To make it easier, let's just cram the the good week stuff and the bad week stuff together, OK?
Greta Thunberg was Time's Person of the Year for 2019, beating out the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among others.
Here's why the teenaged climate activist was chosen. Donald Trump, who (a) covets recognition in all forms (say my name, say my name); and (b) faked and displayed a Time cover of himself at his properties, won in 2016, attacked Thunberg after her victory. FYI, the Trump State Department managed to hire a person who had also faked a Time cover - go figure.
The rules of parliamentary procedure had a good week, I guess. The annoying interruptions during the House Judiciary Committee are part of the process, even if they were designed to hinder progress, not improve it. But hey - at least they could agree with the rules and do their best to follow them to the letter.
Truth and honesty had a good week, to the extent that either was allowed to be in the hearing room, or in the press conferences. Sadly, there was less of it than I would have hoped - and there was also a lot less charisma than I would have hoped. I don't know about you, but with few exceptions, I found members of the Judiciary Committee to be unlikeable, in some cases even when I agreed with what they were saying. Chairman Jerry Nadler? Ranking Member Doug Collins? Meh. I'm trying to picture either of them doing a fireside chat... Also, I find it odd that both Nadler and Adam Schiff are both lacking in that regard, given their roles.
The Constitution had a good week. It gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president, and to do so upon findings of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." And while the first two are criminal offenses, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not. And, it was not the intention of the founding fathers that a legal crime must be committed for impeachment to occur, even though that's what many Republicans are saying as a reason for voting against the Articles of impeachment forwarded to the full House after today's vote.
Here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say in Federalist No. 65.
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.And so, I'd say, "the greatest danger" is just around the corner for us - and that's not a good thing. The problem is, of course, that with a president as polarizing as the one we have, and a Republican party that has completely set aside their own well-publicized misgivings about him, and a Democratic party that has not acquitted themselves well in response to his election, his actions, and his words - we don't have much choice other than to succumb to the "comparative strength of the parties" instead of "the real demonstration of innocence or guilt." And for that, we - you and me - had a bad week - and it won't be our last before this is over.
TGIF, everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!