Well, if you can’t make a name for yourself through a record of good governance, why not weasel your way into the history books by becoming the first man to file an article of impeachment against the president. That was apparently what Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) was thinking when he formally introduced said article to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, because it makes a lot more sense than his stated reasons.
The impeachment article itself accuses President Donald Trump of obstructing justice in relation to his dismissal of FBI Director James Comey in May. Sherman claims that Trump, through firing Comey, was attempting to cover up “high crimes and misdemeanors” related to his collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 election.
“In all of this,” Sherman said in the official impeachment filing, “Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”
Sherman may be desperate for some camera time, but he’s not entirely delusional. On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News Channel show, he admitted that he wasn’t expecting his impeachment charge to go anywhere. One might then wonder why he filed it, and Sherman’s answer doesn’t do a lot to clear up the confusion.
“The hope is that it triggers an intervention in the White House,” he said. He told Carlson that he wanted to see White House aides go up to President Trump and tell him: “You’ve got to stop announcing reversals in foreign policy at 4 o’clock in the morning in 140 characters. You’ve got to stop making foreign policy in complete ignorance of the facts.”
Uh-huh. And Trump’s Twitter habit has what, exactly, to do with the obstruction of justice claim made in Sherman’s filing? There should be a mechanism in the House through which a bill like this can be summarily dismissed if the politician sponsoring it admits that they have ulterior motives.
Not that it really matters. Other than Rep. Al Green of Texas, no Democrats in the House want any part of this impeachment talk. They know they don’t have a chance in hell of making it succeed, not least because they don’t actually have any EVIDENCE of wrongdoing. And secondly, because without Republican votes, the move is dead in the water. And thirdly, because it’s outrageous to move to impeach a man who has only been president for six months, during which time he has outshined his predecessor by nearly every known metric.
But Sherman got to make the TV talk show rounds, so we assume the bill was a success by the only measure he actually cared about.