[Below has just been added to today's Iraq snapshot. I'm including it on its own to be sure drive-by readers, who have already read the snapshot, know it was addressed.]
ADDED: The public e-mail account apparently has a huge number of e-mails insisting I was avoiding "the big issue" -- impeachment.
Wasn't avoiding it, hadn't thought about it. I live in the real world. On Mondays and Fridays, I try to check in with community members who have COVID or who have gotten over it (check-in by phone). That's a little more important to me than impeachment.
On impeachment, if the Congress wants to try it, then they should. That's democracy. It would certainly be on stronger ground than the ridiculous lies about Russia that so many fools embraced.
Should he be impeached?
Legally? I've yet to hear a coherent argument on legal grounds. You have to selectively quote Donald Trump to even make a case on inciting violence. Did he yell "fire" in a crowded theater?
(A) No, he didn't and saying he did would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
(B) There was no case about "fire" being yelled -- the case that contains that opinion is actually about US citizens advocating for people to refuse to be drafted.
There may be a legal argument to be made. The best one would be built around proving that Donald was a clear and present danger to the US. With that, you could bring in his statements and you could also bring in issues of peaceful transfer of power and argue that he hasn't not done that and, therefore, he is a clear and present danger who must be removed immediately before he does something worse.
I'd be interested in seeing that argument constructed and you might be able to make a strong case on it. But the arguments presented thus far do not appear strong -- or strong enough. That said, the House would probably vote to impeach regardless.
But that brings us to the Senate.
And they try impeachment to see if the person should be censured, removed from office, etc.
The argument here could be (a) he is a clear and present danger so we must take up the American people's time with this. That's your only pro-impeachment argument. Unless someone comes up with something else, that's really it. And that approach would justify a real trial -- because we would need to determine whether or not Donald was now a clear and present danger to the country.
Otherwise?
If your issue is just what took place on one day in DC, some will respond that the day is already over, what's the point? He is gone in 12 days, what's the point?
To justify using time on impeachment at this point -- the House to quickly vote, the Senate to have a trial -- which would include Donald being able to call all the witnesses he wanted and his attorney arguing on behalf of Donald -- which would probably be a long trial -- you'd need a charge like Donald remaining in office for less than two weeks is a clear and present danger to the United States.
Again, I haven't thought much about it. I live in the real world and that's the world where most of us live -- far beyond the faux 'resistance.' A lot of people are struggling -- with COVID, with financial issues due to the pandemic, you name it (and I think we may need to recognize PTS-like conditions in our healthcare workers and other front line workers. My point?
A lot of people -- even those not fond of Donald Trump -- are going to be asking: "12 days? 12 days left and this is what they're doing? They couldn't provide this or that during the pandemic, they can't provide us with universal healthcare but they're going to waste time impeaching Donald Trump?" I think there will be a backlash if they do it -- one with a political cost for the next round of elections.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it, it doesn't mean that they should.
But people need to be aware of that possibility.
Another possibility? Nancy Pelosi has no real intention of impeaching Donald but is talking about it because she's hoping he'll get scared and resign in order to avoid impeachment a la Tricky Dick Nixon.
