March 08, 2024 01:57 PM UTC

House Republicans Tried to Impeach Griswold; They Had NO Talking Points

• 5 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

As we noted on Thursday, House Republicans made a lame attempt to convince House Speaker Julie McCluskie to allow them to waste yet more of the legislature’s time by attempting to discuss impeachment proceedings for Secretary of State Jena Griswold. Republicans love to publicly attack Griswold because it makes their election fraud-obsessed MAGA base all tingly inside, but this particular effort was dumber than most.

In a very silly letter presented by Rep. Ryan Armagost [Griswold Impeachment Letter] and signed by 17 of the 19 members of the GOP micro-minority caucus (not included were Reps. Rod Bockenfield and Stephanie Luck, presumably because they are both out of the Capitol for personal medical reasons), Republicans demanded that McCluskie allow them to blabber on the House Floor about impeaching Griswold for her “role” in the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump should be kept off of the 2024 ballot in Colorado on account of leading an insurrection in breach of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, however, Griswold’s only actual role was having the audacity to simply exist at the same time that a bunch of other people — many of them Republicans — were pushing a lawsuit to make Trump ineligible for the ballot; the case that was ultimately decided on Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court had nothing at all to do with Griswold.

To nobody’s surprise, McCluskie refused to allow Republicans to waste another day of the 120-day legislative session on another pointless quest. In a statement, McCluskie called the resolution “an unwarranted waste of time” and accused House Republicans of bowing “to the most extreme fringes of their party simply because the Secretary of the State did her job.”

Said McCluskie: “Donald Trump is the problem, not the secretary [of state].”

Unfortunately for House Republicans, this was not quite the end of the story. Kyle Clark of 9News went to the State Capitol to speak with Rep. Armagost about his impeachment demands. The ill-prepared and sweaty Armagost had his ass absolutely handed to him by Clark…but really just by basic logic as well. Let’s watch together and parse out the comments that follow…

[All emphasis is Colorado Pols]

CLARK: You’re one of the leaders of this impeachment effort against Secretary of State Jena Griswold for ‘high crimes, or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office.’ So, what has the Secretary done that qualifies as ‘high crimes, or misdemeanors, or malfeasance’?

ARMAGOST: Well, since she’s been elected, she’s been very vocal about her opinion on partisan politics, both in a public nature and in a professional nature. With that, it has become very apparent that she has very personal feelings toward President Trump and she has very personal feelings toward the Republican Party. She is an elected partisan official, so she does have a partisan role to play, but in a situation where she is trying to prove free and fair elections in Colorado, she’s undermining that position by taking partisan positions on anything that she is speaking on, especially pertaining to the elections.

The word of the day is…PARTISAN! It’s never good to contradict yourself right off the bat: Griswold “does have a partisan role to play” but she is bad because she is “taking partisan positions”? Uh, okay.

It quickly becomes clear that Armagost’s talking points wouldn’t even fit on a post-it note:

CLARK: Colorado has certainly had some very partisan secretaries of state in the past, including Scott Gessler, who was once secretary of state as a Republican and then was Trump’s attorney in the Colorado case. You are impeaching her over the fact that she is a partisan official who is in office…isn’t that just how the system is set up to work in Colorado?

ARMAGOST: I’d say that’s part of the reason. I think the biggest reason behind this is that she’s used her personal feelings and accusations to have a candidate removed from the Primary Ballot…

CLARK: Did she have him removed from the Primary Ballot?

ARMAGOST: No, but she was behind the effort that went through the Colorado Supreme Court and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was ruled down.

Armagost is accusing Griswold of trying to remove Trump from the ballot and simultaneously agreeing that Griswold did not do anything to remove Trump from the ballot. Got it!

CLARK: So, in actuality, there were Republicans and there were Unaffiliated voters who were anti-Trump who sued to get Trump off of the ballot. She was the one who was being sued, and then she complied with the court order. What did she do in there that warrants impeachment for high crimes, or misdemeanors, or malfeasance’?

ARMAGOST: Using her public and professional position to push that forward and promote it on a daily basis.

CLARK: And by ‘pushing it forward,’ did she do something beyond just stating her opinion when she was asked for it by journalists?

ARMAGOST: Yes. She appeared in Supreme Court hearings. She appeared with her personal and professional opinions about Donald Trump.

CLARK: And is there something in Colorado law that you believe prevents her from doing that?

ARMAGOST: No. Just…in her professional role, she violated that…the essence of violating free and fair elections for the people of Colorado. 

Did Griswold violate some sort of law?

Well, no.

Alright, going great!

CLARK: Walk me through that. What did she violate, and how?

ARMAGOST: In the effort to get Donald Trump off the ballot.

CLARK: But…what did she violate? She violated a rule? She violated your feelings? What did she violate?

ARMAGOST: I think she violated the faith of the voters in Colorado, and my constituents particularly.

CLARK: So, she was sued by some people who wanted Trump off of the ballot. A court ordered her to take Trump off the ballot; she complied. The U.S. Supreme Court said, ‘Nope, Trump stays on the ballot.’ She said, ‘I’ll comply.’ Again, what did she do that is worthy of impeachment in that whole entire situation?

ARMAGOST: I can’t refer to the articles off-hand, but they are in the actual articles of impeachment that we filed. Those are currently being held in the OLLS (Office of Legislative Legal Services) but I don’t currently have those on me to refer to.

Q: What did Griswold do that was worthy of impeachment?

A: She did a thing.

Q: What thing?

A: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Really: This is going very great! Keep going!

At this point, Clark asks if Armagost is alleging that Griswold committed either a ‘high crime’ or a ‘misdemeanor’ while in office. Armagost answers ‘NO’ to both questions.

CLARK: So therefore what you are alleging is malfeasance for her stating her feelings about a court case.

ARMAGOST: Yes. Essentially, dereliction of her duty.

CLARK: [visibly confused now] Okay.

 Is…is ‘feelings’ a ground for impeachment.

ARMAGOST: No. Absolutely not.

CLARK: Okay.

Clark continues to ask Armagost for WHAT SPECIFICALLY REPUBLICANS ARE ALLEGING THAT GRISWOLD DID WRONG. Armagost cannot answer this question.

Finally, after much sweating and stammering, Armagost admits the real truth:

ARMAGOST: I think, more or less, this is a matter of sending a message. We know as a super minority here in the legislature, there is no way we are going to get articles of impeachment through the House. The fact of the matter is that we have to show our voters that this is not going to allow to be a precedence [sic]. We’re going to stop this in its tracks, and then we can move forward…

Ruh-roh. Clark smells blood in the water!

CLARK: Let me pose a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ question: That person might say, ‘there is absolutely no grounds for impeachment, that you all just need something to show for the fact that you are up here, taking [a loss] day after day after day, because you have a super minority and can’t really do anything.’ And this is something that you can just throw to your base and say, ‘Look! We tried to impeach Secretary Griswold and it failed.’

ARMAGOST: I don’t think that’s true. In the opposite of that…

Armagost tries to explain that they would take the same impeachment approach if they were in the House Majority, but then he immediately decides to affirm the idea that this is all political theater for the Republican base.

ARMAGOST: …This is something that we can say, ‘We’re doing this,’ even though it might not be successful in the House. Our constituents can see: We…we…we did it…but we can’t do anything based on being in the super minority. That can also hopefully help us in the next election cycle.

CLARK: [Clark pauses with a quizzical look on his face, then continues…]

Wait, you didn’t just say you were impeaching her because it will help you in the next election cycle?

ARMAGOST: No…

[We need to intervene here quickly. Armagost says ‘NO,’ but then everything he says next says ‘YES.’]

 …I think this will get more people to come to vote, so that we can get more people voting for what they think is right…knowing that they have people standing up in office for them, and they need to get more people standing up in office for them.

And here, as the French would say, is the pièce de résistance:

Clark is a seasoned journalist who is good at his job, but these were all questions that are pretty straightforward and obvious things to ask. Any reporter could have asked these questions; apparently only Clark actually did. And look at the gem of a news clip that came out of it.

Finally, because the irony is too good to ignore:

CLARK: Representative Armagost, [is there] anything else pertaining to this issue that you would like to have touched on that we didn’t?

ARMAGOST: Not that I can think of. 

Annndddd….SCENE!