Thread by @jbview

ER I called for immediate impeachment and removal. (Plus @dandrezner @kdtenpas @TimOBrien @marcambinder etc.) bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

But just to add to that a bit...

I think this is a rare situation in which impeachment even knowing removal is unlikely/impossible would still be appropriate.

I've argued in the past that partisan impeachments have a number of drawbacks. But in this situation, most of those drawbacks would be null or limited.

e.g. impeachment has public opinion problems because instead of priming on an improper act, it focuses on removing the president - and normally that tends to push people who voted for the president to rally to him. But with no election coming, that's not so important. Meanwhile

Normally the House has multiple options for restraining or punishing a president - options that might get through a Senate that wouldn't go for convicting a president. Obviously does not apply right now, when there's no legislative train coming to jump on board.

And I'm usually skeptical of the argument that impeachment imposes high costs by distracting Congress and the president from other business, to whatever extent that's real it also doesn't apply to a rapid impeachment of a president who by all accounts isn't doing his job anyway.

Impeachment (and especially impeachment without removal) is a political act, not a moral statement, and so it shouldn't happen no matter how deserved unless it's politically prudent. But right now? I think it is prudent.

And far more so if one of the (handful of) House Republicans who have condemned Trump for aiding an insurrection would be willing to introduce it. But even if it was a straight party-line vote.

That's all. Original item here: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

Subscribe to the newsletter version here: bloomberg.com/account/newsle…