WaPo columnist - We don't need an impeachment trial.
-
...is therefore a significant question as to whether the Senate should proceed to a trial that is foreordained to acquit. Some would argue that the risks of a failed impeachment are worth taking to preserve the principle that no person is above the rule of law. Yet whether pursuing another impeachment destined for failure would actually accomplish this purpose is far from clear. An acquittal might send a stronger message of impunity than would no prosecution at all; a failed impeachment might encourage a future president to further test the limits of presidential power. And while a conviction could prevent Trump from running again, an acquittal would likely only increase his electoral chances while simultaneously boosting the prospects of his allies. There is therefore little to be gained and much to lose: A Senate trial that will end only in futility is not a good idea.
...
The purpose of impeachment is not only to punish bad acts. It is also to deter future misconduct. Those in the House of Representatives who supported impeaching Trump for incitement of insurrection should take heart that their effort accomplished exactly that. There is no need to bring the matter to trial. The impeachment has already succeeded. -
Actually, it was head-banging stupid to impeach him either time.
-
Nonsense. This is by far and away the best impeachment in our nearly 250 year history. It's the only one that will age well.
But for Trump's post-election antics, the insurrection wouldn't have happened.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in WaPo columnist - We don't need an impeachment trial.:
Nonsense. This is by far and away the best impeachment in our nearly 250 year history. It's the only one that will age well.
But for Trump's post-election antics, the insurrection wouldn't have happened.
Purely political impeachment that cheapens and degrades the whole process into political kabuki theater.
