How Congress Became Hooked on Impeachment
It's impossible to know who the next president will be. But one thing can be said with certainty: regardless of their performance in office, there will be an attempt to impeach them.
There's been a vast escalation of impeachment efforts in recent years, turning a once rare gesture into something routine. The latest, notable for how comparatively humdrum it was, came just this week.
What little drama accompanied the resolution wasn't about forcing accountability for a president whom many Democrats think has repeatedly violated the law. Instead, it was whether a backbencher — who is facing a competitive primary and thus has a motive for ginning up the Democratic base — would step on his party's messaging on other pressing issues by introducing such a measure.
In the end, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) blinked and decided not to force a vote on his resolution to impeach President Donald Trump, bringing an ignoble end to what was the 13th resolution introduced by House Democrats to remove Trump from office since 2016. (The 14th came on Friday, introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).)
This is the second most impeachment resolutions offered against any president. The only president with more? Joe Biden, who faced 17 different resolutions introduced in the House to impeach him in his four years in office.
It's a distinct break from common practice in the post-Watergate era.
For all the rhetoric about impeaching Barack Obama, not a single resolution was filed to remove him from office. There were three against George W. Bush, one — albeit a memorable one — against Bill Clinton, two against George H.W. Bush, two against Ronald Reagan and no resolutions offered to impeach Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford.
Impeachment's newfound popularity isn't just limited to the 31 resolutions filed against Biden and Trump combined since 2016. Three different members of Biden's cabinet along with Vice President Kamala Harris were the subject of multiple impeachment resolutions by various Republican lawmakers. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was the target of six different proposals to impeach him, the last of which was successful and resulted inthe second Senate impeachment trial of a cabinet secretary in American history.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York also introduced two impeachment resolutions to oust Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from the Supreme Court.
Most of these resolutions went nowhere and few even received a vote. But their very introduction made clear that the threat of impeachment is in uncharted territory, having shifted from a rare constitutional remedy to an easy gimmick for fundraising and partisan gain.
'I do think some of it is driven by social media and some of it is real,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who notes 'there were impeachments filed against [President George W.] Bush.'
In Roy's view, a real impeachment was the one that led tothe brief Senate trial for Mayorkas. 'He was literally ignoring his duty to defend the border of the United States and Texas was suffering.'
Meanwhile, Roy snickered at Thanedar's effort. 'The impeachment language directed at President Trump is political, and there'll probably be 20 more filed before the end of this Congress,' he said.
In fact, Roy's Democratic colleagues largely agreed with him about Thanedar's efforts, which came as the Michigan lawmaker faces a contested primary back home and while Democrats have tried to focus their entire party's messaging apparatus on combating the Republican tax bill. They confronted Thanedar on the House floor, booed him at a party caucus meeting and some members even went so far as to ask a colleague the name of Thanedar's primary opponent so that they could send campaign donations.
It may have marked a new low in the ongoing diminution of the resolution of impeachment, another sign the tool had lost its solemnity and its sting. 'The shame of it is that impeachment has lost its ability to be a form of accountability and a check on the president. And it's been just completely politicized,' said Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who was elected to Congress in 2022 after rising to national prominence as a lawyer for House Democrats during the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
Republicans argue the Democratic efforts to oust Trump also removed taboos in Congress around the constitutional tool, and helped unleash a retaliatory spate of GOP resolutions once Joe Biden captured the White House. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) didn't even wait for Biden's inauguration before fundraising off an effort to impeach him.
In 2023, Trump infamously posted on Truth Social his own call for a Biden impeachment, arguing, 'They did it to us.'The desire for revenge among the MAGA base made impeachment resolutions lucrative for those politicians wooing small dollar donors. In one instance, it sparked an internal Republican feud between Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) when they sparred over Boebert launching her own separate impeachment effort, rather than joining Greene's.
'It's purely for fundraising,' griped the Georgia Republican over her colleague's effort to oust Biden. Of the 17 impeachment resolutions introduced to remove Biden from office, Greene introduced six — including three different attempts to oust the then-president on one day in August 2021.
Another factor driving the phenomenon is that, unlike simply introducing a bill, launching an effort to impeach an official still remains rare enough to be worthy of a cable news hit. (Thanedar hasn't gotten himself booked yet but he has held multiple 'impeachment town halls'already in his Michigan district and put up billboards touting his effort as well).
The result is that, with the obliteration of cultural norms in Congress that once prevented a spree of impeachment resolutions, it's now seen as just another legislative — or promotional — tool, rather than a last resort against an official who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
As Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) said with a shrug, 'you gotta live by the rules,' noting that members were allowed to freely introduce impeachment resolutions by the rules of the House.
Roy's prediction of 20 more impeachment resolutions against Trump by the end of this Congress seems a bit unlikely —- after all, there are only so many times members can introduce similar resolutions of impeachment.
But at a moment when Democratic members of Congress are poised for an onslaught of primary challenges and demands from the base that they do something to stop Trump, impeachment resolutions will prove hard to resist — even if there is no chance of success.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Vance: ‘No interest in boots on the ground' — but bracing for poss. sleeper-cell attacks in US
Vice President JD Vance on Sunday insisted the US has no interest in putting boots on the ground in Iran — while admitting the administration is bracing for potential terror attacks from sleeper cells in America. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground,' he said. 'We didn't blow up diplomacy. 'We only took this action when it was clear, as the president said, that the Iranians were tapping us along,' the vice president said of the US strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday. 'The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance if they're serious about it. I guarantee you, the president of the United States is,' Vance said. 4 Vice President JD Vance on Sunday warns Iran against retaliation. NBC 4 The Pentagon laid out a timeline for how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' unfolded against Iran on Saturday. Dept of Defense The vice president insisted Iran's network of terrorist proxies in the region is already washed up, as is its nuclear program, though comprehensive damage assessments haven't been finished. After announcing the successful military campaign late Saturday, Trump dramatically warned that any retaliation from Iran 'will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed' during the strikes on its Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites. Vance reiterated that warning and underscored that 'it would be the stupidest thing in the world if they' seek retribution. He also indicated that the US has been battening down the hatches just in case. 'We're, of course, doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. I think that we're prepared in the event that the Iranians do retaliate,' Vance said — before later warning about possible sleeper cells in the US. 'Unfortunately, we know that a lot of people who we don't have full accounting of were let in over the last four years under the Biden administration,' Vance said. Also among the fears of reciprocation from Iran is that Tehran could target US bases and other military assets in the Mideast or close off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which about 20% to 25% of the world's oil consumption flows. 4 Vance joined President Trump in the Situation Room to monitor the strikes Saturday. The White House/X Vance said it would be 'suicidal' for Iran to try to shut the strait, particularly given the havoc that would wreak on its already beleaguered economy. But he reiterated that 'our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons.' Vance, throughout his tenure as an elected official, has staked out a staunch anti-war position. He had long been skeptical of protracted US aid to war-torn Ukraine. In March, a leaked Signal message chat revealed that he was privately apprehensive about Trump's strike against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite that, Vance was adamant Sunday that Trump is being prudent with his use of military force and that preventing Iran's theocratic regime from obtaining a nuke is within America's core interests. 'The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did what he did: a very precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest,' Vance said. 'I don't fear that this is going to become a protracted conflict because I think that we have a president who knows what's in America's interest.' The vice president also juxtaposed Trump's use of military action against Iran with how past presidents have dealt with conflicts in the tumultuous region. 4 Top military officials are still assessing the damage done to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and other facilities. MAXAR Technologies 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he stressed. 'I understand the concern. But the difference is that back then we had a dumb president.' Shortly after news of the strikes broke, a chorus of Democrats called for Trump to be impeached, accusing him of exceeding his military authority. Even some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), called the airstrikes unconstitutional. Vance, a former Ohio senator, shrugged off those concerns and stressed that 'the president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the House and Senate intelligence committees that the US intelligence community assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She later accused the media of misconstruing her words. 'They were way too close to a nuclear weapon for the comfort of the president of the United States, which is why he took this action,' Vance said of the Iranians. 'We had a narrow window of opportunity. 'We might not have been able to carry out this attack six months down the road,' he added. 'It would have been irresponsible, I think, for the president not to take the action that he did. 'What happens next is up to the Iranians,' Vance assessed at another point in the interview.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump touts ‘great unity' in GOP after Iran strikes, pushes to get ‘big, beautiful' bill done
President Trump touted the 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, as he called on the party to focus on getting his agenda bill through to his desk. 'Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday. 'Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done. Our Country is doing GREAT. MAGA!' he added. The president's remarks come after he announced Saturday evening that U.S. forces bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said to Iran in a social media post, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The bombs targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. The bombings put the U.S. directly in Iran's crosshairs for retaliation and made it an active participant in the Mideastern war, which Israel launched with airstrikes against Iran on June 13. Ahead of the strikes, news outlets had focused on the so-called 'civil war' in the GOP, between the pro-Israel foreign policy hawks and supporters who identified more with the 'America-First' agenda. Members of both groups had been publicly lobbying the president in opposite directions as he considered taking military actions against Iran. While some anti-interventionist Republicans—including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—still publicly criticized the strikes, most of the GOP expressed support following the announcement. The news also comes as the Senate enters a pivotal week for the president's massive agenda bill, which Republican leaders in Congress still say they hope to get done by July 4.
Wall Street Journal
39 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Standards Slip at Fort Bragg
'On Display at D.C.'s Parade: Tanks, Drones and the Military's Identity Crisis' (Review, June 14) cites President Trump's speech at Fort Bragg in which he used a group of soldiers as stage props in a piece of political theater. The authors refer to it as 'a breach of traditional decorum.' I believe it is an egregious violation of U.S. military standards of conduct. Our armed forces have sedulously separated themselves from partisan politics—and soldiers on duty, in uniform, booing or cheering remarks in a blatantly political speech are acting in contravention to those standards. One might note that politicians don't campaign on military installations; nor should they. That a politician would use soldiers in this way is profoundly disrespectful to the Constitution and to the troops who are sworn to defend it. It appears that refresher training in standards of conduct would be in order at Fort Bragg. Moreover, someone might inform the president of what type of speech or behavior is appropriate for uniformed military audiences.
