The People Have Judged Trump - His Opponents Are Acquitting Him Through Silence

A majority of Americans believe there are already sufficient grounds to remove the president from office. In a survey conducted by the polling firms Strength in Numbers and Verasight between June 17 and June 22, fifty-three percent said there are grounds for impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. Thirty-nine percent disagreed, while eight percent were unsure.

Respondents were not asked whether they supported impeachment. They were asked only whether they believed grounds for it existed. Their reasons varied. Thirty percent pointed to corruption and personal enrichment while in office. Another thirty percent cited abuse of power and disregard for the courts. Twenty percent said Trump had launched an illegal war against Iran or committed war crimes. Sixteen percent cited his handling of the Epstein files. The distinction matters. Recognizing grounds for impeachment is not the same as simply favoring it politically. It is a judgment, not merely a preference. Earlier, in April, the same polling partnership had produced a different measure. At that time, when respondents were not asked to consider specific grounds, fifty-five percent supported impeachment while thirty-seven percent opposed it.

The findings are even more striking among independent voters, those who are not firmly aligned with either political party. Within that group, support for the idea approaches a two-to-one margin. Fifty percent believe there are grounds for impeachment, while only twenty-eight percent disagree. Those numbers could provide Democrats with a clear political argument ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, whether presented cautiously or as an explicit demand. Yet the party's leadership in both chambers of Congress has chosen the opposite course. It continues to downplay the possibility, even if Democrats were to regain control of the House or the Senate.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said this month that nothing had been ruled in and nothing had been ruled out. At the moment, he added, the party is not thinking about impeachment proceedings. Back in April, he had already described such an effort as politically unrealistic and potentially counterproductive. Behind closed doors, party leaders reportedly fear that a failed impeachment attempt could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of Trump's conduct. They also worry it would distract from what they see as the issues voters care about most - affordable prices and health care.

The opposite argument is just as compelling. Refusing to pursue impeachment despite allegations of this magnitude could itself be interpreted as tacit acceptance of Trump's conduct. Fear of appearing to endorse him becomes its own form of endorsement. Columnist Heather Digby Parton recently put it bluntly. Trump, she argued, is the most corrupt president in American history, and that fact should be presented before the public in all its dark detail while he is still in office.

This exposes an old weakness in politics. Anyone who studies diplomacy and human rights learns early that two different languages compete for dominance. One asks what is possible and weighs the consequences of every decision. It teaches restraint and keeping the door open. The other recognizes principles that cannot be negotiated away and rejects silence when injustice is taking place. Jeffries, without saying so directly, speaks the language of the first. He calculates, and what he measures most carefully is political risk. Yet diplomacy exists to serve a purpose, and its wisdom becomes empty once it detaches itself from the principles worth defending. A calculation concerned only with avoiding political danger rather than protecting what is right is no longer statesmanship. It is the absence of it.

The new Donald Trump Avenue in Hyderabad, India - the first U.S. president ever to be honored in this way. Thank you! President DONALD J. TRUMP

That leaves one statement: the party is not thinking about impeachment at this moment. In politics, "the moment" is a remarkably flexible concept. It can always be postponed until it has passed. Anyone who turns the Constitution's most serious remedy into a question of timing has already decided never to use it. The public has delivered its judgment in numbers that could hardly be clearer. The party that claims to represent those voters hears that judgment and remains silent, calling its silence prudence. But when injustice should be called by its name and no one is willing to do so, hesitation becomes an answer. That answer says there is no objection.

Note: All images were taken from Donald Trump's Truth Social page. They are not the result of our desire to create ridiculous pictures or photographs. Trump takes care of that himself every single day.