A few thoughts on this:
-Impeachment is, above all, a political process with political consequences both on immediate events and long-term practices
-Each impeachment—supposed to be extraordinarily rare—makes the next more likely and normalizes the given justification.
So,
1/
-Impeachment is, above all, a political process with political consequences both on immediate events and long-term practices
-Each impeachment—supposed to be extraordinarily rare—makes the next more likely and normalizes the given justification.
So,
1/
Because impeachment is a political device that is divisive but ultimately designed to ensure the long-term political health of the republic, *how someone is impeached* and *the perceived reasons why* are as important to our political future as *what they're impeached for.*
2/
2/
So, when a number of the opposition caucus has been on the record for impeachment before these articles emerged, replete with newly elected members of Congress saying "we'll impeach the motherf*cker" on election night, the perception that creates matters for long-term trends.
3/
3/
Likewise, when inquiries are run in a manner perceived as highly partisan, by individuals like Adam Schiff that are utterly lacking in credibility (see, e.g., his repeated assertions that he had direct evidence of collusion before Mueller debunked that), that matters too.
4/
4/
Many pundits are lamenting the potential long-term harm to the health country if Trump isn't impeached/removed, but none of those pundits are discussing the harms caused when a *political process* is run in a manner/by individuals perceived to be highly partisan.
5/
5/
In sum, the simple point is that if you're evaluating the long-term effects of impeachment/not impeaching in this instance (or any other), the latter considerations matter just as much as the former. As @AGHamilton29 notes, the only constraint on this cycle is electoral outcomes.
