Byron York’s Daily Memo: For GOP, nine perilous days

Never did the lady from California look more childish.

“I don’t see any real support on our side for [proposed
impeachment],” one GOP lawmaker said, noting that Rep. Adam Kinzinger is so far the only House Republican to call for Trump to leave office immediately, and even Kinzinger said Sunday that impeachment is “probably not the smartest move right now.”

The lawmaker continued: “I think most people recognize [impeachment] is futile. The Senate doesn’t go into session until January 19th. It’s more Pelosi just one more time trying to poke everybody’s eye — another political stunt to tie Trump around our whole party one more time.”

(The number-three House Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn, said on Sunday that Pelosi might impeach Trump and then not send the articles to the Senate until after the new Biden administration passes its 100-day mark, creating an unprecedented but apparently constitutionally permissible situation in which the Senate would hold a trial for an ex-president.)

Good luck with that, Ms. P.

THE MASS TRANSMOGRIFIED: WHOSE SACRIFICE? WHOSE NAME?

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

The mass is reconstituted by free-lancing priest-celebrants.

For instance . . .

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good
and the good of all his holy Church.

. . . is in some quarters changed to

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at our hands
for the praise and glory of God’s name . . .

. . . which never in my hearing has been explained to the congregation. It’s simply done, over and over until the people, or most of them, do it that way too. You can hear the cacophonous blurring in the recital.

The changes are easily explained. “Our hands” ignores the priest’s unique role as celebrant and “God’s name” avoids the masculine pronoun.

The first changes the meaning and is pernicious. The second flouts tradition as scandalous and offensive.

View original post

Parler Sues Amazon, Asks Federal Judge To Reinstate Hosting On AWS — Traders don’t like Twitter . . .

Free men in a free market are not lightly dismissed.

. . . Wall Street isn’t happy with Twitter’s decision to permanently ban President Trump, one of the service’s high-profile users. Analysts are afraid the decision could expose Twitter to more regulation, as Mirabaud analyst Neil Campling said the ban could open Twitter up to more regulation under the next administration now that the platform is clearly making editorial decisions about what type of political content is, and isn’t, appropriate.

Traders are clearly worried, as Twitter shares are down 7% in premarket trade, building on losses from after-hours trading on Friday, as well as Sunday night.

They pay their money, they make their choice. And there’s no locking them up.

No, Trump Isn’t Guilty of Incitement – WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966?mod=hp_opin_pos_3

The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

This the conclusion of former asst. atty. general of the District of Columbia, who as a prosecutor has been there, done that.

As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. . . .

Dems barking up no tree at all . . .

How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance | ZeroHedge

Authored by Jonathan Turley, reprinted at Zero Hedge:

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on my concerns over the planned “snap impeachment” this year. In my view, impeaching on the speech alone would raise serious concerns over the use of impeachment in the future. Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration. Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to “take back the country” and “fight for the country.”

The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of “snap impeachments” but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters. The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment. As with the calls to use the 25th Amendment, there are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option. There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.

As I have said, there could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue. As with the 25th Amendment claim, such evidence would be found from within the White House and through a traditional impeachment inquiry.

Calmer head, which will not prevail.