Retribution – February 2, 2026

Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, one indicted for lying to Congress and the other for bank fraud, both cases ended up dismissed citing unlawful appointment of the prosecutor. Seemingly for leading investigations and/or prosecutions of Trump.

Former National Security Advisor, to Trump, John Bolton indicted of mishandling classified materials. Presumably for having the audacity of criticizing the current Trump Administration.

The soon term ending Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell subjected to a “criminal probe” regarding Fed building renovations. Looks like the spat is entirely over Trump not getting his way with interest rate cuts.

Military censure at the hands of Pete Hegseth aimed at Senator Mark Kelly, who has served this nation for decades, for reminding the military of their oath to the Constitution including not following illegal orders. Even a passive threat from a sitting President of sedition and “punishable by death.”

The FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatening ABC and Jimmy Kimmel “the easy way or the hard way” over comments he made about Charlie Kirk, suggesting that the network pull the show.

Multiple people in the DOJ and FBI ordered to resign or be fired over any involvement in any prior actions or investigations of Trump. An acting director Brian Driscoll terminated for not giving full names to Trump directly of anyone who was even remotely assigned to January 6th investigations (never mind that agents are not exactly in a position of picking what they investigate.) Field office post removals, “separations” in the hundreds, etc.

By executive order from Trump five or more law firms barred from entering federal buildings with security clearances revoked, all as punitive actions, seemingly for ties to opposition in one regard or another. Some already by court action determined to be “retaliation” and therefor unconstitutional even if Trump claimed “national security risks.”

If you agree that the majority of the above not just happened but at least some were entirely at the hands of a sitting President, then we have to consider the power of majority political control resulting in the key goal of retribution against any and all opposition.

Pretty sure that forcible suppression of opposition and use of executive authority against dissent are two core characteristics of a word. We may come back to that later in the discussion.

Question – Is this new?

Not entirely, one may argue the escalation of guiding the executive branch to go after political opposition is well underway.

This new round of Impeachments

Across all of US history only three Presidents have been formally impeached by the House of Representatives, arguably the first step in the process where someone in the House introduces a resolution to impeach.

Andrew Jackson in 1886 was impeached by the House for violating the Tenure of Office Act by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Not convicted by the Senate, by one vote. At least it was mildly amusing to realize a Secretary of War ended up barricading themselves in their own office.

Many add Nixon to the pile of Presidents and impeachment, but he resigned from office in 1974 before the House could vote on the motion. All over Watergate, the entire affair ended up swept under the rug. Ultimately pardoned by Gerald Ford in 1974 with the listed reason being national stability in the face of economic concerns and growing domestic pressures over the War in Vietnam.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate had other opinions on the standards for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted the next year. Republicans did not have 60 votes in that Senate anyway. The optics of the action seemed to be enough and as such his legacy will always have this event as footnote.

Then of course Donald Trump, only president in history to be impeached twice by the House in 2019 of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over a phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and again in 2021 charged with incitement of insurrection following the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol. Acquitted both times, largely for different political motivations each time.

It is worth noting that Joe Biden faced an inquiry for impeachment in 2023, on allegations of corruption and influence peddling from House Republicans. Mainly around his son Hunter Biden but the family was targeted on the notion of intention to “monetize the Biden brand.” Republicans in August 2024 released their 300 page report on this, general election campaign cycle in full swing, and ultimately no Articles of Impeachment were passed. Biden handed off the campaign to Harris anyway to entirely lackluster conclusions.

Why mention all that?

Quite a few other Presidents have been targets of Formal Inquiries or some other Resolution suggesting impeachment. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W Bush, Barack Obama, and as mentioned above Joe Biden. A few others historically speaking have also seen various actions taken but the point is in the modern era every single President from Reagan to current has seen some sort of action taken in the House suggesting impeachable offense. And as mentioned, a few times actually impeached by the House. One President twice, Senate action notwithstanding.

Or, a clear escalation.

All things considered, it is very likely that Trump will face a very similar midterm “shellacking” that Obama faced during his first midterm. And with that, very likely that if follows and Democrats control the next Congress’ House then someone at some point will draw up articles of Impeachment.

Beings a little clarity to the question on “I am your retribution” as Trump stated to really being just an escalation in a political game that goes back decades. Not really an original in this space but definitely upped the wick on how a President, and/or how a Congress, deals with opposition.

In the modern era, no matter who is elected President, the going thought from opposition is ‘can we get rid of the guy with an impeachment?’

Going a bit deeper…

In past 50 or so years a President has enjoyed a “unified government” some nine times, defined as the President of one party during a time that the same party had majority control over both chambers of Congress House and Senate.

Jimmy Carter enjoyed all 4 years of Democrats controlling Congress, Bill Clinton’s first 2 years of 8 was unified, George W Bush held briefly at the start until a Senate defection but enjoyed the last 4 years of his time unified, Barack Obama like Bill enjoyed his first 2 of years unified, Trump’s first term saw his first 2 years being aligned to him, Joe Biden enjoyed the same thing, and now Trump’s second term is too early to call for his last 2 years.

It is becoming more rare, and a well crafted argument exists that our violent political pendulum is the primary reason. By majority of voter sentiment, we quickly dislike what one party is doing and hand control to the other. No matter the argument from the majority party, no matter the opinion of the President. Rare exceptions, but it is clear the rule is a President’s party loses control of at least one chamber of Congress at the midterm.

Much too much becomes give the other team a shot.

One could give weight to this trend as supplemental to why we see political escalation and frankly revenge oriented action. Power held is short term, a unified government seems to be increasingly rare, so taking out anger on the minority team and/or the sitting President is very high on the to-do list regardless of what is campaigned on.

One of the biggest headline grabbing moves seems to be paint the entire opposing party by an impeachment of a President, then sit back and watch members of Congress supporting that President tap dance during interviews.

Trump should or should not be impeached is a matter of consideration, but the reality is if Democrats take the House he most certainly will… again.

Question – What ends the cycle of escalation?

Unsure there is a clear answer on that.

Retaliatory measures is all too common now, same story with reorganization of the Executive Branch to ensure loyalty to a President over any sense of departmental function or even Constitutional consideration.

Said another way, our duopolistic political system has found a new step in evolution of how a President aligns to Congress, then how an Executive Branch is lead based far more on loyalty to a person over best qualified to lead a critical function of the Federal Government.

One answer to consider, alternatives to the establishment of both parties.

By extension that means also looking at how both Democrats and Republicans capitalize on polarization. We know hostility is up, occasional violence is sadly a norm, and it has resulted in even basic disagreement on facts. A few sources will call it a “basic fact gap.” Examples being something like interpretation of economic data, or does climate change exist, and now are vaccines safe.

Considerations

When thinking about this conversation we have a few aspects to ponder, including our own roles in how we vote.

It is still widely reported that “moderates and independents” make up north of 40% of the total voting population, some like Gallup put the number near 45% with their typical Party Identification” polling going back to the late 1980s. With that those that identify solidly in the Republican and Democratic camps are declining, somewhere in the 26% to 28% range. The younger the voter the more likely to be independent of political parties, slight edge going to Democrats just as slight edge to Republicans the older the voter.

Various polling organizations love the term “leaning Democratic or Republican” in an effort to blend non-party loyalists into some vague sort-of-party loyalists for the purposes of pushing one or the other as being in the driver’s seat politically speaking. Then again these same groups were not all that accurate when Trump won over Hillary in 2016 nor were they accurate on Trump beating Harris after the Biden handoff debacle.

Ultimately the concept of political revenge, “retribution,” seems to come down to opportunity and a self-defeating mentality of harm the other guy as a means to keep power for a party for a longer term. Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Perhaps the voter should consider the same principle, evaluating why a candidate claims they are running and as aligned to who? With so many getting a nod from a President or from opposing party leadership when trying to run for a Congressional seat it begs the question is the voter really all that important? I mean, outside of a vote on election day.

Consider these things when listening to a President talking about a candidate, or someone trying to hold a seat, saying “true MAGA warrior.” Conversely, then look at how the opposition aligns a candidate to the next round of political revenge.

Healthcare, civil rights, the economy, “kitchen table” issues, etc. we should hope come into the discussion. Not who to blame, but what to do.

It likely even means going a bit beyond the “fascism” argument and asking not just about the means of applying executive authority but the underlying issue for both Republicans and Democrats. That being, how to stay in majority power with a unified government for longer than recent history suggests. The difference between the ideological means, and the historically proven results for people. It is not good, leaning to authoritarian socialism or ideological fascism.

Final question – Has this retribution politics resulted in all that much good for whatever economic issues you face?