The Daly Weekly (5/9)

John Fetterman's health, restitution for Ashli Babbitt, and Uncle Tim?

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw at me.

Let’s get right to it…

---

John, Trump has been impeached twice by the House, and Bernie says it’s likely it happens a third time if the House goes Dem in 2026. Did Biden’s handling of the Border raise to the level of an impeachable offense? If so, why didn’t it happen? 10 million illegals entered our country. The GOP controlled the House the last two years. Am I missing something here? You and Bernie do a great job!!! Keep calling balls and strikes! — Rob O.

Hi Rob. Thanks for the compliments.

It’s Congress who ultimately decides whether an abuse of power is “impeachable,” since it’s up to their discretion. But if you’re asking me what I would consider impeachable, let me start by saying (as I did at the time) that I wouldn’t have impeached Trump over the “perfect phone call.” It was indeed an abuse of power, and there was a case to be made for that measure, but I wouldn’t have brought impeachment charges over it. I, however, entirely supported Trump’s second impeachment (as I would have for any president who did the things he did in his last two months in office). I would not have impeached Biden for the border chaos, since I think it had more to do with negligence than an abuse. I might have, however, supported impeachment for Biden’s preemptive pardons for his family. But there seemed to be no congressional appetite for that.

At a recent speech by the conservative commentator Michael Knowles at the University of Pittsburgh, a protestor was asked if free speech was dead. Her response was interesting: "He is speaking right now. We are not shutting him down. Hopefully, we can drown him out." Which begs the question, "Does freedom of speech include the freedom to be heard?" I say yes. Sort of like the difference between boycott and cancellation. Boycott says, "I will not participate." Cancellation says, "I will make sure no one can participate." What say you? Does freedom of speech include the freedom to be heard? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. First, I’d push back on the idea that Knowles is a conservative (I’m familiar with his views), but I understand that’s not your point.

I think, in situations like this, it’s good to separate free speech from First Amendment rights (though there’s obviously a lot of overlap). When a speaker is shouted down, he or she is not being denied of his or her First Amendment rights. But those doing the disrupting are consciously stifling free speech. They basically don’t want someone they disagree with to be heard by others, even on a platform that isn’t theirs.

I think that last part is an important distinction; I don’t view disallowing someone from speaking on your platform as an assault on free speech. I don’t think anyone is owed someone else’s private platform from which to speak their mind. (That wasn’t the situation with Knowles, of course.)

What do you make of Trump’s DOJ paying Ashli Babbitt’s family millions of dollars in “restitution” using taxpayer’s money? — Ben G.

I’m glad someone asked about this, Ben, because I was thinking about writing a column on this topic this week, but life got in the way.

By any objective measure (and even by the estimation of Ted Cruz and other Republican lawmakers at the time), Ashli Babbitt was a domestic terrorist. I don’t think that can be fairly said about everyone who participated in the Jan. 6 attack, but it certainly applies to her. It apparently wasn’t enough for Trump to rehabilitate such people as “patriots”, and even go as far as pardoning them for the violent crimes they committed on January 6. Now his Justice Department is using your and my tax dollars to pay restitution to their families.

I certainly have sympathy for her Babbitt’s family, but Ashli died from a lawful and justified police shooting, because of her own actions. It’s gross and terrible precedent that our government is awarding her family money over it. If individual Americans want to send the family money, they can do so privately. Our government accepting liability, and paying restitution for her death, is disgraceful.

What do you think of the recent Intelligencer article on the mental struggles of John Fetterman? Personally I find it credible but the "we are shocked, SHOCKED" pearl clutching by the Left and recent clamors for him to resign, to be ridiculous. Somehow, I doubt this would be happening if Fetterman was still a reliable progressive vote and was constantly criticizing Israel instead of vocally supporting the country. For it's not like that article was the first time that anyone reported on this issue of Fetterman's mental capacity. It's just that as long as Fetterman was seen as a Team Player, anyone raising the issue was castigated as an "ableist" by some of the very same leftists who have turned on him now. Am I being too cynical here? - Aylene W.

I haven’t gotten around to reading the piece, Aylene, but I know the gist of it. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that Fetterman would be struggling mentally (and physically) behind the scenes. He went through a very serious health episode during the election, and some readers may remember that I called, at the time, for his campaign to publicly release his medical records. I thought voters had a right to know, because a candidate’s health matters… as does an elected leader’s.

You’re right that politics have played a big part in how people have reacted to Fetterman. During the campaign, all that mattered to a lot of Democrats was the Senate seat, so they ran interference for Fetterman’s struggles. Fetterman won the seat and took office. And now that he’s turned out to be a thorn in the Democrats’ sides on certain issues, they seem much more concerned about his health. So no, I don’t think you’re being too cynical, Aylene.

Why is Donald Trump floating trial balloons as policy/executive orders with the basis they are probably illegal in the first place? Is he just testing the courts on what he can ultimately get away with and trying anything on in the hope he runs out the clock on a legal decision being made? Why is he mocking Catholics with his Pope meme? Is he actively trying to insult some of his voter base? Because he seems to be doing a good job at getting people offside in his first 100 days. — FDM

It should shock no one, at this point, to learn that Donald Trump doesn’t particularly care about the U.S. Constitution or rule of law (at least so much as they apply to him). And yes, as an autocrat at heart, he’s testing to see what all he can get away with. He thinks, as president, he should be calling all the shots. The Constitution says otherwise.

As for your point about religion, I’ve seen no compelling evidence over the last ten years that Trump is a person of faith, or that he even understands what religious faith is. So for him, mocking it (if he even realizes he’s doing it) is no big deal, especially since millions of religious Americans have exempted him from their faith-based moral standards.

I saw your “X” post on actor Tim Daly. Is he really your uncle??? — Alex D.

Ha! No, that was a joke. To my knowledge, I have no celebrity relatives.

Greetings Sir John: I realize that this is brief, but I want your opinions on the Go Fund Me Campaigns for Carmelo Anthony, Shiloh Hendrix, and Rodney Hinton Jr. If I stabbed and murdered a teenager who told me that I needed to move to another tent. Or if I used a racial slur against. 5-year-old autistic child who stole something from me, or if I ran over a random retired cop because a different cop shot my gun-toting son who was trying to grab his firearm he dropped while trying to run out of a stolen vehicle, would I be able to get random strangers to raise a half million dollars for ME!? — “Go Fund Me & My Empire” regards from The Emperor.

Frankly, Emperor, I haven’t followed any of these stories. Sorry. I’ll just say that as someone who opposes racism, running people over, and murder, I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would donate money to any such person. But there are others that would do so, and have done so.

I think there are a lot of sick causes, and sick people, who receive undue sympathy and support from elements of society. And it’s certainly not just coming from one side of the aisle.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.