TPM Reader ML says the spectacle and process of impeachment is the point …
I have to believe there is a “failure to communicate” when it comes to your views on impeachment and mine. You write that impeachment is silly and a waste of time; at the same time, you advocate aggressive investigations of the president and his administration. The point is not to prevail in impeachment – we assume the senate wont convict. But that doesn’t make the process irrelevant.
What is a more aggressive, high profile, investigation than an impeachment INQUIRY? I emphasize “inquiry” because it seems to me your opposition to impeachment is your opposition to the conclusion of the inquiry. My support for impeachment is the support for the process of impeachment itself – the hearings, which will surely be televised; the witnesses, who will be under significantly more pressure to appear before an impeachment panel than some random house panel that is still occurring mostly off stage and under the radar.
In fact, many people likely will, for the first time, learn that the Mueller report was not a “complete exoneration” when they tune into impeachment hearings. They will learn of all the corruption you have ably documented, for the first time, in impeachment hearings. Individual, aggressive, hearings will not ever have the same reach as a full fledged impeachment inquiry.
So, I think we both support the idea that aggressive investigation and aggressive disclosure of what is going on is critical. I havent seen you grapple with the idea that an impeachment inquiry is the best way to get the coverage of those investigations and of the corruption that is present.