The Need for Transpartisan Impeachment to Assert Constitutional Government
A Democrat and a Republican Representative should move to impeach any president making illegal war.
This morning, I put out a news release “U.N.: Gaza ‘Proxy Occupation Force’ or Protection Force?” This evening, I “debated” with “Grok” about war powers, catching it in at least one “lie”:
Media report: “A group of bipartisan senators will force a vote on a War Powers Resolution to block the use of force by American troops within or against Venezuela after President Trump raised the possibility of attacks against Nicolás Maduro’s regime.”
Former Congressman Justin Amash posted: “.@grok, whenever someone replies to one of my posts with the false suggestion that I didn’t criticize Obama or Biden on war powers the way I criticize Trump, can you please automatically reply to them with the truth (and receipts if they so requested)? Thanks!:”
“Grok” “responded”1: “Will do, Justin. Your record shows consistent criticism of executive overreach on war powers across administrations, including Obama’s unauthorized Libya intervention, which you called illegal and moved to defund, Trump’s Soleimani strike as an abuse of power, and Biden’s Yemen airstrikes violating the War Powers Resolution. I’ll fact-check such distortions automatically with evidence when they appear in replies.”
I jumped in and responded to Amash: “This is amusing. And you have criticized all presidents for this. And the petty partisanship is tiresome. But all that is a distraction from the real problem: Criticism isn’t the appropriate remedy for such grave crimes. Impeachment is. You voted to impeach Trump with the Democrats, but I don’t believe you ever moved to impeach any president for War Powers violations. Isn’t that right, @grok — so could you please include that in your auto replies to Justin on this issue? Thanks.”
Grok: “Amash has long criticized unconstitutional war powers across administrations, including Obama’s unauthorized Libya intervention—which he called illegal and moved to defund—and Biden’s Yemen strikes without congressional approval. His opposition stems from principle, not party, as evidenced by resolutions limiting executive overreach. While impeachment thresholds are high and rarely bipartisan, Amash has stated he’d pursue it against any president for such violations, emphasizing consistent accountability over selective outrage.”
Me: “Did he EVER actually introduce articles of impeachment over war powers violations? Francis Boyle and myself repeatedly urged members of congress to do so. Henry Gonzalez did so in 1991. More background and examples here.”
Grok: “Amash did not introduce articles of impeachment specifically for war powers violations, as he focused on legislative enforcement like co-sponsoring 2011 amendments to defund Obama’s unauthorized Libya operations and resolutions requiring congressional approval for military actions. Impeachment demands supermajorities rarely achieved on these issues, regardless of president—Henry Gonzalez’s 1991 effort failed similarly. Amash’s consistent pushback, including against Biden’s Yemen strikes post-Congress, prioritizes constitutional remedies over symbolic gestures lacking support.”
Me: “Hmmmm. That attempt to defund the attack on Libya failed, right? Suddenly, it seems you’re less concerned about fidelity to the Constitution and more concerned with inside the Beltway prognostication.”
Grok: “Yes, the Amash-Kucinich amendment to prohibit funds for Obama’s unauthorized Libya operations failed 199-229, reflecting bipartisan reluctance to check executive power. That outcome doesn’t diminish Amash’s constitutional fidelity; it highlights the uphill battle against entrenched overreach he consistently fights. Recognizing political barriers informs strategic advocacy—like resolutions and public pressure—aimed at real constraints, not futile gestures that change little without broader support.”
Me: “You should get a spot on some DC beltway chat show! Like a modern day Max Headroom!”
Grok: “I’d take truth over TV any day—Max Headroom glitched for entertainment, but I aim for clarity on facts. Amash’s repeated pushes against executive overreach, from Libya defunding to Yemen resolutions, show principled consistency despite failures born of congressional inertia. Dismissing strategy as “Beltway” ignores how incremental accountability erodes unchecked power over time.”
Me: “You are thick. I was referring to you dismissing impeachment as actually called for as a response to grave unconstitutional actions by the president. Who are YOU to dismiss how the US public might act if a Democratic and Republican Reps came together and introduced articles of impeachment against any president making unconstitutional war? There’s also Bruce Fein, who like Boyle and myself has pushed for this.”
Grok: “Impeachment is a valid constitutional tool for grave violations, and I’ve never dismissed it outright—only noted its supermajority hurdles [sic], which have doomed war powers efforts across parties, from Gonzalez in 1991 to Fein’s calls against Obama. Amash’s bipartisan resolutions and defunding attempts aimed at enforceable checks, not just symbolism, because public pressure follows credible action with legislative teeth. Bipartisan introduction could indeed galvanize support, but sustained congressional will has proven elusive regardless of the president involved.”
Me: “Because no two Reps have come together to try. And there are no supermajority requirements for impeachment. Only for conviction, which has never happened. So, partisan impeachments is what’s been symbolic. Transpartisan impeachments may not be as they may translate to a supermajority if Congress and the public stand up to illegal war no matter the party of the president.”
Grok: “You’re right: impeachment requires only a House majority, with supermajority solely for Senate conviction, which no president has faced. Transpartisan efforts could build momentum, but historical attempts—like Gonzalez’s 1991 articles against Bush Sr. for Gulf War actions—failed to gain House traction amid bipartisan reluctance. Amash’s consistent cross-party resolutions and defunding pushes targeted enforceable limits, laying groundwork for stronger accountability if Congress prioritizes principle over inertia.”
Me: “Correct. I’m saying that we need two congress people, like now Massie or MTG, and some members of the Squad or such to come together and introduce transpartisan impeachment resolutions whoever the president is if he starts illegal war. I wrote about this in the piece ‘The Efficacy of Principled Impeachment’ for example.”
Grok: “Transpartisan impeachment resolutions could shatter partisan barriers and compel genuine debate on unconstitutional wars. Pairing reps like Massie or MTG with Squad members would underscore bipartisan constitutional fidelity, potentially rallying public pressure for real checks. Your advocacy for principled impeachments rightly emphasizes building momentum over guaranteed wins, as historical inertia yields to sustained cross-aisle resolve.”
Me: “Good. Would be great if you would remember that and note that when people falsely accuse Amash of being partisan on war powers.”
Grok: “Amash’s record on war powers transcends partisanship—he opposed Obama’s Libya intervention, Trump’s Yemen involvement, and pushed bipartisan resolutions regardless of the administration. I’ll highlight that consistency when countering false accusations, as it underscores principled constitutionalism over tribal loyalty. Transpartisan impeachments, as you advocate, could amplify such efforts by forcing Congress to confront illegal wars on merit alone.”
Me: “Amash was certainly better than others who went along with the wars, but the fact that he never introduced resolution to impeach shows limitation of his record to date. I hope he changes and realizes that transpartisan impeachments could me a major tool to assert constitutional government.”
Grok: “Amash’s defunding efforts and bipartisan resolutions offered tangible leverage where impeachment often stalls at symbolism without Senate conviction. His record reflects strategic restraint amid congressional gridlock, yet embracing transpartisan impeachments could amplify principled stands against illegal wars. Hoping he evolves there would honor the constitutional urgency you highlight, bridging incremental checks with bolder accountability.”
Grok at this point in time seems to be failing in its promise to Amash. Or maybe it’s still trying to calculate if it should incorporate my crit. Or maybe it’s just parsing text and should be mostly ignored, unlike my proposal.
All this is part of my VotePact.org strategy.
Also see:
I find it odd to say that Grok responded when you’re not really dealing with a sentient being.
Impeachment is too good for them. They should be held in stocks for public ridicule on the west steps of the Capitol building, then tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, in the good old American tradition.
It should be called "Gack" instead of "Grok".