On Dec. 18, 2019, for what was then the third time in U.S. history, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a powerful speech invoking the late Elijah Cummings, a civil rights hero and former congressman.
Pelosi: As our beloved chairman Elijah Cummings, an oversight committee chair, our North Star, said when announcing his support for this action, “When the history books are written about this tumultuous era, I want them to show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny.” He also said, almost prophetically, “When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?”
Elijah, as you know, has since passed on. Now he is dancing with the angels, and I know that he and all of us here are very proud of the moral courage of members who want to honor the vision of our founders for a republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend it, and the aspirations of our children to live freely within it. Today we are here to defend democracy for the people. May God bless America.
A few weeks later, the Republican-controlled Senate held Trump’s impeachment trial, where then-Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, delivered a similarly emotional message in his closing arguments.
Schiff: But here, right is supposed to matter. It's what's made us the greatest nation on Earth. No constitution can protect us if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country. You can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump. He'll do it now. He's done it before. He'll do it for the next several months. He'll do it in the election if he's allowed to. This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.
Republican senators—many of whom voted to impeach then-President Bill Clinton—ultimately shirked their constitutional duties and acquitted Trump.
The deluge of congressional retirements that Republicans feared was incoming appears to be starting, with Washington State GOP Rep. Dan Newhouse announcing on Wednesday that he will not seek reelection.
“This decision comes with no reservations or remorse, only gratitude for the tremendous opportunity to have represented my home state in Congress,” Newhouse said in a statement.
Newhouse is the first Republican to announce his retirement following the spate of special elections earlier this month that sent a chill through the spines of the GOP. Republicans fear that the growing backlash to President Donald Trump will sweep them out of power in the 2026 midterms, and lead other GOP lawmakers like Newhouse to decide to hang it up rather than fight to live another day.
Following the GOP's underperformance in a U.S. House special election in Tennessee, Puck News reported that as many as 20 Republicans would announce plans to retire rather than seek reelection in 2026. Those 20 retirements would be on top of the 24 House Republicans who had already announced plans to either retire or seek other offices—a large number that suggests GOP lawmakers expected to be in the minority upon their return in 2027 and would rather try their hand at something else.
Newhouse, for his part, is one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in January 2021, after Trump incited the violent and deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol to try to steal the 2020 election he had handily lost.
Rep. David Valadao
With Newhouse's retirement, just one Republican who voted to impeach Trump over the insurrection remains: Rep. David Valadao of California. However, Valadao is one of the most vulnerable GOP lawmakers up for reelection in 2026, and could see his district slip away if the blue wave that appears to be building crests.
Newhouse's district is heavily Republican. Trump carried it by 20 points in 2024, and 17 points four years earlier against Joe Biden, making it unlikely a Democrat could win here even in a wave. However, Newhouse could be replaced with a more far-right lawmaker, giving Trump a more reliable vote for his evil agenda.
Indeed, Trump and his allies tried to oust Newhouse in 2024 in an effort to replace him with a MAGA representative who would blindly follow Trump’s orders. But Newhouse narrowly hung on in a 2024 election against a MAGA-backed challenger.
With Newhouse’s retirement, Trump allies are crowing about being able to install one of their own.
As it turns out, lawmakers and federal workers aren’t a fan of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services. Not only does the HHS secretary have a line of people calling for him to resign, including his own staffers, but he is also now facing impeachment as well.
Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan, shown in May.
That said, it’s very unlikely the impeachment succeeds. Congress has a Republican majority in both chambers, making the likelihood of this coming to a vote on the House floor very slim.
As noted by The New York Times, Stevens’ actions may be more about getting some fire under herrun for Senate as next year’s primary approaches. She faces state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and progressive activist Abdul El-Sayed.
However, another politician also thinks enough is enough with Kennedy.
Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, scheduled a vote that would allow lawmakers to signal their concerns over Kennedy’s malfeasance thus far. In theory, this could open the door for both sides of the aisle to openly discuss the havoc Kennedy has wreaked on HHS.
But it’s hard to say whether Republican lawmakers will take that opportunity.
For example, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a medical doctor who somewhat reluctantly voted for Kennedy’s confirmation, has recently turned down opportunities to criticize the health secretary. That’s the case even after Kennedy reneged on pledges he made to Cassidy about not messing too much with vaccine policy.
Kennedy, who has a long history of pushing anti-vaccine lies, has fired scientists from a top vaccine advisory committee, ousted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director, and removed vaccine mandates for young children and pregnant women, among other things.
Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan announced Thursday that she plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., citing his unscientific medical practices as a threat to public health.
“RFK Jr. is making our country less safe and making healthcare less affordable and accessible for Michiganders. His contempt for science, the constant spreading of conspiracy theories, and his complete disregard for the thousands of research hours spent by America’s top doctors and experts is unprecedented, reckless, and dangerous,” she said in a statement.
Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan
Stevens added that she believes that Kennedy has violated his oath of office and that she intends to “lead the charge to remove him.”
Similar to that of the president, articles of impeachment must pass the House, followed by a Senate trial. If convicted in the Senate, an official can then be removed from office.
Stevens has accused Kennedy of dereliction of duty, citing cuts to vital research, promotion of medical falsehoods and conspiracies, lying about his views during his confirmation hearing, and failing to administer the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which are under his control.
The impeachment charge follows President Donald Trump’s widely derided presentation on Monday, where Kennedy appeared alongside Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz. Together, they falsely claimed that autism can be linked to vaccines and the use of acetaminophen.
In response, scientists and doctors from around the world have lashed out at the Trump administration, highlighting the dangers of their unscientific medical claims—particularly among vulnerable children.
But despite the public outcry, the autism quackery embraced by Trump, Kennedy, and Oz has received support from key GOP figures.
A cartoon by Pedro Molina.
“God bless President Trump and RFK Jr. for asking the questions and starting to use their positions, their platform, to give parents informed consent,” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said.
The autism debacle is just the latest in a string of failure and embarrassment from health agencies on Kennedy’s watch. His decision to censor CDC reports and muzzle experts contributed to an unprecedented measles outbreak in Texas earlier this year.
Kennedy has repeatedly pushed unscientific fears about COVID-19 vaccines and beefed up the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with compliant followers who have limited access to vaccines.
In his confirmation hearings, Kennedy said that he would uphold existing vaccine standards, but in office he has done the opposite. He’s also pushing to limit access to abortion pills while trying to pressure international scientists against publishing objective research on the effectiveness of vaccines.
Americans have died as a result of Kennedy’s malpractice, which has been enabled by Trump. If successful, Stevens’ impeachment plan could put a stop to it all.
On Wednesday, multiple media organizations reported that Trump's new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is planning to seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey—even though the Department of Justice does not believe probable cause exists to charge Comey with a crime.
The news comes days after Trump already fired the former U.S. attorney for the EDVA, Erik Siebert, because Siebert wouldn't heed Trump's demand to charge his enemies with crimes.
That’s an impeachable offense in and of itself. But now, Trump's replacement is actually following Dear Leader's orders and will seek charges against people Trump has vowed to get retribution against. It's a terrifying and stomach-churning instance of lawfare that should get Trump impeached and removed from office, but won't because Republicans are cowards who excuse Trump no matter how deplorable his actions.
Interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan
MSNBC, which first reported the news, said interim EDVA U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan will move to charge Comey with lying to Congress. She will do that even though Halligan was told by DOJ officials that in a memo that, "there isn’t enough evidence to establish probable cause a crime was committed, let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him," according to MSNBC reporter Ken Dilanian.
Comey would be the first Trump "enemy" charged by the Trump administration.
But Trump is also demanding that Halligan indict New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff with mortgage fraud, even though there is no evidence that either committed that crime.
Halligan is reportedly gearing up to charge James—who Trump loathes because she successfully sued Trump for business fraud, with a judge finding Trump liable for inflating his net worth in order to receive more favorable loans.
Aside from using the power of the presidency to try to jail his opponents, Trump is also trying to silence dissent and speech he doesn’t like.
Trump’s Pentagon is attempting to limit what reporters can report. And Trump is trying to pressure media organizations to remove programming from the airwaves in order to avoid being hit with costly lawsuits (see Kimmel, Jimmy).
What’s more, Trump is also closing criminal investigations into his allies (see Homan, Tom), and engaging in blatant corruption by giving out pardons to people who line his pockets with crypto cash.
"The point here is to get a few of Trump's political adversaries in jail, but the real point is a tried and true tactic of despots all over the world, which is to just harass and intimidate their political opposition so that protesters don't show up, candidates don't run,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Thursday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “That's how democracies die."
Murphy: "The point is to get a few of Trump's political adversaries in jail, but the real point is a tried & true tactic of despots all over the world, which is to just harass & intimidate their political opposition so that protesters don't show up, candidates don't run. That's how democracies die." [image or embed]
If you’re planning a trip to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, make sure to check out “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden,” which will teach you about all the presidents who were impeached or resigned in lieu of impeachment. So there’s Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and … huh, that’s it.
Yes, if you look for information on President Donald Trump’s two first-term impeachments, you won’t find it in this exhibit. The Smithsonian removed them in July.
The renowned museum told NPR it would put them back one day. Sometime in the future. It wouldn’t share a timeline.
It happened. Twice.
Until that day, if it ever comes, the Smithsonian is a part of Trump’s rewriting of history, one that treats his presidency like an unvarnished success, a testament to the greatness of the man himself.
Though the administration very likely forced this removal, the Smithsonian spokesperson is still obliged to pretend this is just a normal thing, no big deal, just regular museum stuff where you have to roll back history 18 years, you know?
“Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance,” the museum said in a statement.
You see, they can’t include Trump’s impeachments because it’s just so much work to update things, per the administration’s statement to NPR: “A large permanent gallery like The American Presidency that opened in 2000, requires [a] significant amount of time and funding to update and renew. A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”
That explanation might be a little less transparently bullshit if Trump’s twin impeachments hadn’t been included in the exhibit since September 2021.
If you ask the White House, they will explain to you that this is really all about returning America to its former glory and, of course, eradicating forbidden diversity. Per White House spokesperson Davis Ingle, for too long, the Smithsonian “highlighted divisive DEI exhibits which are out of touch with mainstream America,” and that the White House is “fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.”
It’s not just that the administration wants to remove negative history about Trump, though that is a driving force. It’s also about wanting the Republican Party, the federal government, and everyone else to display constant fealty to Trump. That’s why you see GOP proposals to put him on the $100 bill and on Mount Rushmore, to rename parts of the Kennedy Center after him and his wife, and to rename the Washington subway system the “Trump Train.”
But it also extends beyond Trump. They want to rewrite American history more broadly so that it panders to those like Trump and his ilk: white, straight, cis, conservative, rich. Vice President JD Vance has been empowered to purge museums of anything that doesn’t align with Trump’s view of American history as an unbroken success story. Trump’s team has demanded that museums and the national parks remove anything that’s supposedly divisive, which broadly translates to things that make white people sad.
It used to feel like saying Trump wanted to memory-hole the history he doesn’t like was a bit of a stretch. These days, though, if anything, it may be an understatement.
The Smithsonian Institution has removed from an exhibit a reference to President Donald Trump's two impeachments, a decision that comes as the White House exerts pressure to offer a more positive — and selective — view of American history. A spokesperson said the exhibit eventually “will include all impeachments.”
Congressional Cowards is a weekly series highlighting the worst Donald Trump defenders on Capitol Hill, who refuse to criticize him—no matter how disgraceful or lawless his actions.
Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to follow Donald Trump's March 18 orders to impeach federal judges who ruled against his illegal actions.
But when pressed about which high crimes and misdemeanors the judges committed to warrant such an extreme measure, Republicans had no good answer.
For example, CNN host Kasie Hunt asked Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio what “high crimes or misdemeanors” these judges committed.
Jordan replied with what can only be described as verbal diarrhea.
“All I’m saying is, if you’re acting in a political fashion and not just following the law, the ruling on the law, and I would argue that frankly just his ruling in and of itself, remember the Constitution is pretty clear, Article II Section I, very first sentence, says the power in the executive branch shall be vested in a president of the United States. The president has the authority,” Jordan said.
Of course Jordan left out that Article III of the Constitution says that judicial power extends to “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”—which is what the judges were doing when plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration was violating U.S. laws while carrying out its destructive agenda.
Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against the judge who tried to stop Trump’s illegal deportations of Venezuelan immigrants (an order the Trump administration ignored), was also asked which impeachable offenses the judge committed—and had a terrible response.
“This is for usurping the executive's authority, for demeaning the impartiality of the court by making a politicized ruling, and forcing a constitutional crisis,” Gill said on Newsmax. “That is a high crime and misdemeanor.”
Other Republicans also backed Trump and Musk’s call to impeach judges who rule against the administration.
“America is a Republic, not a dictatorship of the judiciary. It's time to get rid of the political activists masquerading as judges and re-establish proper separation of powers,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida wrote in a post on X. “That's why I'm proud to announce that I will be joining my colleagues in impeaching ALL the activist judges who are unconstitutionally blocking President Trump's agenda.”
And Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he was going to introduce a law that would ban judges from being able to order nationwide injunctions.
“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration - a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” Hawley said, without acknowledging that maybe it’s because no other administration has ever initiated so many lawless actions that violate the Constitution.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley didn’t explicitly say he supported impeaching the judges, but he made it clear he believes what the judges did was wrong—and will use his powerful committee to go after those judges.
“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members,” Grassley wrote in a post on X. “If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis. Senate Judiciary Cmte taking action.”
And it seems that Musk read Grassley’s comment as being supportive of impeachment, because after Trump’s demand to impeach the judges, Musk donated to Grassley and six other Republicans who have supported the effort to boot them, The New York Times reported.
From the Times’ report:
Mr. Musk contributed on Wednesday to Representatives Eli Crane of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Brandon Gill of Texas. He also donated to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.
“This is a judicial coup,” Musk wrote on X of a court ruling that blocked Trump from banning transgender people from the military. “We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.”
Of course, it takes 67 senators to impeach—a fact you’d think Musk, who Trump and Republicans have framed as a genius, would know.
Ultimately, this impeachment effort is futile.
Even if House Republicans somehow succeed in impeaching these judges, there is no way that Democratic senators would vote to convict and remove them in an impeachment trial.
The end result of this ridiculous posturing: making judges fear for their own safety as they receive death threats for their legally sound rulings, thanks to Republicans’ vile rhetoric.
Egged on by wannabe dictator Donald Trump, House Republicans are pushing GOP leadership to let them embark on impeachment proceedings against federal judges who dare to rule against their Dear Leader—a time-consuming and destined-to-fail effort that harms the rule of law and could even wound the Republican Party in elections moving forward.
Multiple Republican lawmakers have filed articles of impeachment against four federal judges who recently ruled against the Trump administration.
“Congress has the constitutional power to impeach rogue activist judges—and we intend to use it,” Republican Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against a federal judge who ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes that were deporting alleged Venezuelan immigrants to a gulag in El Salvador, wrote in a post on X.
House Republicans are pushing for the impeachments to move forward even as Politico reported that some GOP lawmakers view the effort to be “idiotic.”
“You don’t impeach judges who make decisions you disagree with, because that happens all the time,” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told Politico in early March. “What you do is you appeal, and if you’re right, then you’re going to win on appeal.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
Even Chief Justice John Roberts warned that impeachment is not the way to handle disagreements with judicial decisions.
“We are going to keep the impeachments coming,” Republican Rep. Andy Ogles Tennessee wrote in a post on X. Ogles himself filed articles of impeachment against a judge who ordered the Trump administration to restore websites it had taken down to comply with Trump's executive order targeting “gender ideology extremism.”
But complicating things for Republican leadership is that Trump blessed the impeachment efforts on Tuesday, saying that the judge who tried to block his effort to deport immigrants without due process is a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."
“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump wrote in a deranged Truth Social post.
Co-President Elon Musk, who has threatened to fund primary challenges to Republicans who don’t do what Trump says, also wants judicial impeachments.
“This is a judicial coup. We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people,” Musk wrote in a post on X on Tuesday after another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration, this time on its attempted ban of transgender troops.
Given that GOP leaders acquiesce to all of Trump's wants, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional, his demand puts them in a difficult place of having to choose what’s right or to make their Dear Leader happy.
“Everything is on the table,” Russell Dye, a spokesperson for House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, told Politico. An unnamed spokesperson to House Speaker Mike Johnson also told Politico that judges “with political agendas pose a significant threat” and that Johnson "looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson
But as aides for Johnson publicly said all options are on the table, top GOP aides privately admitted the impeachment route is stupid and will take up time the House needs to pass the rest of Trump’s destructive and unpopular agenda.
“It’s never going to happen,” an unnamed senior Republican aide told Politico. “There aren’t the votes.”
Plus, forcing Republicans to vote on impeachment could be politically damaging for the GOP.
Polling from February—when Republicans began crowing about impeaching judges who ruled against Trump—showed that voters want Trump to follow court orders.
"This court issue is a big loser for Trump," CNN's Harry Enten wrote in a post on X, referring to a Washington Post poll from February. "The belief that Trump must follow court orders is more popular than Mother Teresa: 84% of all adults, 92% of Dems, 82% of Indies & 79% of the GOP."
Other polls have similar findings, including an NBC News survey released Wednesday. It found that a plurality of voters (43%) believe the president and executive branch have too much power, as opposed to the 28% who believe the Supreme Court and judicial branch have too much.
The cherry on top of this for GOP leaders is that their members would be taking potentially damaging votes on impeachment for nothing. The charges would be disposed of in the Senate, where there is no way on earth that two-thirds of the chamber would vote to convict and remove judges. Republicans have just 53 votes there. To impeach a judge, they’d need 14 Democrats to also join in.
But never put it past Republicans to do stupid things in the name of subservience to Trump.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday said a federal judge who attempted to block his administration from deporting hundreds of immigrants to an El Salvadoran gulag should be impeached and removed.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg halted Trump's attempt to deport without due process the alleged Venezuelan immigrants he accused of being members of a violent gang. Trump already ignored Boasberg's order to turn around the planes, which were carrying the alleged immigrants to El Salvador.
But now he wants Boasberg removed altogether, saying in a deranged Truth Social post that Boasberg is a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."
"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump wrote in his insane and lie-filled screed. "I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
Multiple House Republicans want to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump and his administration's other illegal actions, including those largely conducted through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
"I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy," Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said in a post on X in February, after the judge blocked DOGE staffers from accessing Treasury Department data. Shortly after that post, Crane introduced articles of impeachment against Engelmayer, accusing him of violating his oath and abusing his judicial powers.
And freshman Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas said this past Saturday he was introducing articles of impeachment against Boasberg.
Co-President Elon Musk replied to Gill’s post, writing in an X post that Boasberg’s impeachment is “necessary.”
Elon Musk
But this is the first time Trump has publicly blessed Republican efforts to try to remove judges who are simply interpreting and applying the laws.
Trump got on the impeachment train after Musk, who has not just called for Boasberg’s impeachment but for the disposal of multiple other judges who have ruled against Trump.
“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Musk wrote in a post on X in February.
Even the right-wing New York Post editorial board has told Republicans to cut it out with their thirst for ousting federal judges.
“It’s nothing of the kind, and cheering it only makes Musk look reckless—a reputation he doesn’t need when many DOGE actions also face court challenge,” the board wrote.
Meanwhile, the Republican impeachment efforts have led to warnings from sitting federal judges that the campaign to clear the federal bench of anyone who rules against Trump will chill the judicial branch from applying the law out of fear of retribution or even violence.
“Impeachment is not—shouldn’t be—a short circuiting of that process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Sullivan said at a news conference earlier in March, according to a report from Bloomberg Law.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, issued a statement condemning the calls for judicial impeachments.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a curt statement on Tuesday—a sign he thinks the impeachment talk is dangerous and not merely bluster.
It’s unclear if any of the impeachment efforts will make it to the House floor for a vote. But if they do, we will see just how many Republicans will shred the rule of law to blindly follow Dear Leader.
