That whenever any President becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the House of Representatives to impeach him.
Pushing President Tweety to one side (and fixing one phrase in the quote accordingly) . . . if it's aligned to the proper language of the Declaration that pronounces upon governments established to protect our rights, I can't see a damn thing wrong with
that sentiment.
I can think of presidents Republican and Democratic alike who
should have been impeached but a) weren't; or, b) were, but escaped in a Senate trial (I mean
you, Droopy Drawers Clinton) or by resigning. (I mean you, Mr. Nixon, who really aspired to the wrong office when all was said and done---you would have made one magnificent Secretary of State.)
Though I must admit, I'm more than a little amused when Mr. Miele writes . . .
[W]ho are "the people" on both sides of this conflict? Pelosi implied that "one people" are dissolving their political bonds with "another," so who exactly are Pelosi and her like-minded revolutionaries declaring independence from? President Trump, the 63 million people who voted for him, the Republican Party or the authors of the Constitution itself?
. . . because I'm not sure which is funnier, Mr. Miele assigning implicit supremacy to 19 percent of the population of the United States (yes, Mr. Thurber, we can look it up) or Nancy Pelousy declaring independence from 19 percent of the population of the U.S. (I think it's pretty safe to assume that Ms. Pelousy
and President Tweety have in common a pronounced self-independence from the Constitution, when all is said and done. But I'd caution Ms. Pelousy further to be
very careful what she wishes for. Unless she forgets---on the assumption she knows---that
any president can be impeached by
any House of Representatives,
any time, if he or she fails to mind his or her Constitutional, ethical, or even political p's and q's, on the concurrent assumption that any House would have the stones to do so.)