Do you know what you've done?

Words mean things.  Why else use them? 

There are even lots of rules in grammar to aid one in using each word appropriately for the intent of both the communicator and the intended recipient.  Nuance, I believe to be the appropriate word.

In relation to the utter tragedy taking place on Capitol Hill these days, I have more than a few words I would like to discuss with the, "Powers that be".

I would like to assume that the elected officials, who supposedly stand in for the voting block, representing constituents in our Federal Republic, have read and understand both the words and the meaning behind the Constitution of the United States of America?  Not this so-called, "Living Document", but the one drafted by the Founding Fathers.  That document had the ability to be amended, to evolve with the changing times, but it did not make it by any stretch of the Progressive imagination to be, "Living", i.e. whatever we want it to say, when we want it to say it.

So, assuming that, I have to ask myself, Do you all (collectively) know what you've done?  Did you intend to vastly over reach your job description or did you do it, blinded by party politics?  This, to me, would be the difference between a malicious attack on the Constitution and an ignorant one.  By Constitution, I mean the, "We The People" part of it.

Do you know what, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means?  Bribery?  How about extortion or trading in influence?  Does the President's veto power really mean that he is obstructing the will of Congress or is he performing his duties as President to prevent bad legislation from becoming law (according to his opinion).  Is it Obstruction for him not to turn over records that you demand from him?  Or to force testimony from his staff (remember, everyone working in the Executive Branch works for him).  No.  Remember, there are three branches to our government, supposedly co-equal with defined responsibilities.  Can the President demand the meeting minutes behind a committee closed door session?  No, he can't.  If you want it, you'd better make your case to the third branch of government, the Judiciary.  It had better be a good case, too.

This rabid assault on a duly elected President is unseemly.  It is reckless.  It is, perhaps, a precedent. 

If a party that is anti-Constitutionalist (I'm looking at you Democrats) makes a rabid assault on a President they can not abide by, and fails, it just means that they will re-group and try another tact until they get what they want, be it in the press, public opinion, courts, or mob violence.  History is full of this.  Traditions get ignored, laws and rules get watered down.  Chaos is always close behind.

How does a law get watered down?  Well, when it applies to one, but not another individual in society.  Usually predicated on that person's position in society.  Examples you say?  How about Roger Stone?  This guy goes to jail, likely for the rest of his natural lifetime, because he was caught in a procedural lie that had absolutely nothing to do with the case against the President simply because he was an ally of the President.  The ex-CIA Director, a fellow named Brennan, sits down in front of Congress, is placed under Oath to tell the whole truth, and then proceeds to tell one lie after another as documented in the Inspector General's report.  Straight up lied.  No apologies or nuance, just flat out lied.  I have to note that the man is not only free this day, but completely un-indited for his lies.  In fact, the man is making money from CNN as a consultant and contributor.  Apparently, Mr. Brennan's position in society permits him to lie to Congress and get away with it, while Mr. Stone goes to jail for giving a different answer to question #38 that was asked several different ways over several different interviews.  I guess that is how it works in today's America.

Does Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi et. al. really understand what they are wreaking upon our Federal Republic?  The precedent they are unlocking?  This is a double edged sword here.  What happens if another President as unpalatable to many Americans such as Obama gets elected in the future?  Is the other side going to sit back and say, "Oh, we'll get another shot in 4-8 years, we will have to work on our message and outreach." Or will they look to what is happening now, analyze its failures and then make another attempt to unseat a duly elected President with a flippant, translucent body of evidence?  Worse yet, what if the so-called, "Deep State" dispenses with the window dressing of the Constitution and simply over-turns, in broad daylight, the will of the people and simply raises their own Emperor to the purple?

Can't happen you think?  Probably not today.  Maybe not tomorrow, but who knows when.  When enough laws get watered down, enough traditions get eroded away and the will of the people snuffs out, what then?  How long before this illusion of choice gets wiped away?  Sooner or later, someone will come along and simply say it means what they say it says and to believe otherwise gets you censured, banished, or killed.

Any changes to tradition or law must be made within a common framework, duly deliberated and executed according to a standard set of rules...let's call it the Constitution.  Once someone decides to "deconstruct" the "intent" of the Framers, then that someone (or group) has set our feet firmly upon the path to political dissolution.  Full stop.

Try to live well in these trying times.  We live in a momentous era in this country, and I know not what it will look like in 20 years time.

Zavost