Impeachment may not remove an official but even using the word leaves a mark

Impeachment is a crusty old word from a distant century. It is uncommon in present day English usage.

But impeachment still connotes a constitutional process with potentially historic consequences. Over the past half-century, at roughly 20-year intervals, efforts to impeach three U.S. presidents have imprinted impeachment as a term and a process on the collective consciousness of the nation.

One of those three presidents, Richard Nixon, resigned on the verge of impeachment in 1974. The others, Bill Clinton (1998-99) and Donald Trump (2019-20 and 2021) were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate, which failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to convict.

Nonetheless, the playing out of the drama surrounding Clinton and Trump has kept the idea of impeachment branding-iron hot. Even the word itself can be potent — a word that immediately becomes a weapon.

When "impeachment talk" gets started, it becomes the focus for political conversation and an object of obsessive fascination for the news media. Even in this season of war and turmoil on many fronts, impeachment talk is guaranteed airtime and clicks.

And so it has been this winter as the House has moved toward an impeachment vote on Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Mayorkas has responsibility for enforcing immigration policy, which is fast becoming the hottest issue in both the presidential and congressional races this fall.

It's helpful to understand how we got here.

It is widely acknowledged that "encounters" between border crossers and border authorities have increased dramatically in the past three years — with federal authorities tallying more than 6 million migrants just at ports of entry since Biden took