Impeachable offense
As in ‘impeachable affront to reason’
Well, that didn’t take long.
Only a few weeks ago we were praising the calm, steady, poised hand of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in his opposition to rushing into impeachment(s). Some members of his political party want to impeach the president over something, maybe the southern border, or maybe because the other party impeached their guy last time.
Speaker McCarthy has said, in effect: Let the committees in Congress do their work. And if something comes of it, we’ll see.
Which is probably the most responsible thing for a leader of the opposition to say. Any loyal opposition is there to oppose, yes. Because an opposition makes a good administration better, and a bad administration gone. But any loyal opposition—emphasis on “loyal”— doesn’t brandish impeachment casually, like it would a “nay” vote.
Impeachment of a president, or a Supreme Court justice, or a Cabinet member, should be something used infrequently, and only when the impeachee has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Which is the constitutional threshold.
But now the speaker is talking impeachment.
For the president? Not yet. For the Homeland Security secretary, the oft-targeted Alejandro Mayorkas? Not now. Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, who has been mentioned in the same breath as impeachment because of the awful, deadly, confused pull-out from Afghanistan earlier in this president’s term? Nope.
No, the speaker of the House has now focused his impeachment talk on the attorney general.
Quick! Name the attorney general of the United States!
We’ll help: His name is Merrick Garland. The speaker says he’s weaponizing the Department of Justice. According to The Hill newspaper: “McCarthy first elevated the topic with a tweet late last month touting testimony of an IRS whistle-blower who has alleged mismanagement of the investigation into Hunter Biden, saying it could serve as ‘a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry.’”
Could. Yes, could. But shouldn’t the loyal opposition in the congressional committees do their work first? As the speaker had suggested only last month?
Even his fellow Republicans were caught by surprise about the Merrick Garland stuff, according to The Hill. When asked about the possibility of removing a Cabinet member, one congressman said, “It’s very, very popular with people in the hinterlands.”
It’s also very, very rare. The last time a Cabinet member was impeached was during the Grant administration. And that poor sap (William Belknap, anybody?) resigned rather than face an impeachment trial.
Back to modern times: Other congressfolk didn’t seem picky on which current Cabinet member or president was impeached, as long as somebody hurriedly is:
“I was one of the original co-sponsors of the Secretary Blinken impeachment,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said. “We ought to take that up first for the incredibly, horribly done withdrawal from Afghanistan.”
U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas (guess his party affiliation) sponsored the Secretary Mayorkas impeachment resolution, or, according to The Hill, at least the first one. But he’s easy. He said he’s all for the Merrick Garland one, too: “I think you can do both,” he said, adding later: “We need to have a vote on the House floor with Mayorkas because the border in and of itself is just a—isn’t even a catastrophe. It’s cataclysmic.”
As for impeachments, “I wouldn’t mind if we had a new one every day,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). But, not that she knows this or even might much care, but impeachments are not good for the country unless they are
necessary for the country. Unless you’re trying to cut out a cancer, this kind of major surgery, which appears to be more and more in the hands of unpracticed operators, is risky. Maybe ruinous. Unnecessary operations can be that way.
These things tend to backfire. If one political party misuses the law when given the opportunity, surely the other party will await its chances.
This reminds us of one of the best scenes in one of the best plays written in the last 100 years. It’s called “A Man for All Seasons.” In one of the scenes, Sir Thomas More’s kids and future son-in-law (William Roper) try to convince him to chase down a bad guy. Sir Thomas More refuses.
——Alice: While you talk, he’s gone! More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
———
Save impeachment for the impeachable offenses. A new one every day is not something the opposition should propose. Not a loyal opposition, anyway.