L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't think the founders meant for impeachment to be a means to make a political statement.
It should be used judiciously and only if you are truly prepared to remove the president.
I don't follow you there.
Impeaching a president for crimes he committed is not making a political statement.
Those who would vote for impeachment are totally prepared to remove the president.
You're saying don't do it unless you have the 67 Senate votes.
You can't know the votes until you have the trial.
Sometimes guilty criminals get off but it doesn't mean they should not have been put on trial.
The crimes are there. The precedent is there.
Yes you can know the votes before the trial. We know that if impeachment happened today it would go nowhere in the senate.
And your "guilty criminal" example is a good metaphor. Even if a prosecutor knows the criminal is guilty, he does not indict if he doesn't think he can get a conviction. It would just waste everyone's time and money. You don't hold a trial just to make a point.
The House has a lot of important things to do. They need to do whatever they can to remove this dangerous president. This includes investigations, hearings, and protecting Mueller.
Impeachment should not happen until and unless there is a decent chance the president will be found guilty. To proceed before that would be irresponsible.