Posted on 01/24/2020 11:52:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Who is to blame for the impeachment of President Trump? It has to be either Trump or the House that impeached him. Or maybe a combination of the two.
But the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank claims that, somehow, the “mess” is Chief Justice Roberts’s fault. Milbank is the Post’s clown prince. He’ll say anything, usually with as much snark as he can muster, to try to score a point against one of his boogeymen — a class that includes anyone who stands against his leftism.
In this case, Milbank has outdone himself.
Why is the U.S. Chief Justice responsible for the impeachment mess? Mainly because of the Citizens United decision — the root of all evil in Milbank’s universe. According to Milbank, the super PACs unleashed by that ruling “led directly to this impeachment.”
The two Rudy Giuliani associates engaged in key abuses — the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the attempts to force Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents — gained access to Trump by funneling money from a Ukrainian oligarch to the president’s super PAC.
But Trump didn’t need super PAC money, or Giuliani’s associates, to fire an ambassador he and Giuliani didn’t like. Nor did he need it to withhold (for a brief period) military aid to Ukraine in the hope of inducing that government to investigate Joe Biden.
Milbank’s theory of causation is absurd. Maybe we should blame President Kennedy for Watergate. Key figures in the Watergate burglary were veterans of the invasion of Cuba that Kennedy ordered. Maybe we should blame Linda Lovelace for Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Milbank goes on to say:
The Roberts Court’s decisions led to this moment in indirect ways, as well.
Less direct than the Citizens United decision? That’s hard to imagine. But Milbank, unconstrained by the need for evidence and the requirements of logic, is up to the task:
The court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County gutted the Voting Rights Act and spurred a new wave of voter suppression. The decision in 2014′s McCutcheon further surrendered campaign finance to the wealthiest. The 2018 Janus decision hobbled the ability of labor unions to counter wealthy donors, while the 2019 Rucho ruling blessed partisan gerrymandering, expanding anti-democratic tendencies.
The consequences? Falling confidence in government, and a growing perception that Washington had become a “swamp” corrupted by political money, fueled Trump’s victory. The Republican Party, weakened by the new dominance of outside money, couldn’t stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party or the takeover of the congressional GOP ranks by far-right candidates. The new dominance of ideologically extreme outside groups and donors led lawmakers on both sides to give their patrons what they wanted: conflict over collaboration and purity at the cost of paralysis. The various decisions also suppress the influence of poorer and non-white Americans and extend the electoral power of Republicans in disproportion to the popular vote.
Milbank is right to this extent: If Trump hadn’t been elected, he wouldn’t be subject to impeachment. But the Supreme Court isn’t responsible for Trump’s election.
Milbank presents no evidence that Trump was elected due to “voter suppression” or that “outside money,” rather than the wishes of Republican voters, caused Trump’s “hostile takeover” of the GOP. Trump probably relied less on outside money than his rivals did.
If anything, the rise of Trump is a reaction to the domination of the Republican Party by big money interests — plus well-deserved contempt for media types like Dana Milbank.
Maybe the Post’s Clown Prince is responsible for the current mess.
Some of the Supreme Court decisions Milbank doesn’t like came down after Trump’s election. Milbank blames them for the prevalence of “conflict over collaboration and purity at the cost of paralysis.” But this phenomenon predates by many years the 2018 Janus decision and the 2019 Rucho ruling.
And it has nothing to do with John Roberts. If anything, Roberts has tried to minimize conflict to the extent allowed by his duty as a judge (and to a greater extent than that, some say). He is known for trying to make his rulings as narrow as possible. Among other virtues, this avoids making unnecessary waves. And Roberts famously upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate in the hope, some say, of avoiding political chaos.
Perhaps Milbank was absent the day they taught logic and causation in philosophy class. To be fair, however, it can’t be easy writing lefty impeachment columns multiple times a week, especially when your work appears on the same op-ed page as other Trump haters, each trying to outdo the other. Thus, it’s understandable that Milbank would look for a different angle and, for one day, a different villain.
Unfortunately, this quest has taken him into the realm of fantasy. But then Milbank is far from uncomfortable there.
No his fault ,remember Congress is NOT THE REAL WORLD ,LOL
The purpose of this impeachment baloney was to try and delay or stop any investigation into crimes committed by the Democrat leaders.
Milbank is a nutcase.
CJ Roberts IS, however,responsible for swearing in a man who is not a natural born citizen in 2009.
The pwned chief “Justice” didn’t stop the Rats from destroying their “case”?
“CJ Roberts IS, however, responsible for swearing in a man who is not a natural born citizen in 2009.”
At least TWICE.
The last year of the Kenyanesian Usurpation was indeed a busy one, but the crime spree started on Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009.
Oh yes, blame everybody except Democrats themselves for something that is likely so boring and pointless to watch on TV, that a rerun of the Donna Reed Show or Marcus Welby would be a far more appealing alternative.
Amazingly, he administered the oath TWICE, BOTH TIMES, 2009 and 2013.
Wonder what that is about.........
Do they even show reruns ofshows like Donna Reed anymore? Shows with no homosexual characters, swear words, innuendos?
That was the day that, by the mutual consent of both political Parties, the Constitution became null and void.
100% correct
I remember a few years ago, reruns of Welby cropped up on the granny network (Vision TV) up here on weekday afternoons. And yes, kind of odd to watch something like that, even with a MD as the main character, and not have far left ideas shoved in your face. When I was in Virginia last spring, it was also fun to watch The Joey Bishop Show (and other such titles) on Antennae TV for the same reasons as well, lol.
If 0bama had been ruled ineligible, then Joe Biden would have been inaugurated.
Off by about 8 decades.
If was FDR that kicked the Constitution to the curb and instituted Arbitrary government, something neither TR nor Wilson managed to genuinely do.
And Mr No Repeal Eisenhower rubber stamped FDR’s lawlessness, so you’ve got the both parties aspect there too.
the left KNOW this whole thing is a farce- and they blew it big time- so they are preparing excuses for the loss now-
This is called failure floundering-
“Amazingly, he administered the oath TWICE, BOTH TIMES, 2009 and 2013.
Wonder what that is about.........”
I was referring to at least twice in 2009...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/22/obama-inauguration-second-swearing-in-ceremony
Perhaps it was so he could swear allegiance on the muslim child molester’s handbook.
If not for the Ministry of Propaganda, joined sadly by conservative commentators, excoriating anyone who raised the issue with the Alinsky “birther” label, he wouldn’t have been on ballot.
The courts also blocked any challenge.
Even if it was not enforced until after the election, then swear in Biden.
He would have lasted one term.
I wonder what would have happened if a strict constitutionalists patriot type SC judge had refused to swear him in.
At least the Post didn’t blame climate change for the mess. But maybe that will come later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.