The Senate's decision to forego seeking witnesses or evidence in the trial of President Trump appalled The Reluctant Son and me. We have sent the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper. I don't expect them to publish it, but I am pleased that we were able to articulate our thoughts - and that we still live in a country where, for now, we can continue to do that.
We The People
 |
| Alan Dershowitz |
In arguably
the most significant moment of his distinguished career, trial law expert Alan
Dershowitz stated that “If a President thinks his re-election is in the public
interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal.” This
misreading of the constitution was dangerous not only because it elevated the
president above the law, but because it offered an invitation to the Senate to
lift itself above the law as well.
The
Republican Party, headed by Donald Trump, is threatening those Senators who do
not vote against additional testimony, documents and ultimately Trump's removal
with withholding support of their re-election efforts (in an eerie echo of Trump’s
threat to withhold funds from the Ukraine).
Senators, whose constitutional duty is to act as impartial Jurors in a
trial, have chosen to knuckle under to this threat. They are voting for their own self-interest as
if it were the interest of the country.
Despite his admission that the President’s conduct was both illegal and
impeachable, Marco Rubio voted against further evidence and will presumably
vote against removal, arguing that removal would not be in the best interest of
the country.
We fought a
Revolutionary War to get out from under a tyranny that was not answerable to the
electorate. The Senators have urged us
to express our beliefs at the ballot box.
We should do that not just with the President, but with the Senators who
have skirted their duty and held themselves above the law.
Rob Portman,
who was either duped or actively colluded to cover up the withholding scheme, did
not recuse himself, as David Pepper urged him to do in our local paper, from a trial
in which his behavior was implicated. Realizing that the calling of witnesses
would submit the president’s (as well as their own) actions to further
investigation, Portman and the other Senate Republicans decided to admit that
wrongdoing had already been proven but that it didn’t merit removal.
Though an
adept political move, this action ultimately gives free rein to the office of
the presidency, in turn violating the system of checks and balances Portman and
his colleagues swore to uphold.
Mitch
McConnell has orchestrated a jury fixing with the president.
Neither Portman nor McConnell deserve to
serve in the body whose job is to “Advise and Dissent” and both should be
defeated when they run for re-election. We must return the government of the country
to the people of the country.
No
individual or institution is above the law in the United States of
America.
We The People must become the final
jury.
I posted this as a political comment to the paper. In the context of psychoanalysis, I think we can learn that Alan Dershowitz, like Trump himself, says what he really means - and then, when he is caught at it, he retracts it. But his audience hears and understands that his retractions are not his true message. It is like the buly who sucker punches the other kid and then says he didn't mean to and asks for forgiveness. Well, he did mean to. I think Dershowitz is telling the Senators, "You, like the President, can do anything you want to do." And I think they have heard him. The question is whether we agree with that. Are we going to be the kids who vicariously glory in the strength of the bully - or are we going to be what one of my colleagues calls the "Moral Rebel", who takes the uncomfortable position that the bully is NOT repentant, he is wrong and needs to be contained. He is not made of the same stuff as the other kids and shouldn't be allowed to play with them. At this point, the question of whether we have the ability to function as the Moral Rebel is too close to call.
I posted this as a political comment to the paper. In the context of psychoanalysis, I think we can learn that Alan Dershowitz, like Trump himself, says what he really means - and then, when he is caught at it, he retracts it. But his audience hears and understands that his retractions are not his true message. It is like the buly who sucker punches the other kid and then says he didn't mean to and asks for forgiveness. Well, he did mean to. I think Dershowitz is telling the Senators, "You, like the President, can do anything you want to do." And I think they have heard him. The question is whether we agree with that. Are we going to be the kids who vicariously glory in the strength of the bully - or are we going to be what one of my colleagues calls the "Moral Rebel", who takes the uncomfortable position that the bully is NOT repentant, he is wrong and needs to be contained. He is not made of the same stuff as the other kids and shouldn't be allowed to play with them. At this point, the question of whether we have the ability to function as the Moral Rebel is too close to call.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index, link here.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment