Sully: Impeachment Is Necessary

Reasonable, as always.
I currently tend to disagree with his general orientation. And I'm inclined to accept something like the spirit of Sullivan's argument and turn it against him: if you want to save the system, you have to stick to the rules. But (a) the Dems are--largely--using impeachment to get a do-over on the 2016 election and avoid a likely loss in '20. More importantly: (b) sober heads seem to more-or-less agree that the case for impeachment is insufficiently strong. And, of course, we have to stick to the procedure: if the case fails, it fails. If you respond that Trump's such a significant threat that it warrants bending the rules, I'd be inclined to respond that progressivism has taken over the Dems, and that it's such a significant threat that it warrants a certain amount of norm-and-rule-bending. In the end, I think we have to stick to the rules and procedures. We make the case for impeachment or we don't, and we accept the result. That's a pretty ordinary way to think about it.
   Even ignoring the other ways in which they're dangerous--the Dems are at least as much of a threat to the republic as Trump. They are, for example, talking about packing the court and eliminating the electoral college. Then, of course, there's their campaign to gain perpetual power by refusing to enforce immigration laws, thus importing the voters they need to become unstoppable. And in a sense that's just for starters--it's not to mention any of the other ten or twenty major crazy things they want to do.
   One response is: Trump's offenses aren't mere possibilities, but actualities.
   A counter-response is: the left's control of the media makes it difficult to discern how bad Trump's offenses actually are. Though that's to direct fire at a rather broader target.