What’s so scary about impeachment?

What's so scary about impeachment? A lot of us have been impeached in our lives, myself, several times. It's called being fired.

I see the hyperventilating – from everyone – about the concept of impeachment. I’ve got to ask, what’s so scary about impeachment. I’ve been impeached more than once in my own life. For us regular peeps, it’s a firing.

Rules rule, baby

Every job I’ve worked has had rules. Break the rules and you are in for punishment.

Sometimes, it’s pretty simple. A lecture or extra work. Occasionally, it’s a little more. Maybe a write-up or demotion.

Generally, most people never do anything on the job rises to impeachment level.

So it is written

But there are rules within the company you work and then there are laws. These laws often apply to every company. And, you know, life.

I mean, the founding fathers rode horses and buggies, so they didn’t have to deal with speed limits. But we know what they mean, even if many of us pretend not to.

So, increasing your speed above the legal limit is against the law. Most people depend on the police having a “forgiveness range” (I think the number is around 10 mph above).

Still, the police can stop you and ticket you for any speed over the limit. It’s the law. Most of us recognize this and sigh in resignation. Some people actually get indignant (“Why aren’t you catching real criminals”). That’s dumb. Just own it, pay the fine and move on.

Can’t impeach a person doing a good job

The current refrain from Trump, in between claims the whole thing is bogus, is how can you impeach someone doing such a good job.

I’ll not debate the qualitative measure of his work in the job. You can make a case for and against. But, let’s examine that statement to show how wrong it is.

I can be doing the most amazing job in my company, a real star. If I’m doing illegal drugs in the break room, I’m getting impeached…er…fired.

I can have the most efficient retail store in the district with the highest sales in the country. If I take money from the registers, I’m getting impeached…er…fired.

Basically, for us regular peeps, we are getting fired for committing a crime, no matter how great we’re doing in our job.

Because of a goofy opinion (not law) from the Department of Justice some 40 years ago, it is presumed presidents cannot be prosecuted for a crime while in office (think Monopoly Get Out of Jail card).

So, that’s where impeachment comes in.

What’s so scary about impeachment

Trump should know this. He sat in his “reality” TV show and impeached…er…fired people for less than crimes.

Now, take a look at what he’s currently accused of and you can see they are actually written in the original Constitution. The thing traditional conservative Republicans swear needs defending (see their arguments on guns and abortion).

Asking a foreign power for help in an election? Crime. Making profit off his office beyond his salary? Crime. Not crimes of law, but high crimes and misdemeanors. The stuff of political betrayal of trust.

During my working years, I saw a few people get impeached…er…fired for failing to abide by the code of conduct. Not crimes of law, but rules and regulations within the organization.

That’s enough. There are more, but those two are ones the founding fathers specifically added to protect our country from abuse of power by the office of the president.

If it were you or me, we would already have been impeached…er…fired. As it is, the process, like most things in government, takes ever so long to get to the end.

Maybe that’s the real point. What’s so scary about impeachment? It’s probably that it takes too long to get to, “You’re fired!”

2 Responses to “What’s so scary about impeachment?”

  1. Eric Nystrom

    Aren’t we failing to add the point of Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for an illicit and fallacious document from countries (including Ukraine) for the single purpose of getting “dirt” on a Presidential candidate and Republican opponent?

    I may be looking at things through “red” colored glasses, but I don’t see in the transcripts where he asked for assistance from a foreign government with the upcoming election. Apparently according to other rules and regulations, the President (and our government) can ask foreign countries to assist with cleaning up and helping root out corruption, whether it be from a current political opponent, a previous political opponent or the man in the moon.

    I would suggest that Mr. Biden’s “on air bragging” about holding over $1 Billion dollars in debt forgiveness over the Ukraine’s head unless they fire a prosecutor who just happens to be looking into corruption of a Ukrainian company that his son was currently on the board of, is a more definitive case of high crimes and misdemeanors than what Trump has been accused of (currently).

    I think we all know that there are unseemly things that go on inside our own government that are typically overlooked by the press (“Tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”). “Hey, who forgot to turn off that mike?”

    Take a look at the amount of funds that were dropped into the Clinton Foundation “prior” to her losing the election and see how those have dried up since she lost. Not to mention that the Ukraine was one of, if not THE largest donor, by country, to her Foundation. You don’t suppose that foreign individuals or governments were hoping to parley favor with her through their support of her foundation? Nahhh, nothing to see here folks.

    Anyway … while I wish Trump was a more genteel and statesmanlike individual (at least to the outside world); I don’t believe that he has done anything more or less than many of the President’s before him have done. Its just that 95% of the media are doing everything on Earth that they can do to oust him as a duly elected President and they’ve been trying to do this since before he was elected (see FISA documents).

    I know we disagree on things like this, but again; I value you and your opinion regardless of our differing ideologies.

    Undauntingly yours,

    • JMD

      Well-reasoned and at least a basis for discussion. Far better than many reactionary responses.

      However, let me get this one overriding homily out of the way as a method to rebut your entire (well-reasoned) piece:

      Two wrongs do not make a right.

      The litany of re-litigating past grievances from both sides of the aisle do not exonerate criminal or immoral actions taken by current actors. I could add specious arguments about Clinton not being the President and that Biden’s impetus to remove the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was unanimously supported from across Europe, but that’s off point.

      “I would like you to do us a favor though” combined with corroborating testimony from State Department and Intelligence Community employees AND confirmed by Chief of Staff Mulvaney clearly outline the case of solicitation and withholding a thing of value in order to get a thing of value. (I refuse to use that Latin phrase anymore…it’s well past annoying now).

      The effort to then hide all the information in a clandestine manner smacks of both illegality (it’s against the classification rules) and immense hypocrisy, considering the “outrage” over the aforementioned Ms. Clinton.

      I respect you too much to accuse you of being naive, so I must assume it is those tinted spectacles that I’ve never seen you wear before that can actually read that memo of the transcript and not see its subtext. As if the appearance on the White House lawn and “let’s say it in plain sight so everyone will desensitize” that specifically asked about investigating Joe Biden, not corruption, was not enough to answer the question.

      One could also question why, if corruption was so critical to Trump, how come it took until just before the Democratic primaries for the impetus to appear? But again, that’s off point.

      We know that most (if not all) Democrats will support the actual impeachment. Based on polls, more independents (the actual largest constituency) are leaning that way. I expect most Republicans will hold the line, even through the end. That’s how it went with Bill Clinton in the opposite direction.

      My point I was trying to make in the post (for which the two of us may now have dwarfed in these missives) is that any of us are quite aware that if our job performance stinks, we can get fired. And if we commit a crime, legal or rule-breaking, we will get fired. It’s just called something different in politics.


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)