Argument

Island Life

297

I am sitting here staring at a gallery of staunch supporters of the current president. Their images have been pilfered from the internets, printed to about the same size and rubber-cemented to foam core backing and then made into cut-outs with a bit of patience and an exacto knife. At the moment they are watching me from behind a brick wall, or at least a photo of one. I have decided, whilst stuck in my non-writing limboland, that the brick wall should be made of stone instead, as the unified field theory of the entire lot of them can be whittled down to that of an ordered pile of rocks when it comes to defending this current president against all adverse truths, both foreign and domestic.

From this side of that stone wall- from this side of the teevee screen, I just cannot concurrently visualize that which they are apparently seeing with their stalwart defense of their errant leader. From his asking of the Russians to find Hillary’s lost emails, to his babbling on just yesterday about reversing EPA water conservation guidelines so he can wash his hands more quickly, I have been at a loss to explain to myself, or anyone else, as to why this person should still be president, let alone how he might have gotten to that place to begin with. Actually, that last part is not true. It’s fairly easy to point out that he got there through cheating, lying, apathetic voters, Russian tampering and the electoral college, but this message and any others of its ilk would not have a chance in hell of surviving a leap over that stone wall that divides.

As I have been watching or listening to the recent cluster of impeachment related hearings, I have occasionally stopped all that I was otherwise doing and stood in front of the glowing flatscreen and wondered where the wall is hiding that so thoroughly and uniformly separates  the members of the Republican and Democratic parties. It is as if the commercial for that insurance company, where the two guys have gotten a mime as a roommate to help with cleaning and expenses, and while they are talking about it and the mime is mime-cleaning, he runs into one of those mimed obstacles in the middle of the room. “Oh”, one says. “There’s a wall there now? That’s too bad.” The wall in the hearings though is more than too bad, it’s kind of a national disgrace.

If it weren’t such an embarrassment it would be kind of an entertainment- a comedy sketch act not unlike the turnings of the Monty Python troupe from days gone by. That is why I titled this piece “Argument”, because this nonsensical, day by day back and forth reminded me of that Python skit of that name for which I posted a connecting link on my facebooks collection of things the other day. It is fairly, easily find-able on the youtubes by searching ‘argument monty python’. There is a need for more humor in these days.

I had been wanting to go back and look at the triumvirate of impeachments of our times- or at least my times. I was not overly consumed by Nixonian nonsense at the time, but was happy to see him go. I remember some of the names involved and had a basic understanding of what had transpired. Nixon approved of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate office building. The burglars were there to get dirt on Democratic candidates and tap phones. Bill Clinton was being investigated by the Republicans to see if they could find any dirt on him relating to a real estate deal involving the Whitewater Development Corporation and bank finance fraud that he and Hillary had tangentially been connected to. Instead of any dirt there they got more than they bargained for when Ken Starr expanded his Clinton investigation into the Paula Jones sex harassment case and ensuing Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans got the dirt they were looking for but not the impeachment they wanted. And then there was Trump, who in looking for dirt on one of his current, political opponents, stepped into a cavalcade of mess when he was caught asking for political dirt on that opponent from the president of the Ukraine in exchange for withheld monetary assistance that had already been approved by Congress without any previous strings attached. Some might be noting a pattern here.

I also had a look at the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regarding Trump’s actions, as they are mentioned as being tasked with investigating any perceived violations of the Act and Commission regulations relating to foreign nationals and elections in these United States. As has been said many times and many ways as of late, foreign nationals may not make contributions or donations of money or items of value in connection with any U.S. election. There are meant to be six members of the FEC, with appointees comprising no more than two people from each party. In order to investigate and make any rulings on suspected violations, four members must be present to vote. As it is, because Trump has failed to name anyone for a position there, the three existing members do not have a quorum to have any say in current events, which some might find not so surprising, given current events.

And then there is the invisible wall that was mentioned earlier, which stands somewhere between the party divide, even if you can’t outright see it. It is that invisible vortex where opposing sets of matter and anti-matter arguments collide and vaporize each other, or at least that’s the hope of one side. Here you have the inductive reasoning of the Republicans which states that there is no reason to impeach because they believe Trump hasn’t done anything wrong, since the transcript of the call in question with the president of Ukraine was perfect, and instead of wasting time on this investigation, it is Hunter Biden who should be investigated so that Trump can carry on with his international campaign against corruption.  On the other hand, there is the Democratic, deductive reasoning that holds that the actions of the president regarding the call with the Ukrainian president were “alarming”, as stated by numerous witnesses to the call, who during the investigation said that there indeed had been a quid pro quo that found Trump asking for dirt on Joe Biden in exchange for withheld financial aid that had been approved by the U.S. Congress, which would be both a violation of U.S. law and a violation of his oath of office. All of these things would have gotten any Democratic president impeached in a nano second.

And so it is that the two Articles of Impeachment have just been set loose upon the world by the House Judiciary committee. In them we have charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice. They are nine short pages long. You can read them through the googlesearch from sources throughout the internets. Both of the charges partly end with this statement:
“Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

With that, it would seem that if he is found guilty of these violations he would be getting off easy. It remains to be seen what arguments are still to unfold, and whether fact or belief will prevail. In that regard, I am reminded of a quote from a David Mitchell novel and a Wachowski and Tykwer film- Cloud Atlas. Actually, there are two quotes, both from a “replicant” (robot/android/ai) who becomes a rebel and a saint of sorts, and she is known as Sonmi 451. The first quote is this:
“Truth is singular- its versions are mistruths.”
The second goes like this-
“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others, past and present , and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”
We will see where it all goes from here.