Pledges, oaths, vows, promises, etc.*

 

*I am collectively calling these OP title actions “personal commitments.”  How seriously should they be taken?  Are they important?  Are they a matter of taste, interpretation?  Reflective of personal integrity?  For example, let me tell you a personal story regarding how I feel about commitments.  Then we’ll get to my OP questions.

I’ve been thinking about the Pledge of Allegiance again.  I see the Senate group all say it in unison, each new day of the Impeachment Trial, after a prayer is offer up by the Senate Chaplain.  The last time someone requested that I say the Pledge of Allegiance, it was at the judge’s request during my jury duty, about 3-4 years ago.  At the time, I just stood there; I didn’t do it.  I’m sure those around me, in my VERY “red” district, figured I was a communist or something.  But I just couldn’t do something that didn’t sit well with me at the time.  It still really doesn’t.  I’ve still got too many questions.

When I was a kid, I remember how we used to “pledge allegiance to the wall,” a la Simon and Garfunkel (“My Little Town”).  Heck, I didn’t know what allegiance meant; all I knew was that we were supposed to face the wall, put our hands over our hearts, look at the flag, and “just do it®”.  I’m guessing I couldn’t even pronounce some of the words correctly.  The “Republic” for which it stands?  Indivisible (that sounds like arithmetic)? Liberty (I think I saw that word on money)?  Huh??  Just big words that sounded important.  But such is the indoctrination of kids.  Get ‘em early. :D

Now that I’m an adult, and with a lifetime of bigger words under my belt ;), let’s take a look at what that Pledge actually says, in more detail:

I pledge allegiance

-What is “allegiance” anyway?  Webster defines it as “loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause.”  Synonyms, “faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, fealty, etc.”  As a free-spirit type, I’m not really one to mindlessly “obey,” etc.  I don’t even like the sound of that word.  I understand commitment, and I am committed to many things in my life.  I’m committed to my marriage.  I’m committed to my vegetarianism.  I’m committed to my personal “principles” (which is what brings this question up here in the first place).  But am I committed to the flag?  Well, sort of; I mean, it’s the flag of my home country.  Can someone be “sort of” committed to something?  And if so, is that really “commitment?”  Let’s stick a pin in this, as Rachel would say.  Moving on…

To the flag of the United States of America.

-Yeah, it’s the flag of the U.S. alright.  That part is definitely true.

And to the Republic

-Republic.  What is a “Republic?”  Wikipedia defines it as “A republic (Latin: res publica, meaning "public affair") is a form of government in which "power is held by the people and their elected representatives". In republics, the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

IOW, I think this means “government representatives” of/for/in the stead of the people to do the “peoples’ business.”  You know… senators, representatives, I guess even the judicial and the executive branches would qualify.  These all (except for the judicial) are elected representatives.  And the executive (duly elected POTUS) is our proxy for nominating the judges.  So in a way, he (it’s always been a he so far) is the/our elected rep for naming judges. 

So yeah.  I wouldn’t dispute this as not being a truth.

For which it [the flag] stands,

-Again true.  The flag stands for the Republic.  We got a lot of other flags (state flags, city flags, flags people put on their cars when their sports team wins, etc.).  But the U.S. Flag is the one that is supposedly the ultimate unifier.  Again, I’d say this statement is true.

One nation

-Geographically, again true.  We are all connected, as least in name, as a “United” States.  Or as Obama called it, “We’re not the red states, or the blue states, but the United States.”  So, I can philosophically accept this.  That could be a way of “getting around” the claim; to look at it philosophically.  But this is NOT the end of the “one nation” story.

Under God

-Oops, Houston we got a problem.  Someone is trying to skew the pledge and infiltrate it with religion.  I guess it was just to put that Final Authority Figure (The Chairman of the Board and Final Decider) behind the power of the Pledge; a Seal of Approval.  What happened to separation of church and state?  That’s supposed to be a truism also.  I’m still Oops-ing here.  The peoples’ Pledge is beginning to crack, even though it’s ironically and disingenuously attempting to be bolstered by Almighty God. :-O  We needed to call in God as a Reinforcement?

Indivisible

-Indivisible?  No that’s NOT really true.  We are very divided.  In fact, that “division” is supposed to be one of our so-called strengths; a beautiful coalition of races, creeds/ideologies, colors, ethnicity/heritage, etc., all coming together toward one end: a majestic melting pot of commradory and community.   All for one and one for all.  E Pluribus Unum.  So, this indivisible adjective does not fly here.  It barely walks.

With liberty and justice for all.

-Ok, now we’re really pushing the envelope here.  We all know that such (liberty and justice) is a goal, but too often just a dream, a hopeful dream we wanna believe; that the “moral arc of the universe is long, but it [should/will] bends towards justice.” But… often not the case.  Sorry, no can do.  I can’t give this phrase a pass either.

Wow.  That’s a lot to lay on a person; some heavy stuff.  So I ask myself, how committed am I to this Pledge?  Some of it is right and true.  Some of it is not right and not true.  Do I just say the parts that are true and stay silent on the parts that I believe are not?  Do I say it all, knowing it is a false Pledge I’m making/committing to?  *Should* the principles behind pledges mean that much/be that important?  I can rote-ly recite it, even though it is so disingenuous, faulty?  Am I just too touchy/feely about what I will compromise on, and what I won’t?  Should I swim with the rest of the fishes (no mafia reference intended ;) and just, as mom and dad finally insisted… “because!!”?  How does this whole thing work exactly?  Where are my “lines” drawn?

Well, I hope I typed that out OK and that it was coherent.  I'm going to quickly peruse it but don’t want to go back and polish it up, as I’m running a bit late and want to catch the Trial again today.  I put this out on the fly as I “typed out loud.”  Anyway…

Now for the questions:

- Are commitments important?

- How seriously do you personally take them?

- Do you discriminate/compromise between those you take “half-heartedly,” and those you “really mean?”

- Finally, regarding the Trial of Impeached President Donald J. Trump, do you trust that the senators took their impeachment oath** seriously?  Or was it just some kind of blithe formality?

Let’s discuss.  And thanks for recommending.  BBL.

____________

**“solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of (the president’s name), President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.”

'We shouldn't have followed him': Nikki Haley turns on Trump after MAGA riots

 Former Trump United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley has turned on former President Donald Trump for his role in stoking the United States Capitol riots on January 6th.

In an interview with Politico's Tim Alberta, Haley said that she didn't think Trump would be a significant figure in the Republican Party going forward, and she admitted it was a mistake for the GOP to help him in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

"He went down a path he shouldn't have, and we shouldn't have followed him, and we shouldn't have listened to him," she said. "And we can't let that ever happen again."

Haley insisted that she was proud of the work she had done for the former president, and claimed that something fundamentally changed in him after he lost the election.

"I mean, I'm deeply disturbed by what's happened to him," she said. "Never did I think he would spiral out like this... I don't feel like I know who he is anymore... The person that I worked with is not the person that I have watched since the election."

https://www.rawstory.com/we-shouldnt-have-fallen-him-nikki-haley-turns-on-trump-after-maga-riots/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6552

"I mean, I'm deeply disturbed by what's happened to him," she said. "Never did I think he would spiral out like this...??

The Fascist Tyrant Wannabe Will Be Acquitted: What That Probably Means

The face of the fascist GOP

All the punditry and journalists are predicting that the ex-president will be acquitted in the next few days. His attorneys met yesterday with some prominent fascist GOP senators, in an open display of contempt for the proceedings. In the real world, that would have led to sanctions, maybe a mistrial and criminal prosecutions. But, since an impeachment trial is political, anything goes. One can reasonably presume that the Senators told the attorneys not to worry about losing the case and just give the fascist senators a fig leaf they can rely on to acquit their fascist leader.

Other signals of open contempt for the impeachment came in reports that up to 15 GOP senators at a time were simply not present. For some of the time Ted Cruz was in a separate room messing around with his cell phone. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio were looking at their papers and paying no attention to the House managers. Some others who were in the room simply sat in stony faced silence. Nothing the House was saying made any difference in the already made-up minds of enough GOP senators.

The House argued that the proceedings were unconstitutional because the Senate voted to say it was constitutional. That did not make one iota of difference. Neither did the argument that the ex-president have been priming his supporters for violence even before the election when polls showed that he could lose the election. None of the House arguments fazed most of the republicans. 

Consensus observer opinion is that most the fascists will rely on the unconstitutionality argument as an excuse to acquit. That seems quite possible. It sees to be what defense attorneys will focus on, despite that being a loser argument in the real world outside of partisan politics.

The January Exception: Down in flames

House arguments that letting a president off the hook creates a precedent of allowing a president to do whatever he wants near the end of his term also fell on deaf ears. The House managers called it the "January Exception" to impeachment. 

IMO, that characterization is off the mark. In fact the precedent it will set is this: At any time during a republican president's term, he can break laws and commit impeachable offenses with impunity if the republican party controls the House and/or enough Senate seats to acquit. If not, then one can presume the other might try an impeachment. That analysis is based on how blatant the offenses the ex-president committed and how irrelevant they have become for the republican party. The facts are that, despite a blatant coup attempt openly incited by a republican president on Jan. 6, most House members would never have impeached and most republican senators would not impeach. 

If the shoe was on the other foot

In other words, impeachment is now a matter of exercising pure partisan power. If the democratic party alone does not have the power to impeach and convict a republican president, impeachment is politically impossible. What could be more impeachable than fomenting a violent coup attempt? 

There is no reason to believe that the democratic party is nearly as anti-democratic and authoritarian as the republican party has become over the last four years. A majority of Democrats in congress could still vote to impeach and convict a democratic president, e.g., for what the ex-president did on Jan. 6. Maybe time will tell if that analysis is correct and a future democratic president goes off the rails like the ex-president did. That scenario is contingent of there ever being another democratic president and at least some democrats in congress.

Stepping back

What does all of this mean, other than the ex-president will have gotten off with inciting a violent coup attempt? I think quite a lot.

1. By acquitting, the GOP openly rejects impeachment as a restraining option against future republican presidents. It also, rejects an opportunity to defend democracy, making the label fascist reasonable.

2. It signals the party's turn to embrace the ex-president's brand of corrupt, authoritarianism. It also signals the weakness of republicans in congress who wanted at least this impeachment. But in view of their track record of mostly supporting the ex-president, it was not the case that they were all that far off in their politics or tactics. The GOP is truly anti-democratic and fascist, or some close variant of it.

3. In this impeachment, the republican senate intentionally delayed the start of the senate trial until about 1 hour after Biden was sworn in. There was no compelling reason for that other than partisan defense of the ex-president. It was done to strengthen the defense that the president was out of office before the trial started. That is reminiscent of what the republican senate did to subvert the supreme court nomination of Merrick Garland to the supreme court after Scalia's death. The republicans delayed for months in the hope of partisan advantage from the 2016 election. That tactic paid off handsomely.

From that, I conclude that once the republicans regain control of the House, Senate and White House, the Senate will immediately get rid of the filibuster and ram through oppressive anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian laws. They will make political opposition impossible to the fullest extent they can, maybe more than that. They will suppress democratic and minority votes as much as possible. With the adoption of fascism, the GOP will have no qualms about trying to go all the way to gut democracy, the rule of law and whatever restraints on presidential power and party power that are left. That moves to America close to or at the permanent single-party rule status the GOP intensely lusts for.

Based on that analysis, the democratic Senate should get rid of the filibuster immediately and ram through as much legislation as they can before they lose control of the House and or Senate in 2022. That legislation should make it as hard and slow to undo as can be conceived of, e.g., legislation passed with a proviso that it cannot be repealed except by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. 

4. Some commentators are starting to openly state what I have been arguing here since 2017. Specifically, they see that the ultimate goal of the republican party has been excluding racial minorities, women, non-Christians and ideological opposition from power in government and society. I have pointed out the bigoted nature of Christian Nationalist ideology in several discussions. 

Yesterday was the first time I recall hearing that point being made by responsible professional commentators on broadcast media. And, there was real anger in that commentary. An wakening by wider society about just how dangerous and anti-democratic the republican party has become is finally starting to sink in more widely. I just hope it isn't too little, too late.

5. Senate acquittal of the ex-president puts the GOP squarely on the road to some form of a bigoted, kleptocratic tyranny-Christian theocracy. Fascism seems a reasonable label for what the republican party has degenerated into, although experts disagree about that. 

A major is problem how to try to deal with the threat. Inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning are ineffective. This impeachment has once again proved that point. A more effective way to communicate and persuade is needed. The best path forward for American anti-fascists is not clear. Sinking to the same immoral, divisive and mendacious level as the fascists is tempting but too dangerous. Then the opposition becomes too like the fascists for democracy and the rule of law to likely survive.

Some see the danger

Conservative Lies and Hate Reached and Deceived Millions

Most people here know this, but it bears repeating. Conservative propaganda is spewing poison that reaches millions of listeners every day. The poison foments baseless fear, anger and an appetite to avenge the illusory liberal onslaught and all the imagined horrors and moral outrages. The New York Times writes:

Shows hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other talk radio stars promoted debunked claims of a stolen election and urged listeners to “fight back.”

Two days before a mob of Trump supporters invaded the United States Capitol, upending the nation’s peaceful transition of power and leaving at least five people dead, the right-wing radio star Glenn Beck delivered a message to his flock of 10.5 million listeners: “It is time to fight.”

“It is time to rip and claw and rake,” Mr. Beck said on his Jan. 4 broadcast. “It is time to go to war, as the left went to war four years ago.”

Mark Levin, who reaches an estimated 11 million listeners a week, said in a Christmas broadcast that stealing elections “is becoming the norm for the Democrat Party” and called on his listeners to “crush them, crush them. We need to kick their ass.”

Bill Cunningham, a syndicated host in Cincinnati, told listeners on Jan. 4: “I will never surrender and collapse and act as if it’s OK when hundreds of thousands have voted illegally.” On Jan. 5, as Trump supporters started to converge on Washington, Dan Bongino, the host of a popular podcast and nationally syndicated radio show, said that Democrats “rigged the rules to make sure that any potential outcome would go their way.”

Leading radio anchors did not explicitly urge an assault on the Capitol, and Mr. Trump often spoke more brazenly than his media counterparts, including in a speech to his supporters in Washington just before the riot. But it was no accident that regular listeners to Mr. Limbaugh and others believed that a grave misdeed had occurred in the 2020 vote count.

On Dec. 16, Mr. Limbaugh — the country’s No. 1 radio host, with an audience of about 15.5 million a week — told listeners that Mr. Biden “didn’t win this thing fair and square, and we are not going to be docile like we’ve been in the past, and go away and wait till the next election.”  

This type of push-and-pull — stoking listeners’ anger, then pulling back and disavowing the more extreme views voiced by callers — is typical of corporate right-wing radio hosts, whose success relies on provocation but whose multimillion-dollar paychecks depend on staying within the bounds of their publicly traded distributors.

Ellul died in 1994, years before the rise of social media 

as a powerful source of propaganda 

Well, if Limbaugh tells millions to not be docile and don't go away, and Beck tells his listeners to “crush them, crush them. We need to kick their ass.”, what on Earth are these propagandists telling people to do? Be nice and respectfully talk through the problems to reach a compromise? 

Hell no that is not what these far right wing fascist leaders are saying. They are directly fomenting anger, hate civil strife, not respect, discussion of grievances or democratic compromise. They helped foment the coup attempt on Jan. 6. Because of their immoral behavior, they bear some responsibility for the coup attempt.

Why do these people do such bad things? Maybe some actually believe their own lies. More likely, most do it mostly for the money, with or without believing the lies. Once when Limbaugh was heavily criticized, he defended himself by saying that he was just an entertainer, implying that nothing he said should be taken seriously. Either way, these propagandist-entertainer-whatevers act as lying, anti-democratic fascists. What they believe or what their motives are is beside the point. That makes them deeply immoral at least, but more plausibly evil because their words convey malice. These people are epistemic terrorists.

Is that analysis unreasonable or not supported by facts or sound reasoning?

Republican Radicalization Against Democracy

Ohio Valley Militiamen

They say they are patriotic democrats, but their tactics are fascist

and their realities are fantasies

Some people believe the impeachment is a waste of time and/or energizes the ex-president's supporters. That makes no sense to me. If people do not try to defend democracy and the rule of law against what is now reasonably seen as a bigoted fascist, anti-democratic GOP, democracy and the rule of law just might be lost. Bigoted, corrupt fascism just might replace them. Those are the stakes. 

An article in The Atlantic argues that although the GOP is moderating on some policy issues in view of public opinion, it really is hardening against democracy in favor of something more reality-detached and authoritarian. The Atlantic writes:

The republican party is radicalizing against democracy. This is the central political fact of our moment. Instead of organizing its coalition around shared policy goals, the GOP has chosen to emphasize hatred and fear of its political opponents, who—they warn—will destroy their supporters and the country. Those Manichaean stakes are used to justify every effort to retain power, and make keeping power the GOP’s highest purpose. We are living with a deadly example of just how far those efforts can go, and things are likely to get worse.

And so the Biden era of American politics is shaping up as a contest between the growing ideological hegemony of liberalism, and the intensifying opposition of a political minority that has proved willing to engage in violence in order to hold on to power. This fight isn’t ultimately about policy, where the gaps are narrowing. It’s about whether the United States will live up to the promise of democracy—and on that crucial question, we’ve rarely been so divided.

In 2020, some hoped that the colossal failures of the Trump administration and the shocking catastrophe of the coronavirus would usher in a similar landslide, but those hopes were disappointed. If COVID-19 and Donald Trump didn’t manage to produce a decisive result, it is hard to imagine what would. With structural polarization and high levels of party competition, blowout electoral victories are no longer a realistic path to achieving change. Instead, political movements win by making the controversial things they’re pushing part of the consensus. (emphasis added)

The article goes on to argue that urban, well-educated liberals are dominant in society and "the commanding heights of American culture are largely occupied by their ideological foes." That argument does not ring true. It ignores the fact that most of the perceived differences in values, which as usual are not named, are largely manufactured by years of relentless, outrageous authoritarian propaganda and lies from the GOP and powerful conservative media leviathans (Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, Cumulus Media, iHeartMedia). 

The differences in worldview and values would be much smaller if one took dark free speech out of the equation. Look at the first highlighted part of The Atlantic article. The author, Chris Hayes at MSNBC, understands that propaganda is the core of authoritarian conservative messaging. He just does not connect that fact with it being a source of social and political division based mostly on dark free speech (lies, deceit, ludicrous character assassination, baseless conspiracy theories, irrational emotional manipulation (fomented fear, anger, distrust, bigotry, etc.) and partisan motivated reasoning). That fantasy, not reality, is the main source of left vs. right differences.

The real fundamental difference is that conservative anti-democratic authoritarianism is pushing for concentrated power by suppressing elections and ignoring the rule of law and other democratic norms. The fascist right is trying to destroy democracy and the rule of law by calling it a patriotic attempt to save them. That is the most important basis of major left vs right differences. In my opinion, most of the differences are illusory. Even differences over abortion arguably are significantly or mostly illusory in view of the human condition and the power of dark free speech to distort reality.

Hayes ends his essay with this thought:

Yet the fight to democratize political power is precisely what is most necessary. Any progress toward that goal, any effort to push back against minoritarian control, will lead to bitter conflict. But there is no way to avoid that fight if we’re to defeat the growing faction that seeks to destroy majority rule. No substantive victories can endure unless democracy is refortified against its foes. That task comes first.

That makes a lot of sense. Centralization of political power by an intimidation[1] and propaganda-powered minority is the real threat.

Footnote:

1. The New York Times discusses the intimidation aspect of an armed, vocal GOP minority in an article, ‘Its Own Domestic Army’: How the G.O.P. Allied Itself With Militants:

Actions taken by paramilitary groups in Michigan last year, emboldened by President Donald J. Trump, signaled a profound shift in Republican politics and a national crisis in the making. 

Following signals from President Donald J. Trump — who had tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” after an earlier show of force in Lansing — Michigan’s Republican Party last year welcomed the support of newly emboldened paramilitary groups and other vigilantes. Prominent party members formed bonds with militias or gave tacit approval to armed activists using intimidation in a series of rallies and confrontations around the state. That intrusion into the Statehouse now looks like a portent of the assault halfway across the country months later at the United States Capitol.

Regarding the Impeachment Trial

So far, the ex-president's defense looks weak at best and otherwise ridiculous. Regardless, it will be sufficient to provide cover for republican Senators to vote against conviction. Maybe a possible public backlash might change some fascist GOP minds. But maybe not.

The first defense argument throws the coup attempters under the bus. The attorney urges prosecution of all of them. But otherwise the defense ignores the coup attempt and talks about all sorts of things other than what happened on Jan. 6. Here, the ex-president shows his loyalty to himself before loyalty to those deceived and misguided supporters who went out on a limb for him.

The next argument was expected. It says that there is no basis for impeachment now because the ex-president is out of office. Those arguments were not convincing. The House managers were convincing that there is a basis to impeach now. The House managers also pointed out that the ex-president's lawyers simply ignored two arguments in the House legal brief. That evinces the legal weakness of the defense.  

The House raised an emotional allegation 'snap impeachment' and an erratic rush to impeachment. The fear mongering there is that the Senate should not to set such a damaging precedent. Again, the defense raised no evidence that they claim was overlooked. Not one shred. All of the evidence I am aware since the House impeachment vote is against the ex-president, not for him.

On top of that, the ex-president's defense is riddled with lies and crackpot legal reasoning. The Washington Post writes: 

Former president Donald Trump will probably be acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial that is set to begin Tuesday.

But just because Trump’s defense is likely to succeed — by giving at least 34 senators a reason not to vote to convict — that doesn’t mean it’s good. On the eve of the trial, the defense team reinforced just how haphazard and strained its efforts have been.

Trump’s defense has rested on arguments that do little to address his culpability for allegedly inciting the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. It has argued that the proceedings themselves are unconstitutional and that Trump has a right to free speech — without focusing much on the established limits on such speech, which include incitement.

While making their constitutionality argument, for instance, Trump’s attorneys repeatedly cite constitutional law professor Brian Kalt’s analysis — no fewer than 15 times, in fact. They note that Kalt has cited the words of founders such as Alexander Hamilton, saying that “Hamilton seemed to believe that removal was a required component of the impeachment penalty, which suggests that he viewed late impeachment as impossible.”

As Kalt has noted, though, the 2001 analysis they cite actually argued in favor of an impeachment and trial after an official was out of office. Kalt merely cited the evidence for both sides and then disputed arguments such as the one above.

When lawyers have a weak hand, they have to make weak arguments. That's all they can do. But in court they cannot lie. Lying is what the ex-president's lawyers did. But they will probably face no ethics or other repercussions because they are talking to the US Senate. Lying to senators in an impeachment trial is apparently just fine and dandy.

Another WaPo article points out another whopper from the ex-president and argued in his legal brief:

President Donald Trump was “horrified” when violence broke out at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, as a joint session of Congress convened to confirm that he lost the election, according to his defense attorneys.

Trump tweeted calls for peace “upon hearing of the reports of violence” and took “immediate steps” to mobilize resources to counter the rioters storming the building, his lawyers argued in a brief filed Monday in advance of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. It is “absolutely not true,” they wrote, that Trump failed to act swiftly to quell the riot.

But that revisionist history [lies] conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so.

But the decision by Trump’s attorneys to also assert a claim about Trump’s reaction that day in a footnote to their legal brief could give the House impeachment managers an opening as they prosecute their case. Among the possible witnesses who could rebut the contention that Trump moved quickly to rein his supporters are Republican senators who will now sit as jurors in the impeachment trial — some of whom have spoken publicly about their failed attempts to get the president to act expeditiously when his supporters invaded the Capitol.

That same day, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told conservative radio broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that it was “not an open question” as to whether Trump had been “derelict in his duty,” saying there had been a delay in the deployment of the National Guard to help the Capitol Police repel rioters.

“As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building,” he said, indicating that he had learned of Trump’s reaction from “senior White House officials.”

In real legal proceedings, lies like that are rejected and the lawyers making them are subject to ethics violations. But again, this is a political proceeding in a US Senate impeachment. Apparently, lies are acceptable in that venue.

And then, there is this from WaPo about the validity of the impeachment:

“This is not a trial of a president but of a private citizen. … This proceeding … violates the Constitution.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in remarks on the Senate floor, Jan. 26, 2021

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis: constitutional context, historical practice, precedent and basic common sense. It’s been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.” — Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in remarks on the Senate floor, Jan. 26, 2021

Scores of law professors, historians and pundits have weighed in as the Senate begins its trial of former president Donald Trump, who was impeached by the House for allegedly inciting insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Our 2019 fact check was prompted by a tweet from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Trump ally who said that “you actually can impeach former presidents” and suggested former president Barack Obama get the treatment. (This came during Trump’s first impeachment, over his dealings with Ukraine.)

Now the shoe is on the other foot. In recent weeks, some of the same scholars we spoke to in 2019 about the Obama claim have firmed up their views when asked about Trump. For his part, Gaetz is now giving kudos to the “brilliance” of Paul’s floor remarks, in which the senator argued that impeaching former officials is unconstitutional. Go figure.

No need to go figure. This is a political proceeding, not a legal one. The GOP is hell-bent on making that as clear as possible. The ex-president's lies and crackpot reasoning and GOP senators taking it seriously make that obvious.