you let Johnny do it" defense is worthy of a toddler"
You are partly correct. If you are breaking into macies – you are not a protestor.
If you are lobbing molotov cocktails you are not a protestor.
Gopvernment is petitioned at the instutitons of government – like the capital.
The lockdown protestors and the Election certification protestors petitioned the government at the capital.
They did not burn down stores, they did not deface statutes. they did not fire bomb police.
They came to a public building that was supposed to be open to the public.
They sought out their representatives and senators – who were cowering in fear lest the have to interact with actual prols.
It is not the job of the capital police to protect government of the people from the people.
This was not an insurection – and what little violence was caused by the improper actions of government – not the protestors.
As noted before – Kavanaugh protestors managed to get all through the capital – they got to atleast 6 senators offices.
The capital police did not try to stop them. Because consitutents are free to seek out their elected representatives.
"A police officer was murdered"
No he was killed – the airforce vet was murdered.
The police officer was was killed engaged a protestor – which he was not supposed to do and was hit in the head with a fire extingusher.
You can prosecute the protestor. That does not make this a foreseable outcome.
No one is prosecuting BLM for organizing riots in which police were killed.
"congress to quote "fight" and to "stop" Congress from doing their work for the day."
No the objective was to get congressmen to object to certification of the election – which is precisely what they are supposed to do when there is a likelyhood of fraud. Regardless, Congressmen are free to object or not.
The constitution provides for this, and it has happened before – 1876 I believe.
Congress "doing their work" could mean certifying the election. It also could mean choosing not to certify.
This was no different from Kavanaugh protestors trying to get senators to not vote to confirm.
There is not two different laws – one for democratic protestors and one for republicans.
BTW democrats call for portests all the time – it is not incitement to violence.
Finally had Trump actually asked protestors to shutdown congress – that STILL would not be a crime.
What do you think protestors seeking to "defund the police" is ?
"You ignore this slain police officer"
No, the person who hit him with the fire extinguisher should be prosecuted.
""while defending the actions of the most visibly mentally unbalanced President the countries ever known."
Judging by his accomplishments that is false.
Mentally unbalanced people are not able to get a vaccine developed 5 times faster than normal.
Get most of the mideast to accept peace deals and normalize relations with Isreal,
Get the US mostly out of the mess in the mideast the two prior presidents had created,
Create an alliance with other asian nations to contain china.
"I swear if Trump ordered a firing squad for congress, stood there yelling "ready, aim, fire" your defense would be "well he didn't actually tell them to shoot them, he said "fire" which could have multiple interpretations…."."
This is the core of the problem – we get this constant speculation from the left that Trump is going to do something both truly insance and impossible.
Trump did not fire Mueller – which he was entitled to.
He did not go to war with iran – despite the encouragement of neocons.
He did not nuke anyone.
He waited until the investigations were over and the legal process complete before pardoning people whose crime was being Trump supporters.
He did not stage a coup – that was obama.
There is no firing squad.
He did not declare martial law.
What are the other wing nut claims that Trump was supposed to do ?
Your fears are not his crimes.
"A police officer was killed by an angry mob"
No he was killed by a person who will be prosecuted.
There were angry protestors. you have told us that it is OK to be angry and protest. To burst through gates and doors.
Even to burn and loots – so long as you are protesting.
These people sought to get Senators and representatives to object to the certification of the election.
That is a legitimate option.
You may not like that – but asking congress to act as the constitutional allows – and as has occured in the past is not insuraction or rioting.
Nope it is not a misdemeanor.
You are correct that congress can impeach for any reason at all.
But it is an incredibly bad idea.
It is particularly bad in this case.
The entire world knows that you goal is to prevent him from running again – no other purpose is served.
And that goal means you do not beleive yourselves that you won.
"You see nothing morally or ethically wrong with what he's done,"
Most of what is done in Washington every day is morally and ethically wrong.
Biden has already violated federal ethics laws as vice president – no US government official may participate in government actions that even appear to benefit his family. That is a federal ethics violation.
The question here is the LAW.
While we create law based on morallity – the rule of law requires that we enforce THE LAW – not our personally morality.
It is crystal clear than Trump violated no laws – and only a few protestors violated laws.
"if you did you'd acknowledge he could be impeached on moral and ethical grounds alone"
Of course he can – and Biden;s unethical blackmail of /Ukraine to get the removal of a prosecutor investigating the business his son was part of is exactly that kind of ethical violation – one that is even illegal.
" for sending a mob to the Capitol to "fight" to overturn our election that resulted in them murdering a Police Officer."
Again that is not what happened. Protestors when to the Capital to demand that their representatives vote not to certify the election.
That is perfectly legal.
The capital police improperly locked down much of the capital from public access to prevent that.
Petitioning government is a constitutional right.
The only person murdered was a protestor. The video shows the officer raising his gun, taking aim and firing.
He shot someone when that person was not a threat of death to serious bodily harm to him or anyone else, and when he had a duty to retreat.
The officer killed by the protestor was killed illegally – more likely manslaughter.
The rule of law requires us to follow the actual law as it is.
Something you did not do during the elections.
You spoke of morality and ethics – you have no moral ground to stand with which to judge others.
You did not condemn the violence of protestors this summer – you down played it.
You did not condemn state violating their own constitutions and election laws – you condoned it.
And now you want to impose your bogus understanding of law and morality on people who were legitimately seeking redress for your lawless elections.
S. Meyer says:
John, very apt comparison.
We are not getting all the news. It is my understanding that Trump was speaking a bit away from where the riot took place. It would take time to walk from there to the riot which HAD STARTED BEFORE Trump finished his speech.
Rod R. Schroder says:
Thanks for always being consistent and truthful.
If that claim were valid Comrade Collective could cite sources and proofs and then explain why it wasn't applied against Harris, Waters, and others in his Socialist Autocracy. Your own actions speak louder than your as usual false words.
Anonymous on Refilling the Swamp? Trump Res…
Liberty2nd on Refilling the Swamp? Trump Res…
Anonymous on Hail To The Chief: Joe Biden B…
Art Deco x 4 on Professor Calls For The Elimin…
OLLY on Hail To The Chief: Joe Biden B…
Art Deco x 4 on Refilling the Swamp? Trump Res…
J G Gordon on Refilling the Swamp? Trump Res…


Home / Community / Comment: Where's my Easter egg hunt invite?
Are bike shops making the most of marketing opportunities already cemented on the calendar?
Comment: Where's my Easter egg hunt invite?
Every now and then I'll stumble across a retailer who really has to be credited with having thought way outside of the box.
On this very site last month we touched on an electric bike retail and rental specialist that had linked with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's River Cottage – a television famous venue that hosts cookery tutoring, among other things.
£70 all in for a slap up two course meal following on from a two hour guided jaunt into the Devonshire countryside on supplied electric bikes. What's not to like about that deal?
From the retailer's point of view, a portion of that £70 goes in the till. The customer, who otherwise may never have thought about bicycle hire, gets a day out that, by the sounds of it, will market itself through word of mouth. There's no excuses for those afraid of two hours in the saddle either, much thanks to a little electric assistance, everyone's invited.
From a marketing point of view it's a huge win for both parties. As much as we in the press get countless emails about celebrities cycling, few involve business. In this case the two firms involved here are bouncing off each other's popularity. Cycling, touted in all press releases as being "more popular than ever", is a draw, but pair that with the chance to eat food from a celeb chef's academy and you're onto a winner.
In the cycling world it's far too easy to get sucked into our own industry calendar and become complacent when it comes to dreaming up unique ideas to drive trade.
I wrote this article originally for the magazine, with four days remaining until Valentine's Day and seven until Shrove Tuesday. At the time I had yet to hear of any events involving romantic countryside tandem tours or post ride pancakes back at the shop – and I'm disappointed. If you wanted you could even cook up some pancakes on the trail with a portable gas stove.
These kind of events would generate a buzz and are thus easy to market, whether that's via local press, who in my experience are always desperate for quirky stories, or via the shop window.
Heading into next month I expect to receive numerous press releases from BikeBiz readers detailing trailside Easter Egg hunts by bike. Fun for all the family and easy as pie to turn a profit on. "Earn an Easter treat, guilt free", your sign could read.


Factors of Class-Elitism in Anne Ranasinghe's Poetry: In Defense of Some Opinions Fielded by Dhanuka Bandara.
A still from the film based on EM Forster's "A Passage to India": Mrs. Moore in discovery of the "real India".
I believe that to underline Ranasinghe's poetry as coming from an elitist window is to state the obvious. Where a discussion of Ranasinghe's poetry does not make us meditate on the indelible World War II connection, what stands out is the class-dimension of the writer's own subject position. For Ranasinghe's poetry, often — if not always — recorded from the first person view point, heavily dwells on the personal and the private. Even in the more popularly read "Holocaust Poems", the inroads into the past are essentially made through the retrospective tendency of the first person narrator, making Ranasinghe's point of reference inevitably too closer to the ego. What kind of outlook does this freeflowing ego, then, represent? Even in the much quoted "Holocaust Poems", one forgets that Anne Ranasinghe, in person, was not a first hand victim of the violence she speaks of in vivid and graphic terms. These are all mere ruminations where her personal grief, the memory of loss and her creative faculties come together to prompt.
Staying with the "classist" and "elitist" claims Dhanuka levels against Anne Ranasinghe — the rebuttal Ranasinghe can throw at Dhanuka is as to what is wrong with her being elitist; or, as to what else she can be than the supra-elite writer she is? If Ranasinghe is to unlearn her culture and to unburden her class, she might as well undo herself from the grievous memory of World War II, the stab wound of which keeps her in search of that sublimatory outlet of poetic composition decades since Hitler. To think otherwise is to delude one's self and for Ranasinghe — who, as Dhanuka quotes, has a firm grip on Buddhist doctrine — such delusion would be ironical and unbecoming. To sustain Dhanuka's analysis — which draws from just two of Ranasinghe's poems, "At What Dark Point" and "Plead Mercy" — let us consider a few random instances from Ranasinghe's extensive corpus.
The poems I would like to use in supplementation of Dhanuka's stance are "Polonnaruwa" (1979), "Dambulla" (1979), "Hot Season" (1973) and "The Fiddler of Kollupitiya" (1970). All of these poems are written in the same decade as "At What Dark point" (1970) and "Plead Mercy" (1974), to which Dhanuka makes reference.
The subject of "At What Dark Point" is stimulated by the poet's/Ranasinghe's persona (?) spotting a "sinister" (looking) man who sits on the other side of her plush, residential Colombo house-fence and knots a jute rope. She, the persona, is alarmed at this man's presence, which makes her memory run torrent and transport her to the World War days of Nazi terror. Neurotic, melodramatic and burlesque-ridden as the transportation may sound, one may — in spite of the paranoia being caused by a single man seated at a democratic distance — justify the turbulant mind of the narrator as a result of war's deep scars that dig deep into one's mind.
A scratchy tune upon his violin.
Similar to "At What Dark Point", the subject of the poem is seated at a suitable / befitting distance from the holier-than-him observer (the narrator) and is readily gazed upon and objectified from that class-superior position of the latter. Again, similar to the Holocaust Poem, the direction and definition of the object is essentialized and categorically stated from the same superior vantage. Even the man's emotions / feelings — whether he is happy, sad or otherwise — are readilly and assuredly pronounced. The comparison of the neck to "chicken skin" comes too easilly, in spit of its insensitive and dehumanizing implications. The man sits by a "rough" plank stall, but is yet "happy". The poor and the destitute, in the elite eye, finds happiness in spite of surroundings in their own music. The music, here, is referred to with what, on the surface, appears as a positive value assignment. But, in fact, what Ranasinghe doles out here is the consideration and sympathy of the elite when seeing at passing distance the suffering poor (as it is in "Plead Mercy"). This is merely a text book gesture, and the appreciation of the music is not the same as the persona would appreciate Mozart, Beethovan and the like.
"In the ancient forest Monkeys watch with wise eyes.
Such silence under the old trees".
What ensues is a tourist-brochure type description with exotic insertions of birds, clouds, water, and the like. In fact, Ranasinghe gets lost in her own exotic amalgam that there is a transition of sorts towards the closing lines of the poem where concreteness in syntax blurs and a flux that transcends grammar takes over. Yet, the pseudo-mystical, reverant ambiance Ranasinghe strives to create through her Baedeker-type lingo only illustrates how airborne she is from level zero.
In "Dambulla" — a poem not much different from "Polonnaruwa" — we come across strategically placed "flinty dust", and two snakes who dance in the "shimmering heat" (as they "sway in an oblivion of reedy piping") to the music of a "dark skinned piper". This "dark skinned piper" is not far removed from the "skeletal man" in "At What Dark Point", as he presses his "bare feet" to force the snakes into the "darkness" of a basket. The snakes "writhe and heave their impotent rebellion". Here, without too much difficulty we have a scene from a Rudyard Kipling novel or an EM Forster set piece from Chandrapore. Anne Ranasinghe's persona, the recorder, turns to "climb the rocky slope / worn smooth by many worshipping feet". As Adela Quested and Mrs Moore in Forster's A Passage to India deemed to see the "real India", so walks on Ranasinghe's persona.
"Hot Season", defying all guesses, is set in a humid season which — once again — is detailed through an exoticizing agenda, using words and phrases that denotes an alien. However, the concluding lines of the poem detains my attention as what the "hot season" ultimately reminds the narrator is of a "black night / of a European Winter". The "hot season", in other words, is the stirring of nostalgia for the lack of that season: what the far away European front — the "home reality" — of its own has to offer the anxious soul. This anxiety is a colonial tendency felt by many colonialists and aliens while stationed in faraway outposts such as Ceylon/Sri Lanka.
This factor being found in Ranasinghe, who, by 1973, is a migrant to Lanka takes an intriguing line when read in the light of Dhanuka Bandara's thesis. Likewise, if one is to take Anne Ranasinghe's corpus for close consideration, her classist and elitist outlook, conjoined with a sense of being not well and truly integrated with the community and the wider culture can be easilly located. Her "alien status" and her anxiety in empathizing with the local non-elite is not an unobvious aspect of her writing. A critical reading of this migrant writer (to Lanka) can only enrich the discourse of Lankan poetry in English, of which Ranasinghe is often taken as a vanguard. This article is subtitled "In defense of Some Opinions Fielded by Dhanuka Bandara", merely for the effect of things. As it is, Dhanuka's view needs little re-assurance.
← Richard de Zoysa: The Poet in the City in that Decade of Terror.