By Daniel Greenfield
Impeachment means to ‘impede’ or remove a public official from office. It does not mean removing former officials from public office for the same reason you can’t burn down a building that’s already been demolished. Even idiots should be able to grasp this principle.
Every Democrat argument for why President Trump can be impeached depends on the same stupid idea, which is that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have meant not to impeach former public officials.
Here’s Michael Gerson making this dumb argument in Bezos’ Washington Post.
Not long ago, it was common on the right for people to call themselves constitutional conservatives. But that, evidently, was a fad.
Here’s Patterico making that same argument.
The Constitution Doesn’t Mean a Damned Thing to the So-Called “Constitutionalists”
The echo chamber is short of original ideas, but big on talking points.
True constitutionalism, according to the experts in Orange Man Bad, means believing that the Founders couldn’t have not meant to impeach former officials because… ‘frantic arm-waving’.
But before we get to the main stupid argument, here’s an even dumber argument from Mike.
As the Senate trial begins, the main argument of Trump’s lawyers — repeated ad nauseam in their written response to the House trial brief — is that their client can no longer be impeached because he is no longer president. “The constitutional provision,” it reads, “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached.”
The absurdities of this claim abound. The Constitution specifies two possible punishments the Senate can impose upon impeachment conviction: removal from office and disqualification from future office. The second penalty is always and only imposed on former officials, since they have just been removed from their job.
Just. Key word there. The argument here can only be pulled off by breaking down the process to the point of absurdity. Once you’ve successfully removed someone from office, they’re a former official and they can be disqualified from holding further office. This is not an argument proving that the Constitution meant to impeach former officials. The Constitution allowed disqualifying existing public officials from holding office through this process.
And there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that requires the imposition of both punishments in every case.
There is, more specifically, nothing in the Constitution that says former public officials can be impeached. It lists existing officials, not former officials.
The Orange Man Bad crowd is screaming that originalists are fake Constitutionalists because they’re not accepting their bizarre argument that you can impeach former officials based on absolutely nothing in the Constitution.
But then we come to the dumb Belknap argument at the heart of this debate.
The Trump team’s version of impeachment would leave the process easily gamed. Why wouldn’t every official facing the likelihood of conviction simply resign from office 10 minutes before the Senate votes?
Patterico makes a more colorful version of this same argument.
“OK,” I can hear you say, “but doesn’t the person being impeached have to be in office at the time of conviction?” No, and any other result would create an absurd result that the Framers could not have intended: that an officeholder could simply avoid future disqualification by resigning moments before the vote to convict is held. Under this view, an impeached president whose conviction was imminent and certain could simply burst in through the wall of the Senate chamber, like the Kool-Aid Man, minutes before the vote of conviction, only instead of yelling “OH YEAHHH!” the president would yell “I RESIGN! OH YEAHHH!”
This is actually the Belknap argument. That’s also the only actual time the Senate voted to impeach a former official. It also however voted to acquit him because enough Senate members believed that it lacked jurisdiction.
This is the part that none of the brilliant legal minds making this argument actually tell you.
The resignation argument is the Belknap argument. There are a number of problems with that argument…
1. Belknap provoked the Senate by specifically resigning right before impeachment to avoid impeachment. This was an isolated case from the late 19th century that reflects nothing on the Framers. It also ultimately failed.
2. The Framers would not have assumed or cared whether a public official resigned. The whole point of impeachment is to remove a public official. If a public official self-removes, then the problem is solved. The Framers would not have thought that disqualification was a further matter because resigning was an admission of guilt. And, indeed, Belknap never held any office of that kind again. That was a more honorable society. A pity that ours isn’t.
3. The Framers would have found the idea that someone would take the time and energy to become President, and then respond to an attack on his reputation by resigning to avoid disqualification, and then seek to successfully make it to the White House again. It doesn’t make that much sense today. It would have made even less sense back then.
Resigning is not some sort of superpower that shatters impeachment. It’s what impeachment is meant to achieve. Getting back to basics, impeachment removes public officials. So does resignation. The Orange Man Bad crowd is obsessed with the idea that President Trump might run for public office again.
The Framers were not nearly as focused on disqualification as on impeachment. The Constitution carries that emphasis.
Gerson pushes the Belknap argument past the point of absurdity.
You mean… like Nixon? Since the sole purpose of impeachment is to remove a criminal officer from office, forcing a resignation serves that purpose. It simply denies the victors their victory dance. And that is all the Democrats are wasting time, money and extending human suffering due to their onerous COVID mandates to achieve. A victory dance. The victory of totalitarianism.
By any chance, did the entire Senate, at one time, happen to go “DUH!”?
It’s almost fun to watch Democrats flail about trying to justify something so obviously and blatantly unethical and unconstitutional.
The only reason the Democ-Rats want trump Impeached so he cant run for reelection in 2024 their arguments are based upon Lies and faked videos and i hope this backfires on them all especialy Mad Madame Maxine
It likely never crossed the minds of the Founding Fathers that anyone would be stupid enough to believe they meant for the congressional power of impeachment to end when an official left office, given that the carefully crafted language of the Constitution they created said no such thing; that one of the two specified penalties was disqualification from holding any public office in the future, which clearly means that terminating incumbency was not their only consideration; and that precedents existed in English law for impeachment after an accused official had left office.
Secretary of War William Belknap, who was subsequently acquitted, was impeached in 1876 after he resigned from office. A dispute about Senate jurisdiction was also raised in Belknap’s case. It was settled by a majority vote, and the trial proceeded.
So it seems the Senate did acquit perhaps even then thinking what is this we are not a judicial branch and have zero authority to behave as one. If the private citizen was corrupt charges should have been brought and filed in a court of law. Why wont a justice sit for this garbage?
A court of law cannot disqualify anyone from holding a future public office. There’s nothing that prevents a convicted felon from becoming President. Only Congress has the constitutional power and authority to do that.
@Greg: This kangaroo court does not have the authority as no Justice is there, its a big fat nothing burger. The video they showed a mish mash of goofy bullshit. We could do the same thing showing the summer of rage with democrat voices dubbed into it. Its a silly theater all fakery and nonsense.
The media is lost without Trump just looking to create the new boogeyman, it just happens to be the everyday voter they are calling terrorists and you so used to being spoon fed MK Ultra mockingbird lines you just absorb it all.
Hey do you have 1 thing you can brag on about your “President”? His war on women?
His not allowing anyone in the county without a test except border jumpers? Then giving them bus tickets into the interior.
Common boy brag!
For Trump they were cages(built by Barry) for Biden overflow centers.
Trump is no longer the President. Trump is a former president. The Constitution only requires that the Chief Justice preside at the trial when the President is impeached.
Roberts recused himself. He did preside during Trump’s first impeachment trial, as was required.
@Greg: Trump cannot, Constitutionally, be impeached.
Any move to do such is an abortion of justice and a false trial, indicative of less developed and totalitarian regimes, such as China.
It’s also Treason.
Trump’s first…uh…”impeachment” was simply to cover for Joe Biden admitting to using his office for personal gain, on camera. It wasn’t a legitamate impeachment, as is the latest hoax from a failing Democrat Party.
Democrats never let the Constitution get in the way of their anti-Constitutional agenda.
That’s their specialty. It’s all they do anymore.
Since the judge in this case, Leahy, has voted to proceed and will vote to convict how is this in any way a fair process? When your case is based on a spliced up video who are you trying to fool? I guess the same people you fooled for two years with Russian collusion. It’s just total BS.
@Mully: Leahy actually committed the act he voted to impeach Trump for in the first faux impeachment.
Menendez, Durbin and Leahy threatened Ukraine to continue investigations of Trump in 2018 and feed Mueller
Just further proving how laws, rules and the Constitution do not matter one tiny bit to Democrats. You don’t get more recuse-worthy than Leahy but, of course, Democrats never worry about gross conflicts of interest for themselves.
The Chief Justice Shall preside, he turned them down flat. We know he is a never Trumper in charge of the FISA court. Even a semi constitutionalist that rewords laws to force them into law, wont touch this marsupial procedure. It is exposing those that need a good primary challenger.
@kitt: Yes, a Senate vote on “Constitutionality” isn’t worth much if the Chief Justice has already deemed it unconstitutional and not worth his time.
Turn on your television. Yes he can, and yes he has been.
The Chief Justice made no such determination. The Constitution does not direct the Chief Justice to preside over the impeachment trial of a former president who is no longer a public official, but a private citizen accused of official misdeeds while he was in office. The matter under consideration is not removal of an incumbent, but disqualification from holding any federal position of public trust in the future.
It is a specifically stated constitutional power and authority of Congress to make such a determination and impose such a penalty. The person presiding over the Senate trial makes no determination about that.
@Greg: Wow pretzel logic at its best I say it came from the mind of Morning Joe show.
Seems to me the Democrats are cementing their form of democracy. They are attempting to tell all of us who we can or cant vote for. Just like the tech oligarchs tell us what who we can follow and who we cant. What news we can see and what will be silenced.Joe knew about HB sick sexual relationship with his dead sons minor daughter, worse he didnt take him out behind the Gym.
So All of Trumps followers called to DC went to take over the Government on the 6th unarmed to take selfies, quite the conspiracy there guy.
Dems are impeaching President Trump because 3 cases of voter fraud that can overturn the Biden win are going to be before the Supreme Court on Feb 19th.
IF they’ve impeached and remove him before then, they reckon he will be prevented from taking office.
Altho the Presidency would fall to Mike Pence in that case.
You seem to have ignored the word “Constitutionally”. But, that’s not surprising. Leftists could not possibly care less about the Constitution. It, to them, is an onerous impediment to following their anti-constitutional agenda. Impeaching political enemies for political purposes is just another day at the park for them. And, you apparently.
Hey! You got one right. He doesn’t have to be there because it shouldn’t be happening. The fact that Trump has committed no impeachable offense aside (as evidenced by the level of lying and delusion they utilize to try and sell it to their stupid herd), impeaching someone not in office, so cannot be removed, is not only unconstitutional but stupid. But, stupid is the Democrat’s realm.
As I said:
Trump cannot, Constitutionally, be impeached.
More illegal, dirty tricks from a corrupt and failed Democratic Party.
This is how marxist dictators do things, not democratic free Constitutional Republics.
The “impeachment” is illegal.
That must be why FOX News has been showing commercials and talking about football and other irrelevant matters this afternoon during presentation of some of the most compelling evidence and testimony supporting conviction of the worthless son-of-a-b*tch. They certainly wouldn’t want anyone being subjected to a coherent, factual, and detailed explanation of exactly what happened, and why. There’s always danger of a sudden moment of epiphany.
OMG, is Beijing Biden being convicted finally?
@Greg: He can’t be impeached without the Chief Justice presiding. SHALL, Greg. He SHALL presided. Nothing else matters. Even if you had a legitimate crime (you don’t) the point would be moot and nothing but liberal masturbation.
Perhaps Fox is taking it as seriously as Roberts; it’s a farce. Fox doesn’t feel the need to reap the propaganda benefits from Democrats confirming the known fact that they are ALL anti-Constitutional liars.
@Deplorable Me, #21:
“Shall” is not the relevant word, because the specific circumstances that call for it no longer exist.
Donald Trump is no longer the President of the United States. He is now a private citizen who was formerly the President of the United States.
Had McConnell not declined to call the Senate back for the trial before the prior Congress ended and before Trump left office, you would have a valid point.
Thank you for making a salient point in this fiasco. Trump is no longer the President, nor is he Vice President or any other civil officer.
Unfortunately, the Socialist Democrats seem to not be able to comprehend the U.S. Constitution which says:
“Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy and Office of honor”
In legal terms, for you who fancy yourself a legal eagle, and means “along with”. They are not separable and second one cannot be done without the first.
Perhaps you would like to explain how you remove someone from an office they do not hold. But I doubt it.
Which is why Roberts decided he could either go witness another ridiculous abuse of power by Democrats, impeaching a President out of spite or watch the snow fall, then melt, then fall again. Yeah, Trump’s not in public office, so he CAN’T be impeached, so Roberts said, “Mmmm…. thanks, but I have to wash my hair that day.” Just shot yourself in the foot; hopefully it missed your brain.
Had Pelosi conducted a proper trial, Trump would have been long gone before she could have completed even the sham and shameful excuse for a trial they had in impeachment #1. Instead, all she did was prove, again, all that is needed for corrupt people to impeach a President is to have the hateful will to do it and enough votes… just like the first one.
You apparently cannot conceive the level of disregard we who support Trump and respect the Constitution have for this obvious temper tantrum. All this does is confirm the corruption of Democrats and their disregard for the Constitution and everything it stands for.
I think even those who actually did vote for Beijing Biden believe that this second impeachment is nothing more than political porn and a waste of time when our nation has far more important issues to deal with.
Let’s hope we see a repeat of 2010.
This is a matter of grammar and logic, more than of law.
“And” does not mean “along with”. It does not mean that the two things must both be done in order to render any judgement at all. It means that there are only two allowed negative consequences that can result from conviction, and no more than two.
Disqualification from eligibility to hold office in the future is a remedy the Founders provided for serious misconduct in an official capacity. The fact that the term of office during which such serious misconduct took place has already ended does not remove the need for a constitutional means to prevent similar abuses from being repeated by the same individual in the future. If it did remove the possibility, there would have been no need for the second punishment to even be mentioned.
Removal of an incumbent from office is an immediate remedy. Disqualification from ever holding office again is a preventative measure. Neither penalty is imposed lightly.
@retire05: Greg likes to puke what he hears from the “legal experts” on his boob tube, the ones that come from the very far left universities. Yes the kind Barry graduated from, yes he got his ass kicked many times in the Supreme Court.
When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside, once a president always referred to as President. But now Shall doesnt mean shall like infringe doesnt mean infringe.
Don may have no intention of ever running again, but they cant take that chance. Hence the chopped up video and lies on the senate floor. They are shitting their depends.
Oh yes we are taking notes, who to primary do some house cleaning.
True. But the basis of the clause is “removal” not disqualification from running for office again.
Are you saying that a President, Vice President or other official can be impeached and only prevented from running for office again but not removed from office? Is that your claim? Because if it is, you are dead assed wrong.
Removal was the nexus of the discussion at the Convention was removal from office. Disqualification was only to prevent another President from appointing the impeached officer to another office and was not even discussed at the writing of Article II. But the fact remains, impeachment was designed for removal from office. As a matter of fact, when the vote was taken at the Convention, the question was “Shall the Executive be removable on impeachment[?]”
Now, I understand that you are not a historical guru and probably wasn’t aware of the question put before the Convention. As a matter of fact, you continue to prove yourself historically illiterate.
So how do you remove Donald Trump from office now? What office does he hold?
@Greg: I don’t watch FOX. It’s fact that the issues at hand do NOT meet the requirements for impeachment.
This is a typical non-legal kangaroo court, as we’ve seen in the CCP, Soviet nations, Cuba, Valenzuela, and every usurping dictatorship in the history.
The illegal Russian Collusion hoax, illegal Biden-gate impeachment, and now this are all typical tyrannical purges of the opposition.
Trump cannot, Constitutionally, be impeached.
They can only muster a fake trial with the goal of killing or imprisoning the last symbol of what America was: a free, democratic Constitutional Republic.
Dems rigged and election, so getting this through will be easy for them.
Our nation fell, and we now live in the Democrat Socialist States of America…with “elections” and “freedom” the way failing and backwards nations like China have.
It’s a very recent development that former presidents be referred to by the honorary title after leaving office. Historically, they became “The Honorable Mr. Whoever“, or reverted to the highest title they held prior to their election to the presidency. There is, in fact, only one President at any given time.
When the Constitution was written and ratified there had never before been a President of the United States, let alone a former president. Washington didn’t become the President until the second year following ratification.
In my opinion, Donald Trump’s culpability for the events of January 6th has been so clearly established that any Senator voting against conviction should be obliged to explain how they’ve come the ridiculous decision that he is not guilty, or be held accountable for betraying their own oaths to support and defend the Constitution and to render fair and impartial judgement as jurors.
What don’t they get about the fact that Trump turned a violent mob he himself helped to assemble and program not only against the Constitution of the United States, but against them personally, as well?
They’re lucky that they didn’t become names on a long casualty list, and we’re all lucky to still have a functional democratic election system.
@Greg: The booby tube has you only thinking on an emotional level, exactly as programmed.
The witnesses also the jurors hyped up tales of horror as the police allowed the protestors into the building some given tours,. One a CNN employee running with an anarchist. 20 have been doxxed as democrats or Antifa. One even an FBI agent with top clearance. Armed? seriously with cellphones streaming to facebook and twitter.
Over 200 thousand attended yet just 200 arrests.
Why didnt Nancy accept the NG offered? Did you read the letter written to her from the head of the capitol police?
March Peacefully and Patriotically cut out of the heavily edited garbage 15 minute fantasy shown to the Senate. The Time magazine article on rigging the election should be read aloud to them while they show the suitcases dragged out and 61 boxes of ballots unloaded at 3:45 am and 4:45 am in MI. The windows covered to prevent observation, the personal rolling suitcases allowed in counting areas.
Maybe all the EOs because they are running out of time as proof of election tampering from several countries hacked into the dominion system has been released.
We weren’t watching reality television outtakes during the trial presentation today. We were watching videos of what actually occurred, organized into a coherent, sequential timeline. None of these lunatics were invited into the Capitol Building for a guided tour. People don’t smash out windows and break through barricades and doors on guided tours. Trying to kill Capitol Police isn’t part of a tour.
After four years of believing every cockamamie thing Donald Trump has said, a lot of people no longer know what’s real. I’m not sure Trump himself knows what is real. He may actually be crazy. It’s hard for me to imagine any entirely sane person doing what he did.
Well, there’s the President and then there’s the “president*”. Trump is the President.
Well, he’s not guilty because there was no crime. You aren’t the only person I’ve asked the question, yet NONE can provide the answer of WHAT Trump said or did that could have possibly, in a real, rational world, be considered to have incited violence. Remember, I was exactly right when I stated there was not even enough evidence to SUSPECT Trump of colluding with Russians; well, you should heed my view now that there has been NOTHING said or done by Trump that meets the definition of incitement.
But, believe me, I understand your point of view. You, like Pelosi, like Schumer, like the spy-target fart-boy Swalwell, like every crybaby leftist, are triggered by EVERYTHING Trump says or does. He wins his election, you scream at the sky and begin declaring he should be impeached. He calls for unity at his inauguration, you riot. He demands NATO pay their fair share of NATO defense, you fly into a rage and demand impeachment. No matter what he says or does, he incites your butt-hurt rage and insane hatred. But, that’s just you and your crybaby cohorts. That’s not rational people, not MOST people, not ANY AMERICAN. It’s also not meeting the legal definition of “inciting violence”.
True enough. All the reality was edited out. “March peacefully and cheer on our representatives” does not incite violence, so that was left out of the fictional rendition of events. Again, if the evidence is so clear and definitive, why lie? Why does AOC find it necessary to lie about her personal “danger”? Why does Tlaib have to pretend to cry because she felt “fear” for her staffers, who were nowhere near the riot? Why do Democrats have to desecrate the memory of an officer and use his remains as a prop? Why do they have to lie about him being “murdered”? Why does “evidence” have to be heavily edited to look bad? The answer, Greg, is obvious to us; sad you don’t see it or can’t admit you see it. THERE’S the problem today.
Case in point.
Let the demokrats continue with their latest Soviet style show trial. The more they push to hold President Trump responsible for allegedly “inciting a riot”, the more they will open themselves up to the same charge for all the dem backed riots that happened over the summer. Those riots were centered around hate of PT and defunding the police, two themes that were overwhelmingly promoted by the dems and the MSM and it’s all on record as are both of their ties to Soros. Obviously our corrupt DOJ won’t do anything but civil lawsuits are an entirely different matter. Unlike the victims in the Capitol, the victims of the dem riots were killed, wounded, lost businesses, and had their property damage. There was no hiding in a bunker protected by armed guards. They were at the mercy of the dems’ brownshirts. We are talking about the huge potential for thousands of lawsuits totaling billions directed against individual dems and the MSM being filed in multiple locations. Some of the suits will be struck down by Red hack judges, but others will get through and they’ll be heard by juries sympathetic to the victims. Imagine Mad Max having to fight a few hundred lawsuits in several different localities with each being for say a cool million. The stress and legal fees alone will cripple her. Ironically, the dems impeachment arguments they are making will actually turn out to be the basis for the lawsuits against them.
@Greg: Like all ursurping and non-elected governments, it’s likely that they will “impeach” Trump though they don’t have ANY Constitutional ability to do so.
Trump cannot be legally impeached. It’s fact.
Illegally? Sure…just like every other corrupt and un-elected tyranny in the world today, namely China.
We are now a Chinese colony, as Democrats clearly wanted.
That’s the product of your Leftwing disinformation complex, so own it. The goal was to distort, lie, or just confuse enough people. I’d say it work, but Democrats still had to the rig the election.
@Nathan Blue: So the idiot Biden can make sure China stays fully informed on what we are doing at all times, he nominates a guy with CCP connections to run the CIA.
@Deplorable Me: Yes. We are a colony of the CCP.
There’s a small chance for some red states to push back and retain the USA for what it is: a free, democratic Constitutional Republic.
But I’m not sure how that’s going to go.
The man currently on trial in the Senate for inciting a mob to violence that interrupted a critical constitutional process has been the single most serious threat to our democratic Constitutional republic to come along in generations.
This guy is a textbook example of the reason the Founders placed an impeachment mechanism in the Constitution they created. He’s the reason why there’s a constitutional means of removal in addition to removal via our recurring election process, and he’s the reason why there’s a constitutional provision allowing future disqualification from holding office.
Trump lost the election by nearly 8 million popular votes. The electoral college results reflect that reality. There was NO significant election fraud. Sixty-some separate court cases asserting that there was decided by as many individual judges–both republican and democratic appointees–have failed, nearly all because there wasn’t a shred of credible evidence cited that would support the claim. That’s as far as things go, short of overthrowing our constitutional processes to give Donald Trump what he wants.
He had a go at that, too. He threw a tantrum. We saw how it worked out on January 6th. That was the one step too far. It was the point where his egomania became more than just a serious national embarrassment. Had he succeeded, we would have had no meaningful election process, no meaningful Constitution, and no real democratic republic. All would have fallen in accordance with the Will of Donald Trump.
There needs to be accountability. Republicans can either hold Trump accountable for his actions, or be held accountable themselves for failure in their duty to do so.
Incorrect. Trump was merely a democratically elected President. That wasn’t supposed to happen, since corporations, media, and Democrats were supposed to be installing HRC, but without anyone knowing the system was rigged.
Fast-forward four years, and one of the most popular and successful Presidents in history forced the Left to show their hand: Marxist imposition of their Party’s will against the wishes of the electorate.
Yeah, if only there was something to impeach him on (there’s not), and if he was actually in office.
Biden on the other hand…a true textbook reason the Founders placed and impeachment mechanism in the Constitution they created.
But he’s a Dictator, so he gets a pass on Law and democratic process.
@Greg: Where is the evidence Trump incited any violence? Still waiting. All the Democrats are doing with their drama and fear mongering is making the case for prosecuting Democrats for inciting riots, looting and murders all across the nation for the past year.
There is none..but there never is.
Just false trials and unjust imprisonments.
The problem seems to be that you’re incapable of adding 1 plus 1 and arriving at a sum of two.
Reasonable, attentive people who followed Trump’s bullshit election fraud disinformation campaign culminating in his January 6th rally speech and then saw what immediately followed have no difficulty whatsoever with the simple arithmetic. They know what they saw, they know what they heard, and they know what resulted. Unless someone is blind and deaf, or as dumb as a box of rocks, that is the evidence.
Trump Campaign Paid $3.5 Million To Stop The Steal Organizers, Report Finds
No, that’s YOUR problem. Because “inciting violence” is not addition, subtraction, division or multiplication. It’s not rocket science, either. It’s “I want you to go to the Capital and terrorize Congress!” It’s “Storm the Capital! Spread fear!” It’s “Burn that motherf**ker down!” It’s “Punch them in the face!” It’s the kind of rhetoric your slimy leftist Democrats have been using and encouraging, not “peacefully and patriotically march”.
The lying Democrats provided hilarious fodder for memes with their hypocritical diatribes which can be identically matched with their own rhetoric issued at the exact time Minneapolis, Kenosha, Seattle, Portland, Rockford, Atlanta, NYC, Baltimore, LA and DC were being attacked, burned and looted. And, of course, no Democrats ever denounced any of that violence, the businesses burned, the cops attacked, blinded, burned, bombed, beaten or killed.
Perhaps the most significant social accomplishment of Trump’s is to get Democrats to acknowledge police are real people, not racist, murderous monsters. Of course, this humanity is strictly limited to the cops in their direct view. Your entire party has turned into scum.
Oh, and there absolutely WAS widespread Democrat election fraud. It has been proven beyond dispute.