I’ve been against seeing impeachment proceedings primarily because I had the belief that America might be torn asunder by the undertaking. After reading the covery article in the current The Atlantic I’m persuaded otherwise. The article posits five benefits of the process and presents them with compelling arguments.
> In these five ways—shifting the public’s attention to the president’s debilities, tipping the balance of power away from him, skimming off the froth of conspiratorial thinking, moving the fight to a rule-bound forum, and dealing lasting damage to his political prospects—the impeachment process has succeeded in the past. In fact, it’s the very efficacy of these past efforts that should give Congress pause; it’s a process that should be triggered only when a president’s betrayal of his basic duties requires it. But Trump’s conduct clearly meets that threshold. The only question is whether Congress will act.
.
Below is the benefit that won me over, it addresses how this is currently being played out in the court of public opinion and the dangers of that. I don’t pay much if any attention to what our right wing brethren are choosing to believe. For me even reading The American Conservative has become mostly a waste of time. However I’m starting to doubt the credibility and question the basis of the occasional article in the NYT, WAPO and yes, even TPM. This is a concern for me.
But the advantages of impeachment are not merely tactical. The third benefit is its utility as a tool of discovery and discernment. At the moment, it is often hard to tell the difference between wild-eyed conspiracy theories and straight narrations of the day’s news. Some of what is alleged about Trump is plainly false; much of it might be true, but lacks supporting evidence; and many of the best-documented claims are quickly forgotten, lost in the din of fresh allegations. This is what passes for due process in the court of public opinion
Something interesting that I’d forgotten of in Nixon’s impeachment was that it was not the original charges that drove him from office. The House’s process of discovery uncovered the tapes directing the CIA to take what ever means necessary to kill the FBI investigation into Watergate. Nixon released a clumsily edited version of the tapes in print. The actual tapes were subpoenaed and shortly afterwards Nixon flashed his final 
got on the big bird and flew out into a gloom of his own making.
The problem is not new. When Congress first opened the Johnson impeachment hearings, for instance, the committee spent two months chasing rumor and innuendo. It heard allegations that Johnson had sent a secret letter to former Confederate President Jefferson Davis; that he had associated with a “disreputable woman” and, through her, sold pardons; that he had transferred ownership of confiscated railroads as political favors; even that he had conspired with John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. The congressman who made that last claim was forced to admit to the committee pursuing impeachment that what he possessed “was not that kind of evidence which would satisfy the great mass of men”—he had simply based the accusation on his belief that every vice president who succeeds to the highest office murders his predecessor.
There was public value, though, in these investigations. The charges had already been leveled; they were circulating and shaping public opinion. Spread by a highly polarized, partisan press, they could not be dispelled or disproved. But once Congress initiated the process of impeachment, the charges had to be substantiated. And that meant taking them from the realm of rhetoric into the province of fact. Many of the claims against Johnson failed to survive the journey. Those that did eventually helped form the basis for his impeachment. Separating them out was crucial.
Here is the link to the entire article. Like all covers of The Atlantic it’s a long read but worth the time. My next item on my list for today to to write an email to my congresswoman in support of starting the impeachment process.
Impeach Donald Trump
Starting the process will rein in a president who is undermining American ideals—and bring the debate about his fitness for office into Congress, where it belongs.
How are others leaning? Is now the time and do we wait or choose to let the process remain moot?