What about “whataboutism”?

Yesterday, Scott recommended a column by William Voegeli called “About ‘Whataboutism.’” I read that column and join Scott in recommending it.

In our current discourse, whataboutism is used by Democrats/leftists to counter conservatives who, when discussing questionable actions by Donald Trump or violent conduct by a pro-Trump mob (for example), point to similar behavior by others that Democrats/leftists did not condemn. Those of us who point to the double standard are accused of whataboutism.

The charge is an evasion — an attempt to duck the fact that Democrats are employing a double standard. Accepting the evasion means accepting unprincipled discourse, which is what the left desires. They insist on an exemption from normal rules of argument.

Whataboutism is essentially a demand that similar situations and similarly situated people be treated similarly. Thus, if not abused, whataboutism is an essential element of justice.

In law, if a Black plaintiff who was fired for being tardy twice for work points to a white co-worker who was tardy twice but not fired, his allegations make out of prima facie case of discrimination. His argument boils down to whataboutism, but it can’t be dismissed on that basis.

Source: What about “whataboutism”?

Did the Democrats Steal the Presidential Election?

Democrats are making extraordinary efforts to suppress all discussion of whether Joe Biden actually won the 2020 presidential election. In fact, they go even farther: they want to suppress all discussion of the extent to which voter fraud occurred. That naturally makes me want to write about voter fraud, and who really won the election.

First, this question: why are the Democrats so hysterical in their insistence that fraud not be mentioned? One reason is obvious. Joe Biden will take office under a cloud, since close to half of all Americans doubt that he really won the election. The Democrats want to stamp out such doubts to preserve Biden’s authority as president.

But there is a second reason that may be more important. The Democrats want the lax voting procedures that prevailed in 2020 to continue in the future. They know that efforts will be made in many states to improve ballot integrity, and they want those efforts to fail. By rendering all discussion of voter fraud out of bounds, they hope to forestall reforms that would make it harder for them to cheat, or enable cheating, in the future.

Source: Did the Democrats Steal the Presidential Election?

Timeline does not support allegations against Trump of stirring violence

The Lid:

Did Trump incite violence?  Raheem Kassam of The National Pulse argues that Trump could not POSSIBLY have incited violence on January 6. The timeline doesn’t fit. Per Kassam, there’s a very simple and obvious reason Trump could not have incited the violence, one that has nothing to do with what he has said, and everything to do with where and when he said it.

The connection between these points is so simple a child could follow it — maybe even Nancy Pelosi. For Trump to have incited violence in a crowd, that crowd must have heard what he had to say.

That makes sense, right? And it won’t require any complex explanation?

If they weren’t part of the crowd, there’s no sense in Democrats and media blaming the crowd of protesters.

If the attackers left before Trump addressed the crowd, their reasons for busting up the place must have been something OTHER than what the President said to supposedly ‘incite’ the crowd to violent action.

Source: Timeline does not support allegations against Trump of stirring violence

TRUMP’S SPEECH WAS NOT INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. 

TRUMP’S SPEECH WAS NOT INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. Not if words and precedent have any meaning. You don’t need to be a lawyer to figure this out – read it for yourself. The entire media and political apparatus (apparently including the interim dean of Cornell Law School) is determined to gaslight you into believing it was. But you are not the crazy one.

And, as a lawyer, I really hate to say this, but it’s now wildly apparent you can’t trust our legal system on anything even remotely political either. Don’t expect sanity from that quarter.

Source: TRUMP’S SPEECH WAS NOT INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. 

Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office

At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution. The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .

Source: Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office

If they can, does that mean Obama can be impeached? Maybe get Nixon while we’re at it. The notion of moot-ness seems to be moot.

Spock’s Hammer

You’ve probably heard of Occam’s Razor, basically saying the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Scott Adams has made a point about election fraud that I’ll call “Spock’s Hammer”.

In an episode in the classic series, Spock is testifying at a court martial about Captain Kirk’s character. He says, “if I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen.

Adams comments on the certainty that there was cheating during the 2020 election. Given that cheating was made almost cost-free, and given that there were strong incentives for cheating, it is inevitable that cheating would have occurred. He states that if you drop ice cream on pavement on a hot day, you don’t need to hang around and watch it melt to know that it has, in fact, melted.

I think I prefer “Spock’s Hammer” to “Adams’ Ice Cream”.

Nothing personal.

THE PEOPLE WHO TOLD US NOT TO NORMALIZE TRUMP ARE DENORMALIZING AMERICA: Alan Dershowitz: Democrat…

THE PEOPLE WHO TOLD US NOT TO NORMALIZE TRUMP ARE DENORMALIZING AMERICA:

Alan Dershowitz: Democrats Cannot Impeach Trump, and You Can’t Impeach Him After Leaving Office. “Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.”

I should also note that they can’t disqualify him from running again. The penalty for impeachment only includes disqualification from offices of “trust or profit,” and as Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman demonstrated some time ago, those offices are appointed, not elected offices.

Source: THE PEOPLE WHO TOLD US NOT TO NORMALIZE TRUMP ARE DENORMALIZING AMERICA

SO IT TURNS OUT THAT EVERYONE KILLED IN THE CAPITOL THAT DAY WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER: What the left w…

SO IT TURNS OUT THAT EVERYONE KILLED IN THE CAPITOL THAT DAY WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER:

What the left wants to ignore about slain Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described Sicknick’s death as a reminder of the need to “protect our country from all threats, foreign and domestic.” President-elect Joe Biden suggested that whoever backed Trump supports “an all-out assault on our institutions of our democracy.” The day’s violence, it seems, has become an all-purpose excuse to denounce and ­silence anyone not sufficiently anti-Trump.

Yet neither Biden nor Pelosi reckoned with an uncomfortable fact: Sicknick was a Trump supporter himself, as his friend Caroline Behringer announced shortly after his death. Far from sharing the views of the #Resistance, he had written letters to his congressman opposing Trump’s impeachment.

Source: SO IT TURNS OUT THAT EVERYONE KILLED IN THE CAPITOL THAT DAY WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER

Curiouser and curiouser.