TWGB: The Hot Stove Lessons of Democracy

 

A couple of days ago, one of the insurrectionists sometimes called "Pink Hat Lady" (government name: Rachel Powell) took to Twitter to complain of her treatment.  She has apparently spent the last three years barefoot and mooning out the window like a princess in a tower...no wait, she was able to move about, but violated her pre-term release and got home confinement. She pretends she has no representatives, but she had lawyers. She exhorted her fellow 1/6 dopes to enter the Capitol that day--why isn't she being looked at as a possible "Fed" provocateur, huh?

She's living in a whole different universe from our reality. She went from saying on social media: “We will do what we want and there’s nothing the gov can do to stop us,” to asking, “Why should I go to jail? Over what? A broken window?”

Burglars break windows, too, and are felons. And apparently, the government actually DOES do something about that. These windows were broken because the stolen-election-believing sheeple who went to the capitol on 1/6 wanted to steal the election back for their Peerless Feeder. 

Will incarceration "fix" Rachel? Who knows? But maybe she educates others as an example to not be her. 

This is why I look at nattering nabobs like David Axelrod with disdain. OOoooooohhhh, taking Donald Trump off the ballot will divide the country, will it? Tell it to the fuckfaces who already thought we were in a Civil War on 1/6. A Civil War, because Trump's election is a Lost Cause that he keeps fighting, and maybe, just maybe, that shit needs to be removed from his grasp, and the people who lived through our bloodiest conflict on this soil understood that very well. 

Here's why I think Ms. Rachel thought there was nothing the government would do to the 1/6 rioters, who WERE variously armed and DID inflict violence on that day:  If they prospered, none would dare call it treason, because Trump would pardon them. Because he loved them. They were on his side. And he sent them there. 

I don't know what proofs you particularly need to establish that he incited that insurrection, but they got the idea the election was stolen from him. Lawyers in his orbit said so with no basis in fact and set up a "fake electors plot" that would have gone into effect that day. (And they went well out of their way to make sure those fake elector ballots didn't get lost in Louis DeJoy's failing Post Office, enlisting a certain Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.)  And to give aid and comfort to them, he's raised money for them. And he promises he would pardon them if elected. 

Let's see that 14th Amendment Section 3 text again:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Did Donald Trump take an oath of office then do that stuff? Yeah. He did. We don't need to have him convicted in a court of law to have eyes and ears and understand what he's been doing.  And while the numbers may have prevented his conviction in the Senate--would we get 2/3s in each House to say let's let this fucker back in? What I'm asking is:

Since when is the Constitution optional? And why do we treat Trump like he's the hot stove and not like he's the one fucking with fire? Because this man wants to put his face on Mt. Rushmore, and I think the best leaders in our history would be gasping this kick his ass in. 

The same thing goes for immunity, and for the idea that some future president should pardon Trump. Fuck that. 

The idea of complete immunity makes the Chief Executive, the person responsible for upholding our laws, lawless. Jack Smith's argument against immunity for Trump highlights how wrong this is. But here's something VERY SALIENT:

Interesting choice of examples here from Jack Smith... pic.twitter.com/qwQjfMWaGX

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) December 30, 2023

The head of the team investigating the stolen classified documents case, everyone, is saying this about the person who promises retribution against his enemies. Whose emoluments clause violations sub rosa are very probably most interesting. You want to tell me he's putting those possibilities in there as strict hypotheticals? 

I kind of doubt it. 

That's why we need to keep the pilot light of freedom lit for this crass moral infant, Donald Trump, who has been touching stoves his whole life and not finding them hot enough to stop reaching over and over again. 

You defend a republic with keeping the fire stoked, not with cold piss running down your leg. With respects to the potential pardoners, he will yell from the mountaintop that he has been EXONERATED and demand his place of honor. He makes Nixon look like a saint. There is no way you let him 'scape whipping, and still have a nation of laws.