The Perversion of Impeachment (and our Democracy)

(Political-woman.com was on hiatus for almost two years, the reason being  that  my writing could come back to bite me in my employment.  Now, I don’t need to worry about that any more — hint, hint. So what better moment in Presidential history to resurrect my blog and move onward and upward.)

After watching the House debate and impeachment proceedings yesterday, I don’t I can recall when the Founding Fathers were invoked so many times by so many Democrats in one day.  This is especially consequential because I’m willing to lay money out, that half of them couldn’t name at least five Fathers without their staffs in the background whispering their names.

Suddenly, the Democrats have an impeachment hero in Alexander Hamilton.  The same Hamilton, who was so subjectively replaced from the $20 bill during the Obama administration because he was too male, pale, and stale, has now become the Democrats’ standard-bearer against abuse of power and obstruction.  Who knew?

The Founding Fathers robustly argued the impeachment clause during the Constitutional Convention, and while “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the written reason for removal from office, the definition of the terms is still subject to lawmakers’ personal interpretations of the phrase.

According to a Common Interpretation of Article II, Section 4, by Professors Neil Kinkopf and Keith Whittington writing for the ConstitutionCenter.org, looked at the first Senate conviction of federal judge, John Pickering, and asked,

“Can a government official be impeached and convicted for innocent mistakes, or must they have bad intentions? Is it sufficient to justify an impeachment and conviction if a government official commits acts that are “disgraceful,” contrary to the “trust and duty” of their office, or “degrading to the honor of the United States,” or can impeachment only be justified when an official has committed criminal acts? Do “high crimes” include only criminal offenses for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law, or can they include other forms of misconduct? Are some violations of the law too trivial to be considered “high crimes” that would justify an impeachment? Can private misdeeds justify an impeachment, or must the actions in question be connected to the conduct of the office that an individual holds?”

The two US Presidents previously impeached by the House (Andrew Johnson and William J. Clinton), had bipartisan support for their impeachments.  With the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump, we’re now witnessing the Constitution’s impeachment clause turned into a political weapon of partisan demonization and vendetta, with hearsay, subjective interpretation of “evidence” and the country’s own Speaker of the House, held hostage and pushed over the impeachment cliff by a vociferous, socialist, “Squad” of activists, who each have their own set of skeletons in their respective closets.  The charges are bogus and the Speaker knows they won’t hold up under scrutiny of the Senate, hence her reluctance to send the impeachment documents to the Senate as of this writing.

President Trump, to his credit, launched a broadside aimed at the Speaker and her cohorts, sending a five-page letter earlier this week, calling the impending impeachment exactly for what it was, a three-year attempt to rectify and overthrow the loss of the 2016 election by Hillary Clinton, the Left’s answer to Amun-Ra.  In other words, the perversion of an election of  a US president.

Now, we enter new territory, i.e., to find out how badly the Democrats’ partisan actions are going to backfire on them.  You can’t make this stuff up.

Add comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.