I’ve graded it.
It’s honestly kind of weird to see politicians claim that impeaching a president for fomenting insurrection is divisive. It’s even weirder to see those same politicians do so in the context of calling their opponents “Communists” and “Marxist” ideologues for… I dunno… wanting to create more automatic stabilizers and expand Medicaid coverage. It’s even yet still weirder in the context of accusing them of wanting to commit cultural genocide against conservatives.
This strikes me as a good time to remind readers of Marco Rubio’s official explanation for why he voted to acquit Trump. In it, Rubio argued that:
As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.
The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”
I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.
I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.
I’m sure glad we dodged that bullet.