Is the Trump impeachment unconstitutional (part 2).

I wrote on this earlier and drew the same conclusion that it seems the Democrats drew; that if this is not impeachable because the President has left office, then it renders sitting Presidents immune to ALL laws in the final weeks of their Presidency. A notion which, in and of itself, is already at the height of insanity.

Frankly, the fact that the President's judges include members of his own party renders any semblance of impartiality moot and thus Presidents have, by default, improved odds of escaping prosecution.

But, the other point I initially overlooked which makes it all the more salient is that the nature of the attempted insurrection was to mobilize force to protect an elected official's own position against the will of the people.

In short, it is a charge of an assault on democracy itself. This is not poetic, or hyperbole. If you believe that Trump incited the acts, then you are asserting that he played a direct role in an attempt to subvert the democratic process. 

This is the sort of scenario people over-inflate when they talk about the dangers of setting a precedent. It is the sort of scenario that is so far fetched under normal circumstances that it is used a bogey-man of sorts in law arguments. It is actually quite insane to think that you don't really need to worry about the extremes that the precedent might set, because the case in question is already at the extreme ends. 

That Republicans pushed a vote on the constitutionality of this is possibly the most grotesque thing I've ever heard. And I don't believe it would last a second if such a case ever went to the Supreme Court. Specifically because there is little to contemplate on what sort of a precedent it might set. The most important tenant of the constitution which the country was built upon was attacked.

Do I think Trump SHOULD be impeached? I don't know. My gut instinct is yes. While there is some argument that national unity might be best maintained by burying the hatchet, that too sets a precedent.

The potential unrest is akin to a threat of violence. It is an act terrorism. In this case, burying the hatchet feels like it would be an acceptance of domestic terrorism. It would be a failure to properly set the tone for the future of the American Government and it would leave the door open to future Presidents to attempt to act in a similar way. And how the nation acts today would likely impact how such a crime is dealt with in the future.

If this wasn't already public and we needed an investigation to determine whether or not it actually happened? Sure, then you can end the investigation for the sake of national unity. But, as I said, we're not dealing in the realm of uncertainties and this isn't Biden digging into the past to punish his political opponent. In fact, Biden was neither President, nor even an elected official at the time the charges were brought forward. So, there is likewise no reason for a change in administration to change the proceedings.