Impeachment: Start With the Minions

At a time when they should unite in opposition to the President and his policies, Congressional Democrats appear divided over the fraught question of whether now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

I am one who believes that the President has been impeachable from the earliest days of this Administration.  Almost from the time he assumed office, Mr. Trump has repeatedly violated his Constitutional oath "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  Oath-breaking of that nature is surely all any Congress should need to proceed against a President.

That said, it seems clear that - despite twenty-seven months' proof of the President's manifest unfitness for office - Congress hesitates.  The Republican Party, united in defense of the indefensible, seems determined to obstruct any impeachment process.  Democrats, concerned about the 2020 elections, are divided on strategic grounds.

Herewith, a modest proposal:  Once they have finished reading the Mueller Report (as redacted), Democratic Senators and Congressmen/women should read up on history of England in the seventeenth century - with particular reference to the impeachment of Archbishop Laud and the bill of attainder against the first Earl of Strafford.

There is, as always, a great deal to be learned from the study of History.

In this case, a majority of the English House of Commons confronted, in King Charles I, an autocrat determined to govern without due respect for the legislative and fiscal powers of Parliament.  Yet, despite his high-handed manner, King Charles retained a great deal of popular support.  He was, after all, King, by the Grace of God.

Rather than throwing up their hands and letting King Charles continue in his high-handed career, the majority of the House of Commons went after his two chief advisors.  Archbishop Laud was impeached, imprisoned and, a few years later, beheaded.  Strafford was attainted, imprisoned in the Tower, and promptly beheaded.

Deprived of his chief advisors, King Charles was dramatically weakened.  A year later, pushed to the limit, he made the fatal mistake of raising an army and taking up arms against Parliament.  The English Civil War began, and Charles' ultimate defeat on the battlefield ended his reign, and his life.

In these less sanguinary times, it's hard to imagine that anyone would seriously advocate beheading members of the Trump Administration, much less the President - and a civil war would be almost inconceivable.  But the strategy pursued by Parliament when King Charles attempted to govern as an autocrat deserves consideration.

It's not really surprising the Congressional Democrats seem unable to unite behind a direct effort to impeach the President.  After all, he retains the support of a significant part of the population and the stubborn adherence of Republican legislators who - however much they loathe him in private - fear losing their seats should they incur the wrath of his followers.

But, while that wrath would undoubtedly reach fever pitch should Congress seek to impeach the President, it's far less certain that violent passions would be roused if the House began impeachment proceedings against, say, Attorney General Barr, or Stephen Miller, or Sarah Sanders.

Yet these three - and others - are certainly impeachable.

In his bizarre mismanagement of the release of the Mueller Report, Attorney General Barr has been guilty of working entirely on behalf of the President, rather than on behalf of the American people.

Stephen Miller, perhaps the most personally loathsome member of the Administration - his chief always excepted - has consistently advised his irreflective and constitutionally-illiterate boss to pursue illegal and unconstitutional measures.

Sarah Sanders has admitted, under oath, to lying to the American people in order to justify the actions of her boss.

Impeachment proceedings against any or all of these individuals would be fully justified.  There's even a chance the Senate might vote to convict one or more of them.  After all, most Republican legislators secretly despise the President and his team.  And it's unlikely the President's base would be howling for blood if Republican Senators voted to condemn the ghoulish Miller, or the embarrassingly inept Sanders.

Barr, to be sure, might be another story.  He would have his defenders.  But Barr, as an old Washington hand with a respectable record of public service, has already shown himself to be uncomfortable when pressed by Congress to explain his conduct.  It's a fair bet that, if actually impeached, he would fold up like a cheap tent and resign, hoping thereby to preserve some scrap of his reputation.

Moreover, impeachment proceedings against these could just be the beginning.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin refuses to turn over the President's tax records to Congress - in direct violation of statute.  That's sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal.  Jared Kushner is up-to-the-neck in nearly everything the President does.  Would anybody really be sorry to see him go?

The beginning of impeachment proceedings against these and other aides and advisors would create opportunities for Congressional committees to compel testimony and the production of documents which might eventually used against the President himself.  Such proceedings might also persuade other members, or former members, of the Administration to come forward with stories yet untold.

Best of all, impeachment of Barr, Miller, Sanders, and others would unite virtually all Democrats, something the prospect of impeaching the President seems, at this moment, unlikely to achieve.

Congress should begin here and now.  Impeach the minions.  One by one, deprive the President of his enablers and defenders - all the while compiling additional evidence against Individual One, himself.

It's the right thing to do, or at least, a right thing to do, until Democrats can unite behind the larger task.