The notion of an impeachment as a legislative proceeding to address malfeasance by a public official, has been around since 1376 when the Good Parliament (or the English Parliament of 1376) initiated the first known case. More recently, modernity has witnessed an increased exercise of these constitutional mechanisms to remove offenders of the sovereign’s trust. Some regions have witnessed greater activism then others.
Ignacio Arana Araya, a Chilean political scientist writing in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs who defends the legislative process in contending with public misconduct, noted that in Latin America between 1978 and 2019, ten presidents from six countries have been removed from office through impeachments, declarations of incapacitation, or resignations attributed to the impeachment process. The United States, spanning a longer historical time frame, has had far fewer instances of the use of these constitutional devices to get rid of presidents suspected or considered to have carried out wrongdoing. There has been a good reason for this.
In the United States, the threshold for charges by the House of Representatives against a President are “Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The first two are more easily identifiable and provable, if and when they are committed. The latter is profusely more elastic and subject to interpretation and subjective rendition of the understanding of what could or should constitute a “high crime” and/or a “misdemeanor”. Hence, the American political class, as evidenced by history, has displayed enormous prudence in utilizing impeachments for presidential extrication from power. The presidency and figure of Donald J. Trump appears to have changed the solemn seriousness which has guided political temperance in Washington.
Impeachment was structured as a serious and civilized way to combat treason, political corruption, or gross dereliction of duty by a nation’s chief executive in a democracy. It was never designed to negate the popular will, present or future, or become a weaponization tool against political adversaries. Yet, this is exactly what has happened in the Democrat’s war against Trump since 2016 (actually, even before in 2015).
The charges brought up against Trump in his first impeachment in 2019 were “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”. What triggered this action by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives against the 45th president, evolved around a telephone conversation with the Ukrainian president where Trump allegedly sought assistance to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
Trump was comfortably acquitted by the Senate. The most egregious thing about this whole episode was that President Joe Biden, then acting as Barack Obama’s Vice President, committed an evident case of political corruption and abuse of power that equated to extortion. During a televised program of the Council of Foreign Relations, Biden bragged about threatening to withhold U. S. taxpayer assistance funds, if the Ukrainian authorities did not fire the country’s General Prosecutor who was investigating corruption, which included Burisma, the firm related to Hunter Biden, the now-President’s son.
Trump’s second impeachment charges were riddled, as well, with draconian follies and could only be explained through the lens of an unethical character assassination attempt and the political suppression of the conservative electorate. The 2021 accusation was “incitement of insurrection”. It was totally unfounded, both, as a matter of the deliriously improper categorization for what happened on January 6th in the Capitol Building as an “insurrection”, as well as the characterization of free and protected First Amendment speech as an “incitement”.
The claim that Trump “incited” the rioters, if the Democratic accuser’s premise was valid, then a great deal of political speech would be outlawed, as the legal defense in the second impeachment sham correctly pointed out. Vice President Kamala Harris, as suggested by the standards established by her party in its charges levied against Trump, her funding the bailout of criminal activity would most certainly be inciteful conduct. The same would be the case for her repeated apologia and support for Marxist subversive activity, incorrectly labeled as social justice activism.
When Kamala Harris solicited bail money on behalf of rioters in June 2020, she was arguably encouraging this most antisocial and lawless behavior of looting, vandalism, and arson. “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota”, was what she posted on Twitter. As if this was not enough, among those released and benefitted by the money that Kamala Harris helped raise for the Minnesota Freedom Fund, was a violent pedophile who went on to rape an 8-year-old girl.
On numerous occasions, Kamala Harris has identified the Marxist Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization as “brilliant”, “necessary”, and “essential”. In fact, she even went on to suggest that they were “an essential component or mark of a real democracy”. The now Vice President’s equating BLM’s goals with “democracy”, when the Communist group has explicitly expressed their disdain for America’s social, economic, and political system, and openinly advocated for its overhaul, makes her comments seditious. This alone raises concerns of loyalty to the nation and could be grounds for potential treason.
The BLM and Antifa spring and summer riots were characterized by some as a Marxist-inspired uprising across America’s cities, causing the highest insurance claims damages in history. Yet, Kamala Harris gleefully said that “they [the riots] are not going to stop…this is a movement…and everyone beware, they’re not going to stop”. In other words, there was no regret for the havocking violence which BLM and Antifa was badgering upon America. This approval of terrorism-related violence from a public official warrants condemnation of the highest order. In the case of Vice President Harris, an impeachment is in order. Upon winning a majority in the House, Republicans should swiftly move to impeach her.
By trivializing the impeachment process against Trump, the Democrats have unleashed a political climate of cannibalism. There turn will come. Maybe Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton should also be impeached.