1. On July 20, 1787, North Carolina’s William Davie spoke up in support of making a president impeachable. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected."
2. That is to say, the risk that a president might abuse his power to secure his own reelection was an *explicit* rationale for including impeachment. "He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive."
3. George Mason chimed in: "Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?” His concern was that elections could be corrupted; impeachment was the safeguard.
4. And as I’ve said a couple thousand times at this point, impeachment is a process—not an outcome. Two sitting Vice Presidents have *requested* impeachment proceedings to be initiated against them, to gain the chance to defend their conduct.
5. Impeachment, said Ben Franklin, is "the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."
6. It’s fair to debate whether Trump’s abuses merit his impeachment and removal. But that the Framers intended impeachment to apply only three years out of four is a claim without historical evidence or merit: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
