Op-Ed

Talk of impeachment is wasteful, petty. Time to move on.

California congressman files article of impeachment against President Trump

California Rep. Brad Sherman filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, accusing him of obstructing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Up Next
California Rep. Brad Sherman filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, accusing him of obstructing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The far left has been calling for impeachment of President Trump, virtually since his inauguration. They seem to continue to promote his “illegal” election forgetting that he won the electoral vote that provides every state an equal and fair vote.

The more I read and study our political process; I marvel at the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers. With their obvious insight into establishing an electoral college – to the establishment of impeachment proceedings that govern the potential removal from office of our president, vice-president, and all civil officers. The involuntary removal of a sitting president has never occurred in our country to date.

Only two sitting Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Neither was “convicted” by the Senate, nor removed from their office.

The process of impeachment is contained in our Constitution, which gives the House the sole power to make formal charges or impeach; then gives the Senate the sole power to “try” impeachments. The process was not intended to be used for tactless, in-your-face, partisan maneuvering, rather the founding fathers built in impeachment to impede serious misbehavior by federal officials.

It seems the “far-left” radicals of the Democratic party want to impeach for impeachment sake in a paltry attempt to embarrass President Trump. Impeachment based on a less than reasonable obstructionist allegation (when there is no proven crime), seems to be more of an embarrassment to the left. Millions of dollars were spent on the Mueller report that did not give the left what they wanted to see and what they professed for more than two years to be “collusion” on the part of Trump.

The mass news media is trying its best to reconstruct rhetoric to fit their current narrative of obstructionism. However, if impeachment begins, such actions must be reflective of most Americans and not introduced for individual political aspirations. Time and money are forfeited when the only perceived action by the House is focused on the removal of a sitting president simply because of opposition to him personally. The process then: a simple majority of the House approves or disapproves the Articles of Impeachment. If approved, this is equivalent to a grand jury indictment, whereupon the Articles are delivered to the Senate.The Senate becomes a court room for a life-sized trial with Senators serving as the jury.

I admit this would be fun to watch. The Senate will not vote to impeach and the House knows this (or most of the House members do). Under oath, will those who testify perjure themselves or seek immunity for testimony? There is zero chance of conviction of Trump, but a greater chance of conviction of some with yet to be divulged testimony. Perhaps rather than a focus on impeachment, we could acknowledge the lowest rate of unemployment in history, a GDP of 3% plus, increased wages for blue collar and middle income workers, increased manufacturing jobs, and acknowledging most, the fact that we live in a country that allows members of Congress to decry a President whom they simply do not like, personally. If impeachment occurs, then watching the witnesses plead the 5th, ask for immunity, or better yet, come forth with the truth will be worthwhile.

Community columnist Barbara A. Ellerbrook lives in Lexington.

  Comments