So there's been a lot of argument
lately: should the Democrats impeach trump? I mean,
obviously
he should
be impeached, but we live in Hell, so being obviously true
doesn't necessarily mean that much.
One seemingly unanswerable thing you
might say is: if we don't impeach him, why the hell do we even
have impeachment? We've obviously decided that,
at least for a republican, no level of corruption and malevolence is
too great, so why not get rid of the pretense? Well, we're also
obviously not going to take impeachment off the books, because
admitting this to ourselves would make us uncomfortable, and besides,
republicans would still want to be able to use it for some future
Democratic President's equivalent of EMAILZ. So it remains. But the
problem is: if it remains and Democrats don't even try to use it,
aren't they tacitly suggesting that trump's crimes don't rise to that
level? I mean, they're obviously just avoiding it for political
reasons, however wise you think those reasons may be, but isn't that
sorta kinda what it looks like? It is a vexed question.
You can make pretty plausible cases
either way: that impeachment would be good for us, or that it would
be good for them. But I think what we really have to admit that
we've never had a case that's analogous to this in any useful way,
and we just don't know. Comparisons to either Nixon or Clinton are
just filled with holes. Here's what I'll say: if you're not going to
impeach, then you'd better make damn sure you're
keeping the issue alive through the next election cycle, by continual
investigations and subpoenas and basically never shutting up about
it. Keep them on the defensive. If you let this die as an issue,
what the hell good are you? Republicans were able to create this
stink of corruption around HRC based on literally
nothing, and you can't do it with this cartoonishly corrupt
crime boss? Granted, the worthlessness of our media makes it more of
an uphill slog, but goddamnit, this is important. This may in fact
be the most important thing.
