Before the election of 2016, Hillary Clinton’s illegal mishandling of classified information was a hot topic of conversation. By hosting her email on a private, unsecure server, she was violating several laws regarding the mishandling of classified information, and by deleting her emails that were under subpoena she was obstructing justice. Less than a week before the election, the New York Times Editorial Board wrote a scathing piece blasting Donald Trump and Republicans for the “particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic” of “warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.”
“Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous,” they wrote, “In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.”
“The tactic is a rejection of the nation’s need of a functioning government,” they continued. Well, isn’t that interesting? Ah, but there’s more. They called the strategy “nonsensical” and said that these threats “could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass.” Wow, that sounds an awful lot like what Democrats are doing to Trump right now.
Think they oppose all this impeachment nonsense today? Guess again.
The New York Times Editorial Board has quite literally flip-flopped on impeachment, calling Trump’s impeachment “the only option.” Yet, three years ago they said the Republicans’ threat of impeaching Hillary for her crimes demonstrated “their gathering disrespect for democracy.” They added, “If they can’t gain control of government fairly, they’ll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.” In other words, threatening to impeach Hillary Clinton for obstructing justice and mishandling classified information was the reason to reject Trump in the upcoming election. But the New York Times Editorial Board has since sat and watched approvingly as Democrats have done everything they scourged Republicans for threatening to do.
And Democrats have taken impeachment fever to a much more severe degree. Rashida Tlaib vowed, “We’re going to impeach the mother****r” upon coming into office and today is selling t-shirts with the obscene slogan. 2020 Democrats embrace impeachment because they know that’s what primary voters have wanted from the moment Trump was elected.
Trump spent two years under the cloud of the Mueller investigation, limiting his ability to govern, only to be exonerated. Despite this, the left hasn’t stopped. The two key allegations of the whistleblower complaint (that there was a quid pro quo and a cover-up) have fallen apart. Yet, we’re still talking about impeachment. Why? Will the left ever allow Trump to govern without the threat of endless investigations? On Sunday, Adam Schiff was calling for more of Trump’s phone call transcripts to be released—without any justifiable reason.
The most honest part of the Editorial Board’s support of impeachment today was when they admitted that they have long opposed Trump “because of the substance of many of his policies.” That’s pretty much the only reason any of his opponents support impeachment today. Well, that and for the crime of defeating Hillary Clinton in the first place.
Only two presidents have been impeached in our nation’s history. If Democrats impeach President Trump, they will turn impeachment from a legitimate check on presidential power to a regular political tool of the opposition.
Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis