Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, pictured on Oct. 31, 2023, is the latest politician to face the threat of impeachment.PETE MAROVICH/The New York Times News Service
For much of United States history, impeachment was a rarely deployed procedure, a tool so potent it was left unused for decades at a time.
No longer.
This week, a Montana congressman filed articles of impeachment against U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, accusing him of providing aid to enemies by failing to down a Chinese surveillance balloon immediately. Mr. Austin, who is being treated for cancer, has already been under fire for being hospitalized for days without notifying the White House. A day later, a congressional committee held its first impeachment hearing on Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Republicans hold responsible for “a reckless abandonment of border security and immigration enforcement.”
Republicans in the House of Representatives have already authorized a separate impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, saying he has overseen “a complete and total invasion at the southern border.”
Although Donald Trump was subjected to the process twice during his presidency, a member of the U.S. cabinet has not been impeached since 1876, when the House voted unanimously against secretary of war William Belknap for “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” (He resigned, and was acquitted by the Senate.
But impeachment, a powerful process designed to remove politicians who pose an imminent danger to the country, has become an increasingly common feature of politics in a country whose Congress is marked by deep divisions and sclerotic lawmaking.
The U.S. Constitution reserves impeachment for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours. The House of Representatives can impeach with a simple majority, but only the Senate can convict, with a two-thirds vote. Few expect the current impeachment attempts to lead to convictions, which would require the support of a large number of Democratic senators. It’s not even clear Congress can successfully impeach its current targets, given the narrow Republican hold on the House of Representatives.
“So it’s basically posturing,” said Brian Kalt, a professor of law at Michigan State University who has written about impeachment.
“They’re barking at squirrels knowing they can’t actually catch them. It makes it costless for them to bark,” he said. “And I think we can expect to see this pattern continue as long as polarization is the way that it is.”
Impeachment was conceived of as a unique check on power – one Thomas Jefferson called “the most formidable weapon for the purpose of a dominant faction that was ever contrived.”
It was designed at a very different time in American politics. Presidents were not constrained by term limits. U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, not elected by the general public. The Senate, as a result, was less overtly partisan than it is today.
Impeachment provided states with the power to dismiss a president or other office-holder who posed a threat.
“The point was, you have the chance to remove people before the next election, because keeping them in power is a danger to the state,” said Timothy Naftali, an associate professor of history at New York University and co-author of Impeachment: An American History.
Political disputes were never meant to be grounds for seeking someone’s removal. “If you follow the Constitution, you can’t impeach somebody for a policy you don’t agree with,” Prof. Naftali said. “That’s not what the impeachment process was designed for.”
But impeachment has always been an exercise of power. In 1843, members of president John Tyler’s own party sought his impeachment, largely because they disagreed with his political direction. Andrew Johnson was impeached a quarter-century later, after obstructing congressional efforts to legislate civil rights.
“The decision to go forward is always political. You don’t have to do it,” said Danny Weiss, who was chief of staff for Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi from 2017 to 2019.
Ms. Pelosi believed impeachment should be “related to a constitutional offence, and not to frustration over politics,” Mr. Weiss said.
“If you use a tool that exists in the Constitution to essentially undermine the Constitution because you’re using that tool inappropriately, that’s dangerous to our democracy,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi initially resisted impeaching Mr. Trump, although she eventually relented.
“Sometimes the ground, the political moment, becomes right for something. And the pros would outweigh the cons,” Mr. Weiss said.
Impeachment has proven a difficult sword to wield with precision. The decision to impeach Bill Clinton, in 1998, rested largely with Tom DeLay, then the second-most-powerful House Republican, according to former House speaker John Boehner. “Tom believed that impeaching Clinton would win us all these House seats, would be a big win politically, and he convinced enough of the membership and the G.O.P. base that this was true,” Mr. Boehner wrote in a 2021 memoir.
Republicans lost five House seats in the next election.
With Mr. Trump, too, it’s unclear what impeachment achieved.
“If you impeach and don’t get a conviction, that’s worse than nothing,” Prof. Kalt said. The lesson Mr. Trump drew from his first impeachment was that Democrats didn’t have the votes to convict him, and that he could do whatever he wanted, Prof. Kalt added. “And he did. It emboldened him.”
Congress has other tools for expressing displeasure. One is censure, although that is viewed as weak admonishment. Another is its control of spending, which critics say has been eroded by large omnibus bills that diminish deliberation over individual budgetary priorities.
“That takes the immediate power away from Congress to have an impact on the executive branch of government,” said Dave Hoppe, who was chief of staff to Republican House speaker Paul Ryan from 2015 to 2019. Ideological divides in Congress, meanwhile, have diminished legislators’ capacity to achieve results through consensus.
“When you have very limited ability to find compromises and you’ve given up the power of using the purse, I think you then resort to personal attacks and personal fights,” Mr. Hoppe said. “The way you try and leverage people is to embarrass them by impeaching them.”
That has lowered the threshold for embarking on an impeachment proceeding, and also eroded impeachment’s power as an important safeguard.
“Impeachment has become obviously far more frequent and far less effective as a deterrent than the founders would have envisioned,” said Jeffrey Engel, director of Southern Methodist University’s Center for Presidential History and Prof. Naftali’s co-author on Impeachment: An American History.
Worse, he said, would be if Mr. Trump becomes the first impeached president to be re-elected, which would demonstrate that impeachment matters little – neither as a legal constraint, nor as a political one.
“If president Trump comes back and wins in November, then I think it’s entirely dead as a deterrent,” Prof. Engel said. “Right now, it’s just on life support.”
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
