April 09, 2024 11:49 AM UTC

Utter Nonsense: Your Guide to Today's Griswold Impeachment Hearing

• 28 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

As part of their long-running efforts to prove that they are absolutely not serious people interested in useful discussions about anything, House Republicans will today waste a few hours of everyone’s time in a pointless quest to impeach Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

What for? Let’s dig in…

When and Where Will this Circus Take Place?

The House Judiciary Committee will convene at 1:30 pm today in the Old State Library to hear discussion on HR24-1006. Democrats and Republicans will each be able to call five witnesses to testify. Griswold will also be allowed to speak for herself.

Republicans such as State Party Chairman Dave Williams and State Rep. Ken “Skin” DeGraaf keep calling on their supporters to show up at the hearing to testify. They are either uninformed about how this will work or they simply don’t care.

Either way, random people showing up at the hearing will NOT be allowed to testify for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. Given the fact that the Republican micro-minority in the State House has not yet come up with a coherent reason for why Griswold should be impeached, it would be pointless to allow other people to waste time voicing their own batshit crazy conspiracy theories.

Okay, So What IS the Republican Case for Impeachment?

Basically, House Republicans think Griswold is mean on social media and is too partisan for a job that is always decided via a partisan election.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Quentin Young of Colorado Newsline has a great thread on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that digs deep into the silliness ahead this afternoon.

You can read the entire impeachment resolution HERE, but we’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version: Essentially, Republicans say that Griswold committed “high crimes or misdemeanors or malfeasance in office” because she said publicly she agreed with a Colorado Supreme Court ruling ORDERING HER to (temporarily) remove Donald J. Trump from the Republican Primary ballot on Super Tuesday:

It is very important to note that Griswold herself PLAYED NO ROLE in deciding whether or not Trump should be removed from the Colorado ballot — a decision ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The name of this case is Anderson v. Griswold, with GRISWOLD being named as a defendant because of her position as Secretary of State (SOS). The Colorado Supreme Court told Griswold to remove Trump from the ballot, so she complied. When the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that decision and told Griswold to put Trump’s name back on the ballot…she complied.

In other words, House Republicans are trying to impeach Griswold for voicing an opinion about a court ruling in a public setting. As anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of American democracy can tell you, “voicing an opinion” is a right that is guaranteed by the literal First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Also important: TRUMP’S NAME APPEARED ON THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT IN COLORADO. In fact, Trump won the Republican nomination for President here. At the end of the day, nothing that Griswold did or said changed that outcome.

Were There Actual “High Crimes, Misdemeanors, or Malfeasance” Committed by Griswold?

High crimes? Nope.

Misdemeanors? Nada.

Malfeasance? Probably not. This is a maddeningly-vague and repetitive term for something as important as impeachment. Merriam-Webster defines “malfeasance” as “wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official.” The accusation of “malfeasance” is more or less in the eye of the beholder.

So What is This ACTUALLY About, Then?

State Rep. Ryan Armagost, who is the prime sponsor of this resolution along with House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, gave away the game in an interview with Kyle Clark of 9News in late March. During the course of a 10-minute interview at the State Capitol, Armagost was unable to come up with any serious rationale for impeaching Griswold before finally admitting that this whole charade is a political stunt meant to rile up the MAGA base for Republicans:

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.

That response led to this amazing back-and-forth:

Here are some of the other problems with Armagost’s rationale for impeaching Griswold:

CLARK: Did [Griswold] have [Trump] 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.

Griswold is not a member of the Colorado Supreme Court and WAS THE DEFENDANT in this case. Regardless, note that Armagost freely admitted that Griswold DID NOT remove Trump from the ballot.

Armagost also admitted that there is no actual law that Griswold violated in discussing the outcome of the Colorado Supreme Court decision:

ARMAGOST: 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.

Eventually, Clark even got Armagost to acknowledge that Griswold just makes Republicans sad:

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.

Okay.

What Else Should I Watch For Today?

There are a number of reasons why House Republicans may quickly come to regret this decision to pursue impeachment for no good reason:

• Insurrection
  Republicans are likely going to have to answer questions about whether or not Trump was responsible for leading the Jan. 6 insurrection. Colorado courts ruled that Trump incited an insurrection, and even the conservative U.S. Supreme Court refused to say that Trump did not incite an insurrection. Arguing otherwise is a fool’s errand at this point.
• Election Fraud
  Was the 2020 election legitimate? Republicans who are pushing this impeachment hearing for the MAGA base will probably be stuck defending Trump on the question of leading an insurrection and on whether or not they believe the 2020 Presidential election was legitimate. These are not things that smart Republicans should be talking about in an election year.
• Can House Republicans Maintain Decorum?
  With Republicans inviting people to come testify — which, again, is not allowed — today’s hearing could be overrun with angry MAGA trolls who create a scene that just ends up making the GOP micro-minority look even more impotent. State Party Chair Dave Williams is trying to rile people up and the State GOP is reposting this:
• Bad Timing for Gabe-ish Evans
  State Rep. Gabe-ish Evans is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which means he’s going to have to say some things on the record that probably won’t help his effort to win a congressional race in CO-08. Evans has to get through a Republican Primary (against former Republican Rep. Janak Joshi) before he can earn the right to take on incumbent Democrat Yadira Caraveo in November. The things he might feel compelled to say today could help him beat Joshi but will likely prove YUGELY problematic when trying to pivot to a General Election audience. And remember: Evans has had to say several times recently that he fully supports Trump for President in 2024.

Will Jena Griswold Actually Be Impeached?

No.

We’ll let Marshall Zelinger of 9News explain:

What is the Best-Case Scenario for Republicans Today?

That, dear readers, is one question we cannot answer.