A Libertarian Case for Impeachment

Jacob Sullum of REASON Magazine, a LIBERTARIAN website, makes the case against T**** even more damning by calling him out for his lack of action on January 6th.

Hmmmm. Is this another MSM feeding a Democratic fantasy? Or just ANOTHER reason for the spineless members of the GOP caucus in the Senate to convict?

35 thoughts on “A Libertarian Case for Impeachment

  1. Really?

    An editorial based on unnamed sources, stating what the unnamed people thought Trump thought?

    Read instead those things Trump actually said.

    You can’t incite an audience based on what the audience thinks, you have to go by the words spoken.

    Was Trump a poor loser? Yep.

    Was he wrong to continue to try to influence Congress after it was clear they were not going to throw out the election results? Of course,

    But that is not grounds for impeachment.

    What really amazes me is that Democrats think it is necessary to poke 74 million Americans in the eye to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That would be the best possible case for Democrats.

    The shine has gone from Trump. His behavior has turned the middle against him. He might have enough support to get the nomination, but that would only guarantee a Democrat victory.

    But I guess I should listen to Napoleon and stop warning you when you are destroying yourselves. By all means, keep acting more petulant than Trump himself. That will sell well in 2022.

    Like

    1. You completely missed the point of Sullum’s piece.

      T****’s lack of action in calling off his supporters AND refusing to send in support of the Capitol Police and MPD is his point of reference.

      Your blind hatred even makes you not believe people in your own little political circle. Big tent? HA!

      So standing up for the rule of law and democracy is now considered being petulant? If only I’d known.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What lack of action?

        Do you have a firm number for the time at which it became clear at the White House that the demonstration had crossed the line from rowdy to violent?

        I don’t see one.

        And no, I do not believe unnamed sources supposedly from my side as they generally prove to have been non-existant after the next news cycle.

        Like

          1. His actual words came way after the fact and did nothing to 1) compel his supporters to stop (which SEVERAL GOP House members begged him to do) 2) HE waited over 4 hours to call in reinforcements to protect the CP and MPD forces who were overrun by his incited supporters.

            It took him a full week to condemn the violence at all. And even those words were not his, bt some poor staffer who had to convince him to read them. Teleprompter T*** vs REAL T*****.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. It also shows how he called his own VP a coward and his mob decided that it woudl be a good idea to hang him. These very special people he loves.

            You can cherry pick all you want. The man deserves to be impeached at a minimum.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. For being a jerk? We knew that.

            But he was the jerk we needed to push back on the bureaucracy, and on China, and Russia too, for that matter.

            Bush was a nice guy, but he folded.

            Like

    2. So inciting a mob to storm the Capitol to “stop the steal” has become . . .

      “Was he wrong to continue to try to influence Congress after it was clear they were not going to throw out the election results?

      If one wanted to mock your intellect it would be hard to make stuff up that is more patently absurd than your various defenses of this seditious bastard.

      As for your political “analysis” of Democratic motives, that too is mockable. Trump has been a gift to the Democratic Party. The winning level of motivation and commitment exhibited by them in 2016 was mostly his doing. Should he continue his destruction of the once Grand Old Party through the coming election cycles that too would be a gift to the Democrats. In other words, they are doing the right thing – trying to punish obvious High Crimes and Misdemeanors – not because it is in their interest to do so, but because it is their sworn duty.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It seems you’ve made a cottage industry out of “warning” other people what not to do.

    No one is being “poked” in the eye or elsewhere. Our fundamental way of Government is being appropriately defended and a fresh start will be needed to remove the stench of the insurrection caucus that the GOP has become.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Never ending grievance politics is the mantra of Republicans in the age of Gingrich morphed to Trump. And yet, specifics of unbearable persecution against the heartland are slim and none.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. “ Democrats think it is necessary to poke 74 million Americans in the eye to prevent Trump from running in 2024.”

    Any chance that poking 81 million Biden voters in the eye might affect the political landscape? That is what acquittal would do.

    If Trump’s actions before the insurrection are not a problem for Republicans, his actions afterwards should be.

    I thought a president was obligated to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Ignoring the assault, even attacking his own VP after getting confirmation of the attack by Tuberville.

    Why should anyone be allowed to do that?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

        Sometimes it reminds of the Charlie Brown football place kicking routine.

        Focus on the pandemic, vaccines and financial support until we can pick up the economy. Infrastructure is a great start.

        Keep families in their homes, open schools, get jobs in infrastructure to make up for the permanent losses. Do that and Dems will kick butt on 2022 and 24.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. In 2018 it was Health care that gave the Dems the House. You are correct that the focus has to be on kitchen table issues, not grievance politics, going forward.

          The impeachment trial should be completed before Monday morning. Come Monday morning, 24-7 on fixing what is wrong in the county needs to be the focus. And if the GOP doesn’t want to engage, screw ’em.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. To Biden’s credit, he is staying out of the trial.

            And that might be a good thing. Trump, more than anything, needs attention. Ignoring him is worse than impeachment.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. So you think Trump should have called out the military to take care of those doobie smokers, I mean…er, er, um oh yeah, insurrectionists? Boy, the doobie smo…i mean (snort) insurrectionisys really had a plan to overthrow the government by…drum roll please..smoking pot in the capital building!!! And I don’t think that nor storming the building was included in Trumps speech. This impeachment is pathetic nonsense.

    Like

    1. Bodycam video and personal postings show a lot more than just a little bit of doobie smokin’ going on.

      Ignorance is blissful for you isn’t it? Facts is facts…unless the alternative, which is something other than facts better feeds your demagoguery.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Sullum’s commentary doesn’t contain any Libertarian principles that I can see. His basic argument is purely conservative in the Burkean sense of preserving the status quo by opposing revolutionary fervor.

    That’s all well and good when the status quo is acceptable or even just tolerably imperfect. A libertarian might well be a Burkean under such circumstances. But Sullum doesn’t make a convincing case that the status quo is acceptable or even tolerable. He doesn’t try. He just assumes it.

    Sullum concludes that Trump deserves to be convicted in impeachment because he didn’t do enough to promote a peaceful transfer of power. There’s nothing libertarian in that notion. It is, rather, an excuse for witch hunting.

    Like

        1. Then he shouldn’t be writing for a LIBERTARIAN website. Or maybe the website should not have published it.

          Either way, he made a valid case on a Libertarian site as to why T**** should be convicted. Libertarian principles or not.

          Dr. Semantics, your car is ready.

          …”an excuse for witch hunting.”

          Another T****ism rolled out of the closet.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Then he shouldn’t be writing for a LIBERTARIAN website.”

            Why not? Would you say that cornflakes are made of cardboard because they come in a cardboard box?

            Like

          2. All I can say to that is how many times have you dismissed a piece because it came from the NYT or WAPO or CNN, regardless of the WHO?

            Hypocritical reasoning rears its ugly head again.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. RE: “All I can say to that is how many times have you dismissed a piece because it came from the NYT or WAPO or CNN, regardless of the WHO?”

            Your perception is faulty. As a rule, I substantiate my assertions. You can’t possibly name a single instance that I dismissed a story based solely on the source.

            Like

          4. Actually you write a lot of words and then your bottom line is that the source is bogus because it does not agree with you, factual or not.

            My perception is just fine. You just hate being called out for your hypocrisy and then get defensive and try your semantic best to switch things around.

            Word salads are just that. Salads.

            Like

    1. “…he didn’t do enough to promote a peaceful transfer of power. There’s nothing libertarian in that notion.”

      First, Trump didn’t just obstruct the transition, he vigorously opposed the transfer of power. Slamming the election systems for months, even years, followed by “we won by millions of votes” and attacking the Capitol are pretty evident of that.

      I was gonna be “wild” with “trial by combat”. And it was. The only time I can recall when Trump did not lie.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. FYI, I just found the statement that “…he didn’t do enough to promote a peaceful transfer of power.” ludicrous.

          The ex-president was actively trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

          And despite protestations to the contrary, we know this to be true.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Apparently TRUE believers of Libertarian values don’t believe in the peaceful transfer of power and anything done by one of the parties involved to prevent that Constitutional ideal is okey dokey just fine. Unless of course it were the other way around and their demi-god is the one doing his (or G-D forbid HER, in their mindset) best to ensure that transfer happens as the Founders intended.

            But they will NEVER admit that the founders would have been aghast at what T**** did and would line up to impeach the bastard.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “Sullum’s commentary doesn’t contain any Libertarian principles”…

      And to be perfectly honest, I never said it did. I just pointed out that his opinion piece was from a supposedly Libertarian website.

      Point being maybe YOUR idea of what constitutes a Libertarian principle is different.

      But then again unicorns are different too.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s