Striking at the King

Here is the latest ginned up media hubbub. New York Times reporter Peter Baker offered a sensible coda to the Trump impeachment folly:

Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. “When you strike at a king,” Emerson famously said, “you must kill him.”

Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down.

I trust that I was not alone in thinking about this quote when watching Lt.Col. Vindman and his twin brother being escorted out of the White House. And I assume that I was not alone in thinking that those who had weaponized impeachment in order to mount a coup against an elected president should not be surprised to discover that failure has a price.

Baker suggested that the impeachment circus has strengthened Trump.

With the end of the impeachment trial now in sight and acquittal assured, a triumphant Mr. Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.

The president’s Democratic adversaries rolled out the biggest constitutional weapon they had and failed to defeat him, or even to force a full trial with witnesses testifying to the allegations against him. Now Mr. Trump, who has said that the Constitution “allows me to do whatever I want” and pushed so many boundaries that curtailed past presidents, has little reason to fear the legislative branch nor any inclination to reach out in conciliation.

But then, Trump tweeted the Emerson quotation and the brain dead nitwits on the radical left went hysterical. 

Those who wanted to use impeachment to undermine democracy are now up in arms at the mere suggestion that Trump might see himself as a king, as someone who can do whatever he wants. One feels constrained to remark that his predecessor did what he pleased, in many cases surpassing Trump, and was cheered by the same folk who now consider Trump a threat to everything that they hold sacred and holy.

One also feels the need to remark that impeaching Trump has always been the Democratic agenda. Democrats and their radical fellow travelers have wanted to impeach Trump from the onset of his administration. Better yet, from the moment he was elected. 

They have wanted to hamper him, to constrict him, to make it impossible for him to govern. Not to make it impossible for him to issue royal edicts, but to govern as a president of the United States. 

They treated him as an incipient despot before he even took office. Perhaps they were simply assuming that Trump would exercise the despotic powers they had happily granted to Barack Hussein Obama.

It recalls the moment when brilliant senate majority leader Harry Reid suspended the filibuster when considering Obama's judicial nominees. How smart does that look now?