Reply #87: to expect Congress to be rational in an impeachment is perhaps expecting too much

[bigtree]

If we proceed directly to an impeachment it will need to be for something specific. All of your arguments speak of crimes and abuses, but we will have to judge any effort on the evidence produced and also the reaction to it which, I predict, will be over the top. Once the political body begins their investigations and the prosecution the process will not resemble the adherence to law as you say you expect. The prosecution and defense of the presidency will be a political reflection of the participants and their motivations. To assert from the outset that the process, which has its parameters outlined in the Constitution, is going to produce 'accountability' is a stretch.

If you take, Iraq, for instance, there would need to be evidence presented which goes beyond the back and forth which has already occurred on that subject with most of this membership. We really can't expect a successful prosecution on an issue that Congress hasn't been able to successfully grapple with legislatively. There needs to be a process outside of the body where charges are brought in a manner which doesn't carry the tinge of partisanship that would be seen as originating from the majority. To disregard the political influences which would affect any judgment of the removal of the president, and assume that the 'law' would prevail on some prosecution initiated on a partisan initiative is terribly naive and misleading. The instant that the charges are brought, there will be a hardening of opposition; not only within the body, but, also from without from citizens who don't feel like their votes should be second-guessed by the opposition party. There needs to be a careful presentation of evidence, not just a summary rehashing of concerns that legislators couldn't account for through the many levers short of impeachment that are available to them.


And, too much made of the lynching remark. It was a poor choice of words on my part.