Another ‘dangerous precedent’

The U.S. Constitution stood for 17 administrations and 79 years before the first impeachment of the nation’s president. It would be another 25 administrations and 130 years before the second.

Now, it seems partisan politicians have discovered the remarkable ease of defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” and the useful political advantages of the process. There were only two presidents between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and barely two years between Trump’s two impeachments.

Now comes the specter - though, notably not yet the reality - of an indictment of Trump’s immediate successor.

Andrew Johnson’s impeachment involved accusations of contempt of Congress and charges he violated federal laws. Bill Clinton’s involved claims of lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Trump’s stemmed from an effort to shake down the head of a foreign power and his connection to a riot that sought to interfere with an official action of Congress.

President Joe Biden’s offense? Well, no one quite knows yet. He’s been in politics for more than half a century and he has a reprobate son, so surely there must be a misdemeanor lurking about somewhere if not perhaps even a high crime or two.

So far, despite months of investigation and probing, nothing remotely severe enough to justify removal of a sitting president has surfaced, but that hasn’t stopped House Speaker Mike Johnson from declaring “the evidentiary record is impossible to ignore” and leading his party to vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” at the opening of a presidential campaign.

So, with the blessing of every single Republican in Congress, the search for an opportunity will proceed.

A handful of politically threatened Republicans took pains after the vote to point out that an inquiry is not an impeachment and they haven’t seen anything yet to justify the latter. But their protestations that trying to find something is worth the time, money and damage to the national unity only emphasize the crass political nature of the project.

In nearly a century and a half as a nation over the course of 46 presidents, America has known good leaders and bad. The nation has weathered constitutional crises and political upheaval. But only lately has the notion of removing a duly elected leader by anything other than the ballot box become a popular strategy within the halls of Congress.

Many in Johnson’s party feared the “dangerous precedent” they might set by removing the acknowledged serial liar and accused criminal George Santos from their midst. Where, one wonders, is their concern for precedent here?

Johnson responded that GOP leaders “do not take this responsibility lightly.” The “evidentiary record” on that claim suggests otherwise.

We shudder to think what will become of the future of the country and the strength of its democracy if this “responsibility” continues to be wielded with such casual disrespect and ease.