I am quite torn on the issue myself.

On the one hand, I understand the reasons why the option of Impeachment is an important one where elected officials are concerned.

However, I wonder if their usefulness in modern times is more cutting off the nose to spite their face.

it takes so much time and money and effort away from issues that really need addressing.

Impeachment should be used as a last resort and when there is ample evidence.

Don't think of impeachment and removal from office (two separate steps) as punishment, think of it as an opportunity to stop the hemorrhaging. That's what it's for. If an elected leader is damaging us, you want them to be stopped. Not just to watch them bash us repeatedly until the next election cycle. Especially if the reason you are upset with them, is that you think they schemed the electoral process to get in to begin with. Not pointing any fingers, just following logic there.

It is not so much the punishment perception that gives me pause,, it is the actual pros and cons when considering the distraction it causes for other issues that could be being addressed,,,

but I understand your reasoning Igor

To Igor's point I would expect Congress or the Justices to stop the bleeding. Balance people, balance.

but in general I agree Harmony, that impeachment is very serious because no matter who is in office, that person won their particular election. And, the process would detract from other important, meaningful work.

So just because we don;t like a policy is not a good enough reason for impeachment

The policy we may not like, the majority who voted the person in, probably does like. In our system we protect the individual but we often move forward in policy with one type of majority vote or another. [Imperfections aside]

The only time I've witnessed what I would consider to be a correct and accurate use of the threat of impeachment, was back during the Watergate mess. In that case, the problematic concerns about the President were so fundamental to the function of the country, that no other business COULD proceed, without addressing them.

The impeachment of Clinton was definitely a petty partisan effort to overturn a vote that the opposition resented, and so far, I have not seen enough evidence to support anything other than the same kind of partisan effort against Trump.

In the case of Clinton, the possible "crime," was as close to nonsense as I've seen (lying about cheating on a spouse is NOT a "high crime or misdemeanor"). In the case of the accusations against Trump, those are much more serious, but again, none of the evidence presented so far, supports anything more than possible prosecution of several of his appointees and relatives, for corruption.

However, the "threat" of impeachment against Trump, is NOT AT ALL impeding either the President, or Congress. A couple of subcommittees are spending a relatively small amount of time reviewing evidence collected by other people. Other than that, it's all fluff in the mass media. The members of Congress who could be acting on the other issues of the day, are not involved, and so can accomplish whatever they like, provided they can get enough Republicans to agree.

The divisions within the GOP, especially between the party and the President on POLICY and on Presidential actions, is where the action to see to the interests of the United States is being flummoxed. The whole deal with impeachment hasn't affected anything.

Huh?

Impeachment allows accountability.


Of course.
Otherwise it would be used far too easily.

The threat of impeachment is a sword of Damocles hanging over someone's head.
The cost, time, effort, necessary to use it means it's not used indiscriminately or all that arbitrarily.


What is the issue exactly?
Do away with the threat of impeachment?
Make it easier to do?


Huh?
"Their" usefulness? Elected officials?
Or you wonder if the usefulness of impeachment is more cutting off the nose to spite the face?

Government has different branches meant to keep each other in check in the exercise of power. They need tools in the system so that they have the power to keep the others in check.

There is no nose, there is no face. It would be more appropriate to say "criminals cutting off police to spite the community."

You do know/understand our system of government wasn't created for efficiency in promoting altruistic purposes...right?


What does that have to do with anything?
Corrupt use of power and illegal behavior don't really change based on modernity.

e.g. lying under oath about cheating and horse thieving and lying under oath about hacking state secrets...it's still lying under oath. If the current law is "lying under oath is an impeachable offense," it doesn't really matter what it's about.


If we just got rid of government altogether, let everyone keep all their own tax money, and spend it on the "issues that could be being addressed," that would be the most efficient and effective use of all!

Then you don't have to pay for government salaries, pensions, healthcare, staffers, giant jets, secret service...all sorts of things (unless you wanted to, and that was the issue you want to address, but it would be your choice!)

another point of confusion,, what constitutes a 'high crime' exactly

That has never been detailed legally. The best, most recent attempt to define those terms, occurred during the Nixon Impeachment proceedings (note, Nixon resigned before impeachment came to a vote). Congress had a study done to define the terms, and it came back in part with:



I myself would support this definition, because it focuses on whether or not the person being charged is or is not carrying out the duties of their office appropriately, and entirely avoids all the "because we just plain don't like him/her" concepts. Someone cheating on their spouse, doesn't threaten the entire society, or the operation of the government, or the nation as a whole, therefore it isn't an impeachable offense.

that seems a reasonable definition

IF it puts the nation in some eminent danger,,,,


so, do you think that is why Presidents don't drive, to avoid them possibly 'breaking the laws' of traffic?

do you think that would be impeachable,,?

only if the President was texting while driving.

Tweeting, TWEETING!

Point taken. Let me rephrase to amend that it would detract from other meaningful work given that the impeachment is likely frivolous due to lack of evidence of high crimes committed, treason, for example.

So, if something like that has been committed and a Prez is putting the peeps in imminent danger .....the impeachment becomes the important and meaningful work at that point

Long and short it is an important tool for checks and balances, but the word is bandied about too frivolously, imo

I was coming from the perspective of an unecessary impeachment effort

The evidence is there but the media is not focusing on the real issues. Start with Trump extortion a felony. Trump stated to the Kuwait government use my hotel or else. See the Kuwait government formal complaint. Trump response was but I will give all the profit, notice the word profit, to the government. Sorry the Robbin hood defense does not work. But Trump now claims he cannot give the profit to the government because it too much bookkeeping.

The real issue is the emolution clause of the Constitution or Trump benefiting from being president. That is were the focus should be.

As for conspiracy an agreement to do an illegal or immoral act will be difficult to prove. No one from Russia is going to say yes he did and we have a tape.

Arlo, you have the goods on Trump my man. You should write
this all down and give this evidence to the FBI, CIA or NAACP.
The "Emolution Clause" will get em every time. But, be careful
though, Russian agents will watching for anyone who doesn't
like Trump.

need to hold elected Persons accountable somehow!

I dunno, perjury is actually pretty serious. It would kill the career or any attorney or cop and typically would bring down any elected official.

Basically, any crime committed. A legal expert said recently that getting convicted of Jaywalking could fall into that category to get someone impeached. They should amend that and make it a little more specific.