Trump says it’s a lynching
Trump claims he’s being lynched – yes, lynched.
So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching. But we will WIN!
But it’s not a lynching. It’s not a witch hunt, and it’s not a lynching. Trump is not a woman, and he is not a black man. He is not being burned alive, and he is not being hanged.
Even Republicans don’t like the “lynching” claim…except for Lindsey Graham.
President Donald Trump’s shocking comparison of the ongoing impeachment inquiry against him to a “lynching” provoked widespread condemnation from congressional members of both parties on Monday—with the notable exception of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who told reporters on Capitol Hill that the investigation into Trump is “a lynching in every sense.”
In every sense? So, including the literal one? Because…come on now Senator.
“I think it’s pretty well accurate—this is a shame, this is a joke,” Graham told a gaggle of reporters on Monday morning. “This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American. I’ve never seen a situation in my lifetime as a lawyer where somebody’s accused of a major misconduct who cannot confront the accusers, call witnesses on their behalf, and have the discussion in the light of day so the public can judge.”
Trump’s Monday morning tweet—in which he encouraged Republicans to “remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching”—is the latest escalation in the president’s increasingly hyperbolic reactions to the impeachment inquiry, which he has called a “coup,” a “scam” and, of course, a “witch hunt.”
Later on Monday, Graham doubled down on the comparison, calling the impeachment inquiry “literally a political lynching,” and accusing reporters of holding Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats.
There’s no such thing as “literally a political lynching.” That’s like saying “literally a figurative lynching,” which would be silly.
White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley defended Trump’s use of the word.
“The president has used many words, all types of language, to talk about the way the media has treated him,” Gidley told reporters outside the White House, adding that Trump “wasn’t trying to compare himself to the horrific history in this country at all.”
Oh really? Then what did he mean by the word? Why use that word if not to compare the impeachment inquiry to being hanged from a tree by a white racist mob?
Graham, a longtime defender of some of the president’s most appalling excesses, represents South Carolina, a state with a violent history of racial injustice. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, a legal non-profit, an estimated 184 black people were the victims of lynchings in the state between 1877 and 1950. The number of those killed by white mobs in the Jim Crow South without the ability to confront accusers, call witnesses, and be tried by a jury of their peers tops an estimated 4,000 people.
We treat rich white guys much better in this country.
At least Graham was not a manager of the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Oh wait, did I say not?
Oh, but Colin Day, that was so, so, so much different! That was really real serious stuff! Clinton lied to Congress! Not like that nice D. J. Trump…oh, wait, did I just say Trump didn’t lie to Congress? Well, not technically, since he has refused to testify. He just lies to everyone in every way possible.
“So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights”
This is exactly what would’ve happened if Clinton had been elected, pretty much immediately.
She didn’t even have to be elected. Trump managed to get them to open another investigation anyway, in his dictator mode.
Interesting that the final quote refers to lynching as a process wherein the victims are “without the ability to confront accusers, call witnesses, and be tried by a jury of their peers”, which actually does sort of fit with what Trump and Graham are whining about, except the part about being murdered.
Graham is such a phony. I still wonder how he went from opposing Trump to being prone to exploding with pro-Trump outbursts at the slightest provocation. In this case I’m sure he knows perfectly well that confronting the accuser is a moot point when the behavior in question has been admitted by the accused.
Welllll but calling lynching a process wherein the victims are “without the ability to confront accusers, call witnesses, and be tried by a jury of their peers” is kind of grotesque. I mean yes, obviously that’s accurate, but it’s like saying the people who got off the trains at Auschwitz were not given fruit baskets or duvets. Victims of lynchings were violently murdered by white supremacist mobs, so yeah of course they didn’t get due process.
He changed his position when he realized his reelection prospects were nil if he maintained a principled stance.
Skeletor, actually no. If you compare the impeachment process to the standard criminal justice system process in the US, the stage things are currently at is the equivalent of the investigation and Grand Jury process. A complaint has been made of potentially criminal behaviour (Whistle blower), an investigation is being pursued and evidence gathered (the impeachment inquiry). At the end of the inquiry a recommendation for prosecution will be made by the Grand Jury (House recommending impeachment). Only then is there a criminal trial where the accused gets to confront their accuser, cross examine and challenge evidence (Senate trial).
In criminal cases the accused may not even know they are being investigated and subject to a Grand Jury and the documents related to the Grand Jury are by law secret. Therefore only the Governments best evidence and case gets put before the Court and the accused to respond to.
I’ve spent far to much time reading Popehat and other sources of Twitter Law…
But we have Screechy Monkey right here, so who needs Popehat? (He blocked me on Twitter years ago for objecting when he called someone a cunt, which didn’t do wonders for my opinion of his judgement.)
Screechy is great!
Popehat was/is a free speech absolutist, which not being an American I can see the point of, but consider dangerous and corrosive to a functioning society when carried to an extreme. It’s complicated. However, he does seem to nail legal discussion and in a way I find amusing. He also clearly detests Trump, so can’t be all bad. I also think he is plain wrong to defend use of obscenity of that nature. I like to think he was going through one of his down phases and responded poorly, but who knows. Maybe he’s just an arsehat.
If it makes anyone feel better, Kevin Kruse (whoever he is) says exactly the same thing about the impeachment process here…
And has this to say about the lynching comparison.
Ya I thought it must be just a tetchy moment (Popehat’s reaction) – I’d commented on his blog some, we’d interacted some – so I emailed him to ask him to reconsider, but that was a big nope. Pissed me off and still does. My original objection wasn’t rude and I bet you ANYTHING he wouldn’t do the same with regard to the word “nigger” for example. (The absurdity was that he started the tweet with “I don’t usually use this word but” – but the bad person was so bad that this time it fit. My polite objection was that that just equates to “cunt=REALLY bad thing” and could he please not do that. Is that point really so hard to grasp?)
My sympathies are very much with you on this one.
The following tale from Ken was clearly advance karma for his treatment of you.
There is an old joke:
Judge: Would you like to be tried by me or by a jury of your peers?
Defendant: By you, Your Honor; I’d rather not be tried by a bunch of crooks.
I suspect Trump would have the same problem.
I think Ken White has gotten better in recent years. When I first started reading him, he was a bit too doctrinaire libertarian for my taste, and was in complete and utter denial about how odious his co-blogger “ClarkHat” was. He’s since split with Clark and admitted to his blind spot about him, and either he’s moderated his libertarianism or just doesn’t talk about it as much or I just don’t notice it any more.
But he does seem to have a little bit of that “you can’t tell me what not to say” itchy ban/block figure, so Ophelia’s story doesn’t surprise me and I don’t blame her for having the view she does.
In any event, I’m happy to be your Unofficial Legal Pontificator. I don’t have a fancy hat, but maybe I can get one of those little fezzes that the organ grinder monkeys wear. Can’t resist a fez!
Well now I realize we need an Atheist Hat.