On January 20, 2017, less than twenty minutes after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, the Washington Post published an article titled: The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.
The really strange thing is... they were serious.
The organizers behind the campaign, Free Speech for People and RootsAction, are hinging their case on Trump’s insistence on maintaining ownership of his luxury hotel and golf course business while in office. Ethics experts have warned that his financial holdings could potentially lead to constitutional violations and undermine public faith in his decision-making.
Their effort is early, strategists admit. But they insist it is not premature — even if it triggers an angry backlash from those who will argue that they are not giving the new president a chance.
That flimsy pretense wasn't even challenged by the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" publication. The idea that Trump's personal holdings would somehow constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" is laughable for even amateur historians. George Washington was one of America's leading distillers of whiskey when he instituted the whiskey tax that led to the Whiskey Rebellion, where he personally led US troops against American citizens.
That didn't lead anyone to even rhetorically suggest impeachment proceedings.
And yet, the "Impeach 45" chants began and continued and cascaded for years overshadowing Trump's entire presidency. Hours and hours of "the walls are closing in on the Trump presidency" cable news programming filled our days and nights with no sound basis or evidence to support such a drastic and undemocratic demand.
Recommended
Fast forward to the past 72 hours of the Biden Presidency, and one most realistically evaluate the actions of America's chief executive and juxtapose them against the non-existent "case" that was made in Trump's first hours as president.
With Biden's unilateral executive action extending an eviction moratorium that has already been found to be unconstitutional by the highest court in America, he is flagrantly flouting the law, the Constitution, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of the United States federal government. In short: This is a legitimate constitutional crisis whose only remedy is the impeachment process envisioned by our nation's founders.
Let's be clear, Biden's actions encroach on one of the most sacred and basic human rights of every American that even predates our founding. The concept of private property rights and the ability of individual landowners to set terms of monetary reimbursement for the use of their property is sacrosanct.
Biden has trampled that right, knowing full well that his actions were predetermined to be unlawful.
He even acknowledged his crime to reporters.
Why is the eviction moratorium constitutional, (RCP Reporter Philip Wegmann) asked the president. Biden told me "I can't guarantee you the court won’t rule that we don't have that authority but at least we'll have the ability to, if we have to appeal, to keep this going for a month-at least. I hope longer."
Why is the eviction moratorium constitutional, I asked the president. Biden told me "I can't guarantee you the court won’t rule that we don't have that authority but at least we'll have the ability to, if we have to appeal, to keep this going for a month-at least. I hope longer." pic.twitter.com/sBTOLmbPDV
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) August 5, 2021
Wegmann went on to report that Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said "an ordinary litigant in front of a court would not want to have said things like that," in reaction to Biden's admission against interest.
Indeed.
Biden's remarks would be used as exhibit "A" in the impeachment investigation in the House of Representatives if that body had any interest in protecting its constitutional role in our government.
If an unnamed, unelected bureaucrat at an executive agency like the Centers for Disease Control can determine landowners' rights in eviction law without a single hearing or vote, then what in the hell do we need a Congress for at all?
This is why we have an impeachment clause. This is why it should be used.
Not for some churlish, political gamesmanship lobbed in the air at the exact moment a new president is delivering his inaugural address. But now, when an out-of-control (and seemingly unaware) president tramples the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the very essence of individual property rights.
As usual, Mark Levin says it best:
This might be the most legendary Levin rant ever.
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) August 5, 2021
Absolutely SAVAGE. pic.twitter.com/dfsNtp1MOB
Yup.
Say it with me. Chant it with me. Shout it with me... IMPEACH 46!
