By now, enough has been said or done (or not done) by the current US President to raise sharply the chance of an impeachment motion succeeding.
It was 250 years ago that a group of dauntless individuals declared that they had resolved to free themselves from the overlordship of the British Crown and from then onwards, be an independent republic. It is therefore somewhat ironic that the present King of the United Kingdom chose to visit the US to celebrate this 250th year of freedom from Britain. It must be said that King Charles and Queen Camilla conducted themselves with grace and dignity. Charles has the distinction, if such a description could be applied, of being the longest serving Prince of Wales, finally succeeding the longest serving monarch of the UK, his mother Queen Elizabeth, who passed at the age of 96. As king, Charles used his royal prerogative to ensure that the love of his life, Camila, was designated the Queen. For two years she had been styled Queen Consort in deference to the deathbed wish of his mother. What a difference from the previous century, when his uncle had to abdicate the throne because of his insistence that he marry Wallis Warfield Simpson, who had twice been divorced. Camila was a divorcee, but the British public accepted her as the queen. The king and queen were given a royal welcome at the White House by President Trump and First Lady Melania, whose impeccable conduct ensured that she behaved as though born into nobility rather than into a good but decidedly middle class couple, both of whom have moved to the US and become citizens rather than remain Slovenian nationals. President Trump sought to recreate the pomp of the coronation ceremony of King Charles, which attracted a worldwide audience. Times have changed though. Not many citizens in the US cared for or even watched the welcome given to Charles and Camilla to the White House. Britain has come a long way since the time Elizabeth was crowned queen, a period when almost a third of the globe was part of the British Empire. These days, even in Europe, the country with the most clout is Germany rather than Britain. And it may be added that Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK joined Chancellor Merz of Germany in the way in which Trump had entered into a war with Iran. Merz said that Iran had humiliated the US, surely a bit of an overstatement. Had a more capable individual been President of the US, by now the clerical dictatorship in Iran would have been a thing of the past. Yet nearly two months on, the war is dragging on and dragging down the world economy along with it. Aware that the manner in which he has flubbed in the Iran war was dragging down his popular appeal, President Trump has been seeking to “declare victory and exit”, leaving Israel alone to do battle against the clerical dictatorship.
The way in which Iran under the clerics has held its ground made the UAE, a country marked by outstanding leadership, leave OPEC. The reason is the weak-kneed response of the cartel (which includes Iran) to safeguarding the GCC in a way the US under Trump has failed in doing. The price of oil has climbed and climbed, leading to a heightened interest in switching from fossil fuel based automobiles to electric vehicles. It was Elon Musk who pioneered the swich from fossil fuel to electric, naming his company after the individual who had discovered the way in which a steady supply of electricity could be ensured, Tesla. Under Trump, allies are slipping away thanks to his ill-considered barbs, which include the description of India as a “hellhole” whose people get “instant (US) citizenship”. Had Indian Americans not been there in the country, the US would have been handicapped in its efforts at retaining technological dominance. The IT revolution created the pathway in which talent of Indian ethnicity was doing wonders, and in the new world of AI, the same phenomenon is happening. This is among the reasons why technologically advanced countries such as Germany and Taiwan are welcoming an influx of Indians. Now both are asking if the US led by President Trump is a reliable security provider. The answer according to a growing number of leaders is that he is not. Forget the allies, forget even the US, Trump cannot even protect himself. The fact that lax security enabled a US citizen to enter the venue of the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) at Washington and fire a few shots (luckily without claiming a victim) shows how the culture of favouritism is scaling down efficiency even in the secret service. Security at the WHCD was the worst at an event that several of the attendees had experienced. Had he been a better marksman, the gunman may have assassinated the US President, who for a short while remained in the hall after the shots were heard. Should the Democrats take the US House of Representatives and the Senate, the lead item on the agenda would be the impeachment of President Trump on Day One of the new US Congress. By now, enough has been said or done (or not done) by the current President of the US to raise sharply the chance of the impeachment motion succeeding. In his spree of firing federal employees, Trump failed to take a lesson from President Nixon, who asked every appointee to send her or his signed resignation so that he could “winnow out the non-performers”. Woodward and Bernstein got much of their leads against Nixon from an FBI employee unhappy at the prospect of being removed summarily from service by President Nixon. In the same way, a Democratcontrolled US Congress would have several “Deep Throats” (as Woodward and Bernstein named their FBI source) giving input to assist in the impeachment. The creation of insecurity among federal employees is a policy followed by Nixon and adopted by Trump. Going the Nixonian way in resigning may be his way as well.
