By Jeb Bladine • President / Publisher • 

Bladine: Thought-provoking letter from 'Friend'

Dear “Friend”:

Your long letter to me this week was a mixture of personal antipathy toward liberal politics and concerns that I’ve been scarred by unreasonable hatred of Donald Trump. Unfortunately, while claiming to be “A Friend,” you took great pains to be untraceable.

Whatchamacolumn

Jeb Bladine is president and publisher of the News-Register.

> See his column

I have actual friends who don’t shy from spirited talks about our respective political differences, but perhaps you have reasons to be anonymous.

Though often repulsed by his words and actions, I don’t hate Donald Trump. But this week, much to my surprise, I experienced a more significant emotion related to the ex-president.

Midnight wakefulness drew my attention to an unwatched portion of Wednesday’s impeachment trial. The segment lasted 60 minutes, comprising back-to-back presentations by Stacey Plaskett, congressional delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Pennsylvania Congresswoman Madeleine Dean.

Del. Plaskett expanded on the meaning of Trump’s infamous televised command to the extremist Proud Boys: “Stand back, and stand by.” Her all-encompassing timeline of facts and actions exposed beyond any reasonable doubt that then-President Trump knowingly incited the deadly mob into storming our U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

As she talked, an unfamiliar sensation slowly swept over me. It wasn’t hatred, or even anger; it hinted of nausea accompanied by shortness of breath, but it wasn’t an actual physical sickness.

Then, U.S. Rep. Dean took the debate baton inside the Capitol, where she had shared the terror that engulfed so many members of Congress and their staffs. It was only then — as Dean completed her 22-minute talk with barely controlled emotions — that I recognized my own uncommon feeling.

It was fear.

Not an internalized fear for self, but a briefly overwhelming sense of anxious dread and trepidation about short- and long-term outcomes of this month’s impeachment trial. The feeling passed, leaving in its wake a couple of beliefs I’d like to share with my Friend:

A vote to acquit Donald Trump of “incitement of insurrection” is a vote supporting the felony act of sedition. It is a vote to prolong unbending partisanship in American politics, and perhaps even an invitation to some form of civil war.

In time, some of the senators who vote to acquit will look back in rueful disbelief that they favored authoritarianism over democracy. For some, it will be a sad, life-altering memory.

I’ll have my own mixed feelings looking back at this time. However, my Friend, I will remember that I wrote this.

Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.

Comments

Don

2/15/2021 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated:
“It is clear from his findings and from the impeachment trial that we must get to the truth of how this happened,” she said in a statement on Monday. “To protect our security, our security, our security, our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type
Commission to ‘investigate and report on the facts and causes'” of the breach.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/pelosi-announces-independent-9-11-style-commission-to-investigate-capitol-riot_3697747.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-02-16

The facts and causes should have been investigated during the House Impeachment Hearings. No witnesses were called. That is their responsibility. Instead Pelosi's crew hired professional film makers to make their case. Doctored "evidence" was used. The films could not have been used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The Impeachment Process was unconstitutional and lacked due process. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law with an impartial judge?

tagup


The claim of doctored evidence is interesting since the entire country saw the attack and what trump and cohorts said In the days and weeks leading up to it......

Yes, a courtroom with an impartial judge & jury would be great....you know, one where the jurors don’t sit down with the defense to develop a strategy......and where the outcome isn’t predetermined..

As far as “constitutionality” of the proceeding....that’s the argument you make when you can’t overcome the facts.........the senate voted to continue the trial....and for impeachment proceeding, they make the rules.....

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable