Today, Monday, I'll be back behind the Golden EIB Microphone for three hours of substitute-host-level Excellence In Broadcasting on America's Number One radio show beginning at 12 noon Eastern/9am Pacific. I'll do my best to keep the Attila the Hun chair warm, and hope you'll want to dial us up either via the iHeart Radio app or on one of over 600 stations across the fruited plain, such as our old friends at WNTK New Hampshire, where you can listen to the full show from anywhere on the planet right here.
~Also today, the "most diverse impeachment team in history" will be delivering its sole Reimpeachment Article of Donald J Trump to the United States Senate in preparation for next month's trial. That is unprecedented for a guy who's been un-presidented, and we will cover it on what promises to be the first day of a busy news week. On that very subject, brand new Mark Steyn Club member Christine Martin (and we're very happy to have her) writes:
Hello, Mark. I'm new to the club and so excited to be here. You are not only my favorite in every aspect for political punditry but also my favorite source for books, poems, music, and movies. As Anne would say, we're kindred spirits.
I have a question if you'll permit me regarding Trump's current impeachment. Could you please explain to me how he is guilty of inciting violence on Jan. 6th..?
I've been a very faithful reader and listener of SteynOnline, but I'm still having trouble understanding on what legal grounds Trump is being held responsible for the riots. Surely it can't just be because orange man bad. And has anyone ever explained exactly how he incited the rioters?
I'll have more to say about this on Rush, but the nub of it is this:
No prosecutor anywhere in the Common Law world - including even in the depraved perversion of it prevalent in DC and the US federal courts - would have a hope of securing a criminal conviction for incitement based on what Trump has said, and none of them would even bother bringing a case.
But impeachment - or in this case a unique "reimpeachment" - is a purely political act, and the political wing of the state can impeach over anything: Back when he was still permitted to Tweet, Trump would often end his sallies with "Sad!" If Nancy Pelosi believes that that is making large numbers of Americans sad and sadder, she can if she wishes impeach him for that.
This is a very American trajectory: a check and balance the Founders created for specific purposes metastasizes in the hands of opportunists into whatever they want. That's why Madam Pelosi is now responsible for half the presidential impeachments of the last two-and-a-half centuries.
We were told over the weekend that John Roberts will not preside over the Reimpeachment because the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside only over the impeachment trial of "the President" - and Trump is no longer "the President". On the other hand, if anyone brings a case before Roberts' court on whether a guy who is no longer "the President" can be convicted under the presidential impeachment provision, Roberts will shrug and defer to the geniuses of Congress on the grounds that impeachment is a non-justiciable "political question". We are in the realm of higher bollocks here.
~Speaking of which, there have been a couple of developments in climate mullah Michael E Mann's eight-year vanity lawsuit against me over his phoney-baloney "hockey stick":
The first development is that we are now on our fourth trial judge in the DC Superior Court: His Honor Alfred S Irving. The first two judges retired, and the third, who seemed anxious to get on with wrapping this thing up, was suddenly transferred to "domestic violence". If this case ever does go to trial, it won't be for years, because Covid has closed the courthouses and, when they re-open, the backlog of murders and rapes and violent assaults will take priority and Mann's suit will be way back down the end of the line.
As to the second development, my eminent compatriot Stephen McIntyre summarizes it thus:
Mark Steyn has filed an eviscerating and well-informed Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann vanity libel suit.
Steve rather enjoyed this bit:
Rubbing salt in the open sore, brief says: 'while Mann claims he was defamed by Steyn's linking him with the Sandusky case, in his just-published book The New Climate War, Mann thanks one of the convicted criminals in the Sandusky case.' Ouch.
You can read the motion in full here - and the statement of "undisputed material facts" here.
~It was a busy weekend at SteynOnline. The weekend edition of The Mark Steyn Show offered my thoughts on the alleged American "inauguration" and on the downfall of Canada's viceroy, and some reflections on the differences between the US and Westminster systems. I also chipped in with a bloodcurdling poem from Robert Browning, a few words on the loss of republican virtue, and a brand new edition of The Hundred Years Ago Show. Our Saturday movie date presented a reprise of our late friend Kathy Shaidle's splendid column on Jerry Lewis in The King of Comedy, and my Sunday song selection, just for Australia Day, was "Down Under". Our marquee presentation was the continuation of our latest Tale for Our Time - George Orwell's too timely tale Nineteen Eighty-Four: You can find Part Thirteen here, Part Fourteen here and Part Fifteen here - or go straight for one big binge-listen. Check back right here this evening for our latest episode.
If you were too busy filing articles of re-reimpeachment all weekend long, I hope you'll want to check out one or three of the foregoing as a new week gets going.
Tales for Our Time is made with the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club. You can find more details about our Club here - and we also have a gift membership.
See you on the radio at noon US Eastern - and do give me a call.
Comment on this item (members only)
Viewing and submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here: