Complete malarkey.

>"An impeachment (by the House of Representatives) is analogous to an indictment. The trial is held in the Senate, and the Senators serve as a judge-less jury."

Impeachment may be analogous to an indictment, but it has become a political tool, not a true check on presidential power.

>"Partisan impeachment is rightfully difficult, by design. Juries either have to be unanimous or a super-majority, depending on venue. If you can't get a small fraction of the opposition party to agree with the charges, the charges are defective."

The difficulty of impeachment due to partisan bias undermines its purpose. Historical impeachments show the Senate often votes along party lines, ignoring the evidence. There's reason for that.

>"The founders weren't all convinced that impeachment was even necessary; the president's term is only 4 years. Many were rightfully concerned that impeachment would become a spectacle used by an opposition House to damage the sitting president."

Impeachment was included exactly because the president can cause immense harm, even in four years - and you are undermining the importance the Founders saw in it, especially enough to include it.

>"No one can preside over a country when any ambitious DA anywhere can drag you into court afterwards. I think the decision today was a good one."

No one should be above the law, lest we flirt with Kingship, which is especially unappealing given our history.

>"The majority in the court was wise today and closed the door firmly on lawfare as an alternative to campaigning, for all presidents moving forward."

This ruling is a very, VERY dangerous precedent, suggesting presidents are untouchable. Clinton v. Jones showed legal accountability can coexist with presidential duties

--------------------

Like I said here [1], "[Lawfare in the executive] wasn't even a problem before the last 4 years, and the only times it were - was when the suspecting president agreed they broke the law and stepped down, or got impeached.

We have monarchy after monarchy to show that sovereign immunity within leaders builds toxic ontological relationships between participants of a political system, and often invites tyranny. Your suspicions, for 238 years straight, have been amiss."

1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40847963#40851373

> Impeachment was included exactly because the president can cause immense harm, even in four years - and you are undermining the importance the Founders saw in it, especially enough to include it.

The GP is accurately paraphrasing the notes from the Constitutional Convention. Many of those present did not think the President should be impeachable at all. They all compromised on the current process because they didn't think the Senate could become politicized enough to convict for partisan reasons.

For example:

> Mr. PINKNEY did not see the necessity of impeachments. He was sure they ought not to issue from the Legislature who would in that case hold them as a rod over the Executive and by that means effectually destroy his independence. His revisionary power in particular would be rendered altogether insignificant.

> Mr. KING expressed his apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive & Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the case, if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary therefore that a forum should be established for trying misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good behaviour? The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature: Like them particularly the Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6 years he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good behaviour, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised. But under no circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.

> Mr. Govr. MORRIS. He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who may be punished. In case he should be re-elected, that will be [FN9] sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to impeach? Is the impeachment to suspend his functions. If it is not the mischief will go on. If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.

Even some of the pro-impeachment members supported it for, uh, unusual reasons:

> Docr. FRANKLIN was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive. History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst. this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd.. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when [FN10] he should be unjustly accused.