NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary

04 Nov, 2016 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

Seriously, there’s absolultely no reason to consider impeaching Hillary if she wins the White House, right? She’s an angel who does nothing wrong! And no one nor party has ever talked like this during an election season, right?

Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat

Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.

Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.

How dare this occur in politics! I mean, goodness, certainly Democrats weren’t threatening to investigate and impeach George Bush during the 2004 election season, right?

In a rational world — you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest — this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would “create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis,” raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans’ open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.

It’s so mean!

As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. “Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, they’re already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington,” he told North Carolina voters this week. “How does our democracy function like that?”

Considering Obama’s avoidance of engaging the duly elected legislative branch while using executive orders that are often dubious and blocked by the judiciary branch, Obama’s the last person who should be speaking on democracy.

Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans’ impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can’t gain control of government fairly, they’ll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.

Or, it could be that Republicans see an utterly untrustworthy person who blows off national security for her own “convenience” (we all know that her email server was about much, much more), left Americans to die in Benghazi, consorts with people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, used her position at State to engage in pay for play, enriching herself and her family, sold out US interests to Russia (uranium deal), used her so-called charity to enrich herself, and so much more.

Where was the NY Times Editorial Board when Democrats were working hard to undermine President George W. Bush? Nowhere to be found. They didn’t seem to care about disrespect for democracy then.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.