Three blasts from the (liberal) past.
My goodness how times have changed.
Maybe my memory is starting to go, but I swear that just last year I kept hearing liberals bellowing about (at least) three things.
First, “Trump threatens democracy.”
We heard this without a trace of irony or embarrassment from the folks who (a) wanted to deep-six the constitutionally-mandated electoral college when it seemed that Kamala might win the popular vote but lose the Presidency anyway, (b) wanted, by making a constitutionally preposterous argument, to keep Trump off the ballot altogether because, ya know, democracy works better when the opposition is banned, and (c) agreed with Ryan Routh about Trump’s fearful danger to America but insisted (usually truthfully but sometimes not so much) that Routh’s method to remedy the problem was unacceptable. (They were also in a rush to dump the duly all-but-nominated Joe Biden when they saw that this perfectly democratic result in the primaries wasn’t going to have the desired outcome in November).
In their latest show of fealty to democracy, they want Trump removed from office less than four months after the unwashed voters put him there.
Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green said Wednesday he plans to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump after he suggested the U.S. should take over Gaza.
“The movement to impeach the president has begun,” Green said on the House floor. “I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”
On Tuesday, as Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, he floated the idea of the U.S. taking over the Gaza Strip. He said Americans should be responsible for cleaning up and rebuilding the war-torn region, though he did not provide details about who would be able to live there.
These are some of Trump’s most extreme comments on the matter and come after the start of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire last month. There are nearly 2 million Palestinians who hope to have their own state.
Well, sure, making “extreme comments” warrants nullifying the election through impeachment, because Trump’s presidency, and in particular his support for a viable Jewish state, is not sitting well with the 215 Democrats in the House. On the other hand, for those actually interested in democracy, the Council on Foreign Relations (of all things) points out that the electorate itself consists of more than 215 (emphasis added):
Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president…Trump won 3,059,799 more popular votes in 2024 than he won in 2020 and 14,299,293 more than he won in 2016. He now holds the record for the most cumulative popular votes won by any presidential candidate in U.S. history, surpassing Barack Obama. Running three times for the White House obviously helps.
That the political opposition wants Trump removed less than three weeks after he resumed the Office the voters awarded him tells you all you need to know about how much they actually care for “democracy” — not that there was a lot of doubt about this after they spent four weeks or so trying to steal the Pennsylvania senatorial election for then-Sen. Bob Casey.
Second, “No one is above the law.”
No one, that is, except for the millions of illegal immigrants Trump wants to give what their unlawful conduct has spent years earning. This sparks a sort of outrage among Democrats that can’t really be explained by reasonable political differences and, in my view, ultimately lies at the root of the assassination attempts — past and I will bet future — against Trump. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a euphemism for it. It’s hate, and if we had an honest press, that’s what it would get called.
This is particularly odd because deportation is not like the typical criminal penalty (fines or jail) and is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. If the person wants to try again legally to enter the USA, fine, he’s welcome. My father’s parents did exactly that, as did millions of others who have contributed mightily to their adopted country. Following the rules is hardly too much to ask if one authentically believes that “no one is above the law.” But the Left doesn’t believe it and has never believed it, and it’s not just a question of the ever-so-equal-before-the-law Hunter Biden and all the months of lying the Democrats, and his daddy in particular, did about him. The reason the Left has spent years snarling “no one is above the law” is simply to put conservatives on the defensive about their supposed lack of “humanitarian sympathy” while drowning out any discussion of why law is important — important to the maintenance of civil society and, while we’re at it, democracy.
Our liberal opposition instead wants “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” while staying mum — and wanting to force you to stay mum — about what the sanctuary is from. It’s from the law — the law by which, so the Left says when convenient, everyone is bound.
Third, “Who will police the police?”
This one is a longtime Leftist stand-by trotted out to attack law enforcement. It’s a supplement to claims of police brutality, racism, political bias and selective enforcement. It was the centerpiece of the false accusations against the police in the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO (federal and state grand juries cleared Officer Darren Wilson, who was run out of town anyway); the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, MD (where criminally corrupt DA Marilyn Mosby indicted six police and convicted none); and most famously the George Floyd case in Minneapolis, which was seized upon as the kickoff for a year-long (at least) Woke campaign against, to start with, the police.
Question: Has anyone heard the Left intone “who will police the police” now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has said the Justice Department will look into FBI behavior, and the (possible) complicity of FBI agents, in the January 6 Capitol riot?
No, of course not. What we hear instead in the exact opposite: That this instance of policing the police is a vengeful move against career agents who were doing their best — and what they are paid to do — to fight “the insurrection.” This outrage comes despite the fact that Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove has said, as reported here:
"Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner with respect to January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties," Bove wrote in the message, a copy of which was obtained by NPR and The Hill. "The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI."
The question of what we should view as weaponizing the law is exceptionally difficult and important. I hope to tackle it in a later post. To say the least, the stakes are enormous. For now, it’s enough to point out that exercising fair-minded control over the police, while leaving them needed discretion about when and how to use force, simply cannot be done if “policing the police” is allowed to become, not the imperative of a civil yet ordered society, but merely a slogan to be shouted by the Left when convenient but forgotten when not.
I don't think making every agent who touched the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot answer questions about his or her role is an exercise in fair-minded control over the police. This was a proper and, indeed, righteous investigation into atrocious and unlawful conduct.
Bove's memo, though necessary to prevent (I hope) the plummeting of morale, leaves me unimpressed. Does he have a sound basis for believing that agents "acted with corrupt or partisan intent, blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI?" If so, he must know which agents might have done so, or at least know a smaller subset of agents who might have.
Investigating every agent involved in the investigation is unnecessary and strikes me as designed to intimidate. It can't be good for morale, even with the Bove clarification.
Indeed, the idea that Bove would have to issue such a disclaimer tells me that the administration is going about this the wrong way.
I should add that, although the investigation was righteous, some of the prosecutions were dubious. But that has nothing to do with the FBI. No one there decided whom to prosecute. Certainly that was way above the pay grade of the more than 1,000 agents whose actions the Trump administration is probing.
I take issue with one thing. You call them liberals. They arent liberal. Obviously. They are illiberal. Liberals believe in things like equality before the law. Indeed in the rule of law. They believe in things like freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The Democrats with a few exceptions believe of none of these things. I never refer to these cretins as liberals. I call them either leftists or just Democrats.