Just a summary of the many striking parallels between Andrew Johnson’s impeachment and Trump’s.

The 1868 Johnson impeachment was a kind of trap triggered when he exercised his Constitutional prerogative by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stanton--does this sound familiar?--was a kind of "sleeper," a holdover (in this case from the Lincoln administration) working with the Radical (!) Republicans to "resist" Johnson’s Southern-friendly policies. (Stanton refused to go quietly; he even barricaded himself in his office at one point!)

Anticipating the firing, Congress had passed the unconstitutional Tenure in Office Act, specifically designed to protect Stanton and make his firing an impeachable offense. The Senate was inventing a reason to go after the President for acting without Congressional “advice and consent.” Violation of the Act became the primary Article against him. Other Articles included “the attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States."

The Articles were very similar to the ones about to be voted on: In effect, abuse of Executive power, and something not unlike “obstruction of Congress”: The outspoken Johnson was supposedly trying to discredit the Legislature by bringing it into "ridicule." Of course this was itself a ridiculous charge that amounted to nothing but vengeful butthurt. (“Trump—I mean Johnson—is making fun of us. Reeeeeeeee!”)

The impeachment and trial (with no representatives of the South allowed to participate) was a purely partisan exercise in politicizing--CRIMINALIZING---policy differences, motivated by anger at having a President that Congress didn’t like. Dèja-vu!

I'm not defending Johnson’s policies, or condemning the Republicans'--and certainly not Reconstruction. I'm just pointing out the parallels: Then as now Congress was violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution by abusing its own power, undermining the system of checks and balances, and obstructing the Chief Executive in the exercise of his prerogatives--in other words, by doing exactly what they were accusing the President of doing. They were trying to make a partisan “soft coup” out of what was intended to be an impartial process based on genuinely impeachable offenses. Reconstruction was the proper policy and Johnson was an obstructionist. The Republicans, unlike Schiff and his fellow Democrats, were not covering up financial corruption. But they were corrupting the rule of law and the Constitution. When the Constitution's integrity is at stake, the ends do not justify the means, ever.

The current coup against Trump will of course also fail, but the parallels end there. In the same year Johnson was acquitted, Congress went on to get the 14th Amendment ratified, and a pro-Reconstruction Republican (Grant) was elected President. The Democrats' coup, on the other hand, is already a failure with the American people, and things will only get worse:Trump will win reelection big-time, and Republicans may very well take back the House. The conspirators behind the coup may even face prosecution (one can only hope).

Talk about butthurt! That's what happens when you kick your own ass, Swamp Rats!