Mediaboss Marketing

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

A Never Trump colleague asks why I didnt support a second impeachment of Donald Trump, given that I say that I want the conservative movement to move beyond Trump. The answer isnt difficult.

For starters, the impeachment trial from the outset was a political spectacle, a rash judgment by Democrats. First, there was the debatable question of whether a non-sitting president can be impeached. Moreover, there were crucial questions not only of whether Trump instigated what happened on Jan. 6 but how House Democrats could immediately rush to an impeachment vote before an investigation had even been done on whether what happened was pre-planned well in advance (as everyone from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The Washington Post and the FBI have reported), or whether those assaulting the building started before Trump even finished his speech (The Washington Post and The New York Times printed timelines before Democrats evidently thought of one). Theres also the crucial question of why tens of thousands present at the Trump speech were not instigated vs. a few hundred who allegedly were.

In sum, this was a snap House vote without an investigation, without witnesses (not even in the Senate trial) and without due process against the person charged. A political rush job and hack job by Democrats. The country needs to move on. You want unity, then pursue unity.

Of course, the deeper motivation by Democrats and certain anti-Trump Republicans was to use a second impeachment as a tool to disqualify Trump from running again. Thats what perplexed my colleague about my position: If I genuinely would like to see the conservative movement move beyond Donald Trump, why not support a move to disqualify him from running again? The answer is that the ends dont justify the means that is, a partisan exploitation of the impeachment process.

But as to the matter of the conservative movement moving beyond Trump, thats something Ive longed for since 2015, regardless of whether I concede that Trump as president did things that conservatives should applaud, from being a surprising defender of religious liberty and the pro-life position, to fracking and energy independence and deregulation, to making solid court picks, and more. Still, I saw from the outset, especially as a college professor, Trumps deleterious effect on young conservatives in particular. Of course, not all were repelled by him entire conservative youth groups like Turning Point USA became pro-Trump organizations. Overall, however, many young conservatives dropped out. They found nothing attractive about Trump.

Importantly, this is completely different from what happened in the 1980s, when droves of youth were attracted to conservativism because of the inspiring person and winsome message of Ronald Reagan. The likes of an Alex P. Keaton (played by Michael J. Fox) on Family Ties reflected a common kind of young conservative. I was one of them. As the conservative editorial page editor of The Pitt News in the late 1980s, I had a bunch of fellow writers who had been attracted to the movement.

I can speak to this keenly right now as Im writing the history of The American Spectator, which in the 1980s thrived among young conservatives. In the early 1980s, the notables who started their careers at Spectator were as diverse as bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell, prominent Never Trumpers John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol and George Will, and academic Mark Lilla, a Harvard Ph.D. and faculty member at Columbia University, who today writes for The New York Times and New York Review of Books, and has penned thoughtful works critiquing liberalism.

It was cool to be a conservative then. It was intellectually stimulating. It was fun.

I was a conservative back then in the 1980s because being a conservative was the most intellectually exciting option out there, Gladwell told me. It was where all the free thinking and the innovation was. The American Spectator was a key part of that. I think it attracted lots of young talent because it gave us all a chance to thumb our nose at the establishment.

What Im urging is to move the conservative movement beyond Donald Trump, with messengers like Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Kristi Noem, Dan Crenshaw and so many others (I could list pundits at length). This is a major moment of opportunity for a movement to regain its strength. Conservatism is about an enduring order that, well, endures. It transcends. It now must transcend Donald Trump.

But until then, you dont pursue a political spectacle of an impeachment trial intended to disqualify Trump from office simply for the purpose of getting there.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

Categories:Opinion | Paul Kengor Columns

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Paul Kengor Columns Stories

Go here to read the rest:
Paul Kengor: Moving the movement beyond Trump - TribLIVE

The Republican Party is broken.

If Mitch McConnell were just another Republican senator, I'd say he was the eighth bravest. The seven bravest are the ones who voted to convict Donald Trump.

For weeks I've been saying that if you honestly believe the Constitution forbids the Senate from convicting a former president (who was impeached while in office), you're free to do so. I think it's a profoundly wrong and dangerous view, creating precisely the "January exception" that impeachment managers warned about. But if that's your sincere opinion, you should be the one denouncing Trump's actions more than anyone else. You should be full of anger, sorrow and frustration that this lamentable oversight by the founders -- which doesn't actually exist -- prevents you from doing what the facts and morality warrant: convicting Trump for his hideous behavior leading up to, and during, the events of Jan. 6.

That is precisely what McConnell did Saturday, delivering a blistering and accurate denunciation of Trump's moral, political and, possibly, criminal culpability. And while McConnell was wrong in his vote, he at least voiced the truth, something beyond the likes of those governed solely by political appetites -- Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio et al.

It's always better to acknowledge the right, even when doing wrong, than to deny that wrong even happened. Hypocrisy, after all, is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

Sign up for Daily Headlines

Get each day's latest first thing in the morning.

The problem is that McConnell, whom I have long defended from many of his more extreme critics, is not just another senator. He is the Republican leader in the Senate and the highest-ranking GOP official in the country. More importantly, he was the majority leader Jan. 7, and by all accounts his views of Trump's behavior were the same then as they are today.

If he wanted to, McConnell could have taken action to avoid the alleged problem of trying a former president by supporting a trial while Trump was still in office. Given the rules of the Senate, that effort may well have failed. But McConnell didn't want to try for partisan reasons.

As Yogi Berra might say, when McConnell came to a fork in the road, he took it.

McConnell's theory is that he can have it both ways: simultaneously denounce Trump and provide him cover in the hope of reconciling the divisions in the party that cannot be reconciled. McConnell, as shrewd as he is, will fail to satisfy both Republican and independent voters (and donors) horrified by Trump and the movement of those who want Trump and Trumpist populism to define the party.

McConnell's choice is emblematic of the GOP's rot. Republicans claim to fight for fidelity to the Constitution, traditional morality, law and order, economic liberty, fiscal responsibility, etc. As a conservative, I believe these are things worth fighting for. But most Republicans today don't see them as principles to stand for; they see them as slogans to campaign on.

That's the only way to reconcile their sloganeering with their slavish support for Donald Trump -- a thrice-married, admitted sexual predator who, as president, lavished praise on dictators, imposed tariffs with abandon, tried to steal an election so brazenly that he was impeached twice, and set in motion a multipronged anti-constitutional assault on Congress and democracy that left dead cops in its wake and the impeachment clause of the Constitution a dead letter.

"Courage," C.S. Lewis wrote, "is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality."

Again and again, at the moment of highest political reality, the bulk of the Republican Party has chosen Trump -- and the voters who dominate the primaries -- over all other considerations.

Graham, who spouts conservative campaign slogans so unctuously that he's left indelible grease stains in TV studios all around Washington, admitted on "Fox News Sunday" what his top priority actually is: "I'm into winning."

Recall that on Jan. 7, before he was intimidated by the MAGA movement he now once again champions, Graham blamed Trump for the Capitol attack. He now blames the police for not killing more Trump supporters, and he blames House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (whom some of those supporters wanted to kill) for not being better prepared for Trump's mob.

Graham personifies political cowardice. Whether cowardice can lead to "winning" remains to be seen. And whether such winning is worth the price the Republican Party is willing to pay, only history can answer.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Visit link:
Column: Jonah Goldberg: Emblems of the GOP's dysfunction (2/20/21) - Southeast Missourian

The vote, the explanation and the future of impeachments

Donald John Trump was impeached for the second time in his presidency. He is the only U.S. president to be impeached twice, but he is also the first former public official to have an impeachment trial. The trial began Feb. 9 and ended Feb. 13.The Houses Lead impeachment manager is Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, an expert in constitutional law. Joaquin Castro-TX, Madeleine Dean-PA, Diana DeGette-CO, Ted Lieu-CA, Joe Neguse-CO, Stacey Plaskett-US Virgin Islands and Eric Swalwell-CA were the supporting managers.For the Trump legal team, Bruce Castor Jr., David Schoen and Michael van der Veen were chosen a day before the impeachment trial. A disagreement between the previous team and Trump occurred due to a difference of legal strategy. This team was going to be led by Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer, and Deborah Barbier was supposed to join the original team as well. Former President Trump wanted his defense team solely to use fraudulent election allegations; however, Barbier and Bowers were not going to do so.In the U.S., our branches of government are unique in design due to checks and balances. An impeachment is a check for the chief executive, and the rules for the trials proceedings and the two-thirds requirements for a conviction provides the balance between the legislative chambers.I think it is important to remind people what exactly an impeachment is. An impeachment is a power the House of Representatives has; further, any public official including the president and congressional members may be brought to this ultimate or highest action to check them. If the article of impeachment passes the House, it is said that the President has been formally impeached; however, to see any change, the Senates impeachment trial must have a two-thirds majority vote in order to convict the respective official from the charge the House passed. If a conviction satisfies the two-thirds vote outlined in the constitution, the highest judgment the conviction can lead to is removal from office (if held at the time) and/or disqualification from holding public office in the future.If the impeachment trial is conducted while the president is in office, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; however, this trial was held after Trump left office. So, the Senate designated Patrick Leahy-VT (President Pro-Tempore) as the chair. One criticism I have is, the trial could have gone better in the sense of structure. During this trial, there were times where a little more knowledge on Parliamentary Procedure could have dissolved confusion in the body. I believe that a chair of an impeachment trial should be the closest to excellence in Roberts Rules of Order. Instead, Leahy relied on the Parliamentarian, which could have undermined his legitimacy, causing more distrust in the process.The defense attorneys for the former president argued that the impeachment trial challenges constitutionality. Consequently, Sen. Rand Paul-KY invoked a motion the first day of the trial to halt the proceedings against Trump for incitement of insurrection. The motion passed 55-45 with five Republicans agreeing it was constitutional.Trumps constitutional impeachment trial allocated a few days to submit evidence and strengthen arguments for both parties. The House managers unveiled some video clips not previously made public. These included, but were not limited to, different angles of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, police body cam footage of battery and the Capitol security camera footage. The defense countered the Houses case with video clips of Democratic Party officials making statements in mid-2020 they said were similar to the inciting effect Trump had on Jan. 6.On Saturday, Feb. 13, the vote to not include witnesses led to closing statements from the House and defense and concluded the trial, invoking a roll call vote. Even though the Houses impeachment article was the most bipartisan of Trumps two impeachments, the current Republican Party had 43 senators voting not guilty. Seven of the 50 Republican senators voted guilty; this did not meet the two-thirds majority vote to disqualify Trump of holding future public office.So, how does this impeachment trial affect us? Well, we had a unique situation. The House impeached a President still in office, but the Senate trial for Trump occurred after he left the White House. I believe everyone has a right to disagree with it being constitutional or agreeing to it being constitutional.I think after this impeachment trial, there will be increased conversation about the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution for clarification. It does not matter whether you lean left, right or are grounded in the center. If the clause on impeachment should be changed or refined, then it will be done so by an amendment; however, our framers made this clause to be broadly interpreted in order to accommodate to the future accepted values of Americans.I have heard the argument that impeachment trials should require only a simple majority vote. This should not be done. According to 65th Federalist Paper authored by Alexander Hamilton, impeachments are purely political, and we must remember every human being is political. Trumps incitement of insurrection was political, and the house of the common people (the House) responded with a political reaction consequently for his action. The Senate is also structured as the upper house, or more elite public officials, that decides between acquittal or conviction. This is to check the House of Representatives power. It is important to know that at the time the impeachment clause was written that senators were chosen by the respective states legislatures until the 17th amendment (which allows the popular vote to be used to select a states senator).If conviction required a simple majority vote, you would see the legitimacy of the presidency steer downwards because it would lead to the legislative branch becoming the executive in a sense; therefore, abusing the checks and balances. This creates a pathway to impeaching officials, particularly the president, more easily, risking high turnover. If someone blames the senators who voted to acquit the 45th president, then we should be blaming the people who elected them into office. Representatives from the House may feel more pressure to vote in line with their constituency due to their two-year terms; however, senators may not feel as much pressure due to their longer, six-year terms. Additionally, the composition of the House of Representatives will respond more quickly to the political shift of voters because Senate elections are staggered. For example, Sen. Tammy Baldwin-WI was last voted in 2018, and her re-election is in 2024; on the other hand, Sen. Ron Johnson was last voted in 2016, and his re-election is in 2022. There is not as much turnover in the Senates elections compared to House elections, which are every two years.In all seriousness, if someone does not like the way their senator voted for this impeachment, not only should they voice their opinion by voting, but they should also actively reach out to the community and lead civic and civil conversations even during non-election years.The House impeached Donald Trump for inciting insurrection. The Senate did not meet the two-thirds vote to convict him, but a simple majority was met. Moreover, the fact that Trump was acquitted should not be used as evidence that the majority of Congress found Trump innocent of the incitement.Trump faces other preliminary criminal cases in Georgia and New York, but he is not disqualified from running for office. The justice systems judgments in those states will be the deciding factor whether Donald J. Trump will be in prison during one or more future general election cycles. If he is not ruled guilty, the American people (not solely relying on editorial broadcasting or social media) must hold each other accountable to inform our publics opinion of why he should not be voted in again.

See the original post here:
Opinion Piece: The 2nd Impeachment Exponent - Exponent

Clayton Lewis has achieved his goal of being appointed to the United States Military Academy at West Point, receiving nominations from Congressman Brett Guthrie as well as Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul.

Lewis, a 19-year-old senior at Owensboro Catholic High School, said hes known since his freshman year that he wanted to serve in the Army and that West Point would be the perfect path to becoming the best he could be.

To be appointed to the academy means everything to me, Lewis said. Its something Ive been working towards for four years. Its a big relief now knowing that Im in. There were times I didnt think I was going to work out, especially in the summer when I lost my best friend Logan Davis. After a few weeks and a few sleepless nights I figured out how to turn the pain of missing Logan into motivation to keep working. I know the academy will be difficult, but I feel like Logan will be there with me.

The application process for West Point is different from a typical college. Applicants must qualify physically, medically, and academically in addition to applying to the congressman and senators for a nomination for the academy. Without a nomination, applicants cannot receive an appointment to the academy.

Lewis said he was blessed to receive a nomination from Guthrie, Paul, and McConnell.

While at West Point, Lewis hopes to excel and be near the top of his class so he can control his future.

As a senior at the academy, you get to choose where you will be stationed by order of class rank in a draft style, he said. So my goal at the academy will be to rank in the upper part of my class so that I will be able to choose where I want to be stationed. Another goal will be to grow as a person and become a well-rounded man.

Lewis said the best part about being able to attend West Point is the doors that it will open for his future.

After West Point I will be required to serve five years of active duty in the United States Army, he said. At the end of that I will be able to choose between staying in the service and doing it as a career, or transition into civilian life.

Lewis is the son of Kim and Carl Lewis. His siblings are Claire, Christopher, and Carson Lewis.

Read the original post:
Catholic's Lewis appointed to US Military Academy at West Point - The Owensboro Times

This article originally appeared on Raw Story

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday slammed "lying scum bags" after Twitter users circulated a misleading video that appeared to show him refusing to clap for Capitol Officer Eugene Goodman during a standing ovation.

Paul said that he supported the Capitol Police and "cheered" Goodman when the hero was honored at the Capitol for his bravery during January 6 insurrection.

Some on Twitter had claimed that videos showed Paul sat for most of the ovation and didn't clap.

But the video appears to be selectively edited. Other videos from the event show that Paul did stand and clap along with his fellow lawmakers:

Many Twitter users accused Paul of being a "liar." See the attacks in the tweets below:

(Correction: A previous version of this story failed to mention that Rand Paul did stand and clap for Eugene Goodman. Raw Story regrets the error.)

Trending Articles from Salon

Read the rest here:
Rand Paul accused of not giving Officer Goodman a standing ovation but video shows he did - Salon