Borglum pens op/ed poking at federal delegation over impeachment. But two of them possibly jurors, and the other has been opposed.

US Senate Candidate Scyller Borglum has an op/ed in the Rapid City Journal today going after Republican Senators John Thune & her opponent Mike Rounds alike, as well as Congressman Dusty Johnson for not opposing impeachment strongly enough:

Our delegation has been silent except for carefully deployed and maddening legalese designed to insulate them against possible future blow back. Our delegation has had ample time to carve out a position on impeachment. They do not have to like Mr. Trump, but they should be incensed about Pelosi/Schiff’s farcical clown show, in the words of a prominent Nebraska senator.

Two groups stand to benefit from an impeachment inquiry: leftist Democrats and socialists up for election, and establishment Republicans, also up for election, trying to avoid offending anyone. I am offended … by their collective silence.

Read that here.

Borglum claims they’ve been largely silent in the Dem’s impeachment inquiry.

But… I don’t know that I’d agree.

Sen. Mike Rounds and Gov. Kristi Noem both say Democrats have long sought to remove Trump, and that Congress has bigger issues to worry about.

Sen. John Thune echoed those sentiments, but added that we do not have all the information needed to make an informed conclusion, stating “I believe we should let the facts lead where they lead.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson said he is glad Trump plans to release the transcript of the call. A spokesperson for Johnson’s office also noted Johnson previously went on record with the New York Times, saying he opposed impeachment.

Sen. Mike Rounds’ full statement:

““Democrats have been intent on impeaching the president since day one, so their announcement is no surprise. I wish they would spend this much energy on improving the lives of South Dakotans, such as passing the USMCA, getting our fiscal house in order and reducing burdensome regulations.”

Read that here.

Keep in mind that Rounds and Thune have weighed in as much as they probably dare..

…because they’re part of the body that would sit as the jury in such matters. And I don’t know that I hear a voice one way or the other from many of the potential jurors.  Because in real-life non-political scenarios, noting that you have a preconceived opinion gets you kicked off the jury.

Meanwhile, not being part of body that has to sit in judgement (if Democrats ever do vote to bring it forward), Congressman Dusty Johnson has been vocal on it, as noted in Johnson’s floor speech yesterdayNew York Times impeachment tracker where Johnson was marked as opposed since July, Dusty’s vote to table Articles of Impeachment against Trump also in July, etc.

What do you think?

14 thoughts on “Borglum pens op/ed poking at federal delegation over impeachment. But two of them possibly jurors, and the other has been opposed.”

  1. I can think of at least 4 Democrat Senators who also will be seated as jurors who have expressed support for impeachment. I would think if they can express support for impeachment, it is OK for our Senate delegation to express their lack of support for impeachment. In fact, I would like to see our Congressional delegation speak a lot more forcefully in support of our President.

    1. Borglums twitter rants (before she deleted her account) were full of sorted democrat and anti trump propaganda. She falls flat with this.

      Future candidates scrub your social media, or at least your own contradictions, before you announce for office.

  2. She was against Trump before she supported him. The editorial looks like another hit piece written by her Texas consultant Jim McIntosh. Her rhetoric is conservative, but the problem is that her voting record is one of the most liberal in the legislature. Talk is cheap, her votes show her true colors.

  3. Borglum is widely perceived as disingenuous and untrustworthy. Her US Senate Candidate FEC Report showing just 10.2k raised is but one reflection of that.

    Another reflection will come during the 2020 legislative session. Watch how effective she is; watch how many legislators work work her; watch how often she ends up on the losing side of a vote.

    I suspect she will be as effective as a Democrat, because that’s how many Republican legislators view her.

    To get anything done in Pierre requires teamwork and trust. Borglum has neither.

  4. This whole campaign is a fiasco. A year ago Skyller was seen as a rising star. Now she’s secured her place in SD history – as a cautionary tale!

  5. The funny thing is that just under her column on the same page were three letters to the editor bashing the same three guys for not speaking up against Trump.

    All three are smart for not getting too far out on the limb either way. More info comes out daily on each side and who knows what more is out there. No sense being a blind lemming like Borglum.

    Who would have thought it’s such a novel idea now to wait for all the facts to come out.

    1. I agree with above. What we know so far is not impeachable but things change and unless they do, keep working because the democrats certainly aren’t. Trump is not a king and there doesn’t need to be daily declarations of loyalty.
      She quite possibly is running the worst campaign in SD history and there have been some bad ones!

      1. Say that line again about Trump not being a king and the declarations of loyalty for those in the cheap seats.

  6. Obviously Rounds is a far right extremist not to understand the grave issue before the American people by Donald Trump’s behavior and supports Trump to get re-elected by his extremist South Dakota voting block.

    Yes Mike, the Democrats have been after Trump since day one and by his behavior can you blame them or the media. Trump spends more time on Twitter and the golf course than actually working and the stupendous things he says makes learned Americans cringe with laughter and then subliminal worry as he tears down the fabric of our Constitution and acts like a third world dictator.

    Rounds is a quintessential career politician with little to no background on the issues he comments on and if he defends Trump over his considerably bad lies, criminal acts against our Constitution, and his demeanor than he also has no right to be called a statesman. I would suggest Rounds, with his political science degree, to learn about the issues of the day like trade and foreign relations, issues relating to the skeptical science of climate change, and general U.S. history if he wants to be a relative statesman representing South Dakota rather than serving only to collect his paycheck from the taxpayers.

    Maybe Mike, if Trump would keep his mouth shut and stay off of Twitter and take advice from his advisors this all wouldn’t be happening.

Comments are closed.