By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the weekend’s surprise attack on Venezuela, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, several Democratic lawmakers are calling for President Trump’s impeachment. These lawmakers are citing concerns over Trump’s actions, including the alleged pursuit of regime change and the destabilization of the region. The calls for impeachment come amidst a chaotic political climate where the U.S.’s role in the country remains uncertain, as evidenced by conflicting statements from within the administration. Several other congress members have indicated they are not ruling out impeachment either.
Read the original article here
Democrats begin to call for Trump’s impeachment over the Venezuela attack: “Many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality,” Rep. Maxine Waters said. “I am reconsidering that view.” The discussions around potential impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, prompted by the recent events in Venezuela, are stirring up a lot of familiar, and perhaps weary, debates. The sentiment from many, and this seems to be a common thread, is that doing nothing is simply not an option. It’s almost a cry of frustration, a feeling that a failure to act, a failure to push back, would be a worse outcome than making an effort, even if it might not succeed. The question being asked is, does a legacy of attempted impeachments look worse than what we’re currently experiencing? The apparent consensus is a resounding “no.”
The notion of “keeping the powder dry” seems to have run its course for many. The idea of holding back, of waiting for the right moment, seems to have yielded little. There’s a strong desire to see political leadership, to see the party take a stand, even if the odds are stacked against them. To try to impeach, to take a clear stance, and to lead the party in doing so. This line of thought suggests that even unsuccessful attempts can serve a purpose: they can slow things down, highlight the issues, and most importantly, demonstrate a commitment to upholding the Constitution. This reflects a desire to fight every battle, win or lose, rather than concede by inaction.
The discussion quickly touches on the specific reasons for impeachment. The focus is on the War Powers Act violations, which is presented as a clear transgression. If that isn’t a “high crime or misdemeanor,” then the question becomes what is? The urgency is there, the feeling that things are rapidly deteriorating and that the time to act is now. The comments suggest a sense of frustration with the perceived lack of action, and a call for a more proactive stance.
The call for impeachment is not just a strategic move; it’s a moral imperative. The current situation demands action. It’s about upholding the oath taken to defend the Constitution, and documenting for the public where each representative stands. The potential for investigative tools and the formal creation of an evidentiary record are crucial aspects. Evidence gathered can be used for future criminal prosecutions. Even if an impeachment attempt fails, it can still strengthen criminal prosecutions and be a reminder of the need to resist.
There is a recurring concern that impeachment is simply a “gesture.” And the response to this is, even if it is a gesture, it is a necessary one. The fear is that inaction will paint the Democrats as weak. The second impeachment failed because Trump had left office. The evidence showed he fraudulently attempted to overturn the election and conspired to interrupt a peaceful transfer of power. His current actions, coupled with what has already transpired, underscore the urgency of the situation and the necessity of action.
There’s also a suggestion that there’s more to this than just immediate political gain. A possible scenario is presented where a future Attorney General could use the evidence to press charges. This isn’t just about removing Trump; it’s about preparing the ground for future accountability.
The argument pivots, highlighting the investigative power of impeachment. Subpoenas, sworn testimony, and the formal creation of an evidentiary record – these are presented as essential tools for gathering evidence. Even if an impeachment doesn’t lead to a conviction, the records can be useful later on. This is where the value lies. And the failure to act, the argument continues, would leave the Democrats vulnerable to the charge of being do-nothing weaklings.
It is about showing the people where the chips stand in terms of their representatives. This action of impeachment would require some political capital, but it’s worth the risk. The view is clear, Trump and everyone involved need to be impeached, convicted, and imprisoned. There is a sense of despair and anger. The belief that America is divided into two groups, “pedophiles and cowards” is one that reflects both disappointment and the depth of feeling. The sentiment is that they should be writing articles of impeachment every day.
The need to do something, anything, is strongly felt. Inaction is considered a form of support. This viewpoint pushes for immediate action, not just calls for it. The frustration with the Democratic response is palpable, the feeling that they are acting like a chihuahua, a dog that barks a lot but does nothing.
The central argument is that unchecked military action sets a dangerous precedent. The idea that everything Trump does is illegal. The belief is that this isn’t about politics, it’s about actively working to take apart the American democracy. The frustration is that every time Trump does something wrong, the Democrats say “Thoughts and Prayers” but never do anything. The point is not about winning, it is about trying, and trying often. It is about making a stand.