THE AGE OF RAGE

THE AGE OF RAGE

You can learn a lot on Facebook.

In the past month, for example, I have learned that I am "ugly", "ridiculous"  and have "half a brain".  I have previously been told to "get a life" or "a grip" and to "stop hating".  Generous souls have surrounded their insults with "prayers" for me.  The not so generous wonder what "rock" I have crawled out from . . . or under . . . or behind.

Welcome to the Age of Rage.

In these tantrums of ostensible analysis, I have noticed certain . . . aah . . . flaws in my interlocutors.

For one, they have trouble spelling.  For another, though they profess expertise on subjects far and wide, they often opine on subjects on which I myself -- half brained though I am -- have some expertise. 

Yesterday, for example, I was sent a post that said "Democrats are not trying to 'overthrow Trump.' They are trying to overthrow the American voter -- the will of the people."

I innocuously responded with "Certainly not the will of all or even a plurality of the people. And impeachment is in the Constitution, just like the Electoral College Trump voters love."  

All these statements are facts.  

Trump did not win the popular vote.  And the Constitution, in Article Two, Section 4, expressly states that "The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This did not go over well with at least one Trump supporter.

Which is how I met . . . 

Gwen . . .

From Florida.

Giving up on the whole "will of the people" claim,  Gwen told me that a President "actually need[s] to commit a crime to be impeached." 

I responded that this was "not true." 

Because it isn't.

This was then Lol-ed.

Which is Facebook-speak for "laughing out loud". 

When someone on Facebook says they are laughing out loud, it is often at you, not with you.  

In this case, there was no ambiguity.  Gwen's "Lol" was followed by "Sooooooooo, what are the grounds then?????" "Hurt feelings or did he offend you???????"  Then another  "Lol".

Wow, I thought,  that's a lot of question marks . . . and nine o's in the word "So", all  apparently missed by auto-correct.  

The laughing out loud must have been catatonic

But hey, said I to me, I'll play.

And soldiered on.

I am a lawyer.  I explained to Gwen that one of the Constitution's grounds for impeachment --  "high crimes and misdemeanors"  -- was lifted from English practice by the Founders and that, while certainly including criminal conduct as a possible ground, it was also meant to include other conduct deemed seriously disqualifying in the eyes of members of the House of Representatives regardless of the conduct's status in criminal law.  I further explained that, while "hurt feelings" would obviously not count, obstructing an investigation into foreign interference in an election would.

In England, the phrase had covered impeachments for non-criminal abuses of authority, including the failure to honor one's oath of office. James Madison thought the impeachment clause as a whole would protect against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." Benjamin Franklin thought it necessary when the President "rendered himself obnoxious."  None of the Founders limited impeachment to criminal conduct alone.

This did not go over well with Gwen.

She did not contest my analysis or offer up an alternative view of the history of the clause. 

She did, however, refer to "Hillary",  her missing emails,  and  the "LAME stream media". 

She claimed Robert Mueller had found "NO CRIME".  

And she told me I was "ugly". 

Her exact words were "your hatred for our President is very ugly on you". 

I couldn't quite decide what she meant. 

Was "hatred" an ill-fitting coat?  And how had I put it "on"?  By taking Mueller at his word when he said he was not exonerating the President for obstruction of justice? By ascribing to the Founders what the Founders actually meant when they made "high crimes and misdemeanors" one of the  grounds for impeachment ? By merely repeating what I had been taught in law school?

Oh well . . .

No worries.

Help was on the way.

In the form of Andy . . .

From California.

Who decided to weigh in.

Andy said that "my" view of the Founders' position was "ridiculous".  He "doubted" I had even gone to law school.  When  I named my Alma Mater,  he claimed I was bragging because I felt "inadequate".

Things did not improve.

He noted -- repeatedly -- that the word "crimes" was actually in the impeachment clause.  

I agreed.

He said that I  could look it up.

I already had.  

I thought this -- the looking up part, that is -- should have been obvious to Andy in that I had quoted the clause in my discussion with Gwen.

But, whatever, I guess people get confused in the heat of intense Facebooking.

As with Gwen, Andy did not offer his own analysis of the English practice or what the Founders had meant in embracing it. Instead, he asserted  that crimes "mean a crime" and reminded me that "hurt feelings" didn't count.  

Helpfully, Andy explained that I could take up all of my "hurt feelings" with a "psychologist". Perhaps to help my shrink,  he also asked me to fill out a form called a "Butthurt Report", which he thankfully photographed and added to his comment.   According to what it says, this form is filled out by "idiot[s]",  "crybab[ies]", the "thin-skinned", and those who "want [their] mommy" or feel "picked on".

I guess it lets the psychologists in on what they are dealing with.

Anyway, Andy found all of this funny.  He finished his diatribe with "LMAO".  This is Facebook-speak for "Laughing my ass off."

Andy is fixated on assholes.  Unlike  the Founding Fathers . . .

He doesn't  think they're impeachable.