No. of Recommendations: 2
It exists to remove an elected official within their term for breaking a criminal law.
And yet that's not what happens. It is mostly used for political purposes. In fact, I recall you saying precisely that some time ago.
If it was "criminal", then the end result should be prison. Not simple removal. But that isn't ever on the table. Not with Nixon, not with Clinton, not even with the Felon (who is an actual felon).
Remove immunity from the POTUS, and THAT creates accountability. Suddenly the GA DA can file charges about election tampering (for example), and if convicted the POTUS goes to the slammer (and is simultaneously removed from office). I think the Founders never dreamed of things like this, so they didn't set it up that way. They never conceived of a wanton felon in charge. They thought only "gentlemen" would attain that office, which in their day was the norm. Heck, Jefferson wanted to ban political parties -I suspect- in part because they would form "teams", and refuse to discipline "one of their own" no matter how much he deserved it. (I said "he", because I also suspect Jefferson never envisioned a woman in a position of power, being an 18th century man. Not because I was singling anyone out, in this case. Just a general observation.)
