Why I'm Glad I'm Not A Member of the House of Representatives Today

Today (or tomorrow, if Republicans decide to stick to their delaying tactics) the House of Representatives--that is, the Democrats within--will impeach 45 of abuse of his powers and obstruction of Congress. It's not only perfectly justifiable, but it's been nailed down repeatedly by 45 himself, flaunting and daring the Democrats to take action.

Well, they have. They have not only exposed 45's utter lawlessness, but also the Republican lock-step in supporting it. It's out there now for all to see, and we will see the amount of it that will be allowed in the coming weeks, even though Mitch McConnell, that complicit plotter of absolute power, will do his best to thwart it. Nancy Pelosi has called 45's repeated bluffs, and will put him into the small but growing ash-heap of history, that being those presidents subjected to impeachment. From that, he can no longer hide--six-page, irrational screeds of utterly pathetic defense notwithstanding.

I'm glad I'm not a member of the House today, though. Really glad. Because I'd have to rise to the microphone and tell the Republicans that, in my case only perhaps, they're right about something: I would not feel sad about this occasion.

Hell, I'd feel great. Actually, I do feel great right now. Somebody has finally called this charlatan for what he is: A lawless, rotten person who has been trying to break the very Constitution under which we live for his own, and only his own, sake. Somebody has finally tried to take him down.

Madam Speaker:

Republicans have whined that Democrats have wanted to get rid of him from the very moment his term began. Well, hell, yes, I have, that's for sure. Anybody who hadn't already shut off logic and reasonable thought for the sake of ridiculous party loyalty had already seen that 45 didn't, doesn't, and never will care one hoot or holler about this country; will do whatever he can get away with to enhance only his own wealth; and can't possibly conceive of the damage he's already done (along with his party) to our national discourse.

It's only in Republican minds, which have chosen to turn themselves off to any and all consequences this disgusting person can cause, which have conjured sound principles and justifications of 45's behavior. He said the word "us," as Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (who gave the opening speech for the House litigators during the Clinton impeachment trial) keeps saying, and it obviously means the whole country that 45 was concerned about. But I'd like to remind the gentleman that so many members of his party, especially those still loyally working and trying to shroud his true intents to the rest of us (unsuccessfully), keep saying that it isn't exactly what he says that one should pay attention to; it's his overall meaning--which, of course, is subject to any and every interpretation that pleases only him.

Well, that's not an obligation on my part, sir. My obligation is to the truth, and the several foreign service officers who we managed to finally get to committee hearings (as opposed to the absolute stonewalling that the administration has committed, which of course has led to Article 2 of these accusations) have, together and separately, led us down the road to betrayal of this country's policies and purpose, and placing it in jeopardy to be extorted for some other country's (read: Russia) purposes of control.

We don't have that "absolute" proof exactly because this president is so good at hiding his every intent by watching his every word. Ambassador Sondland concluded what anybody else could have concluded: the quid pro quo was there for all to see. Everybody knew about it. That your side, sir, keeps saying that it was never expressly stated is an attempt to dodge the truth by utilizing facts that aren't even there--the same way you keep saying that somehow, whatever 45 says makes sense because you have to step back and look at the overall meaning.

Your colleagues keep saying that Ukraine actually got the money that Congress had granted it. But that happened after it knew that 45 was withholding it for his own purposes. Oh, you say that 45 was actually concerned about Ukranian corruption. Okay, then show us how exactly he said and did anything that indicated that. He didn't. You know it. You can't, once again, purport meaning where there is no actual evidence that we should draw inferences.

Take it on trust, you seem to say. Right. As if. I'm happy to tell you that I'm glad this completely untrustworthy bag of garbage has never been worthy of anything close to that, anywhere, any time. So that excuse gets swept away. And I'm still happy.

You keep saying that your colleagues have been treated so unfairly by this process. It began by the unquestioned leader of your party insisting that nobody inside the White House be allowed to testify in the investigation. What is fair about that? I might ask. What is anything but exculpatory about it? If you knew it was the right and best thing to do, and could tell us so, this would have been over last month and we Democrats would be red-faced.

But he didn't want to do that and neither do you. You'd rather fall into step behind him, operating in his enormously corrupt shadow, needing to satisfy the gerrymandering you've managed to manipulate in many states so you don't need to, and can't possibly, answer to any reliance on the rule of law but instead to what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority."

This is about politics, you now say. I see. Then impeachment now means nothing in terms of what the Constitution is supposed to fulfill--a check upon a corrupt president's power to do what he wants, when he wants, with whom he wants. You don't mind that. And you can't tell me you do. I'll be happy to tell you that I wouldn't believe that if you said so, being presented with this situation and your choice to avoid what needs to be done. And I'll be happy to tell you that you're ruining the Constitution and what it means--and that, from this point onward, any extrapolation about that and lawlessness that exudes from it will be on your backs, not ours.

Yes, this is divisive. Yes, this has been coming for a long time and can be seen as an extension of issues that have never been satisfyingly settled not that long ago. But the Constitution and the facts remain on our side and no spinning to the contrary can reverse them.

You'll stop it, of course, because Mitch McConnell, too, doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and its ultimate meaning. If he had, Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court (or someone else at least agreeable to President Obama), we would have needed just one more nomination by 45 (Neil Gorsuch, who's now shilling for his new book, another interesting bit of ethical stretching), and would have avoided the me-too showdown of Brett Kavanaugh, complete with crocodile tears (hey, it worked for Clarence Thomas). So we're used to that bullying, too.

But I'm happy to tell you that your time, too, is running out. What you represent won't stand forever. It may take more than one election, but demographics and propriety are at your doorstep. They are about to knock.

You're trying your best to manipulate institutionalism to hold them back, and not doing a bad job to this point (one effort of which has come to county in Wisconsin in which I grew up, Ozaukee, a matter for another essay), I must say. In fact, it might look like the shoreline has been cleared. That's what happens just before the tsunami begins, and you'd better not be in the way.

So, no, I'm not solemn whatsoever. I'm happy. I'm not going to fake it. You mean to tell me you weren't snarky-happy when you got this embarrassment of a president in through the backdoor on an Electoral College technicality, which reflected an end-run of the process instead of the true will of the majority? Were you apologetic in the least? I don't recall a single interview or essay or op-ed written to that effect. Get over it, Mulvaney said to the knowledge that 45 had resorted to this extortion. Okay: Your turn.

You could admit that this absolutely needs to happen, and that, as Rep. Cohen of Tennessee made sure to say, the Republicans would still hold the White House with the very right reverend Mike Pence taking over (my wording for that second part). That might even be more fun, what with divine intervention nearly everywhere, anointing nearly everything: think of the moral momentum you'd have! But at least he wouldn't try this nonsense, this corruption, this extortion for nothing more than his own benefit.

See? No way that I'd be given enough time to say this. And no way I'd be allowed to put it this plainly for all to hear. I'm okay with that. I've heard many people echo these sentiments, though not quite so bluntly. I yield the rest of my time, Madam Speaker.

Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark