Impeachment was created specifically to avoid having a person in absolute power that is impossible to be charged with high crimes. Impeachment was written into the constitution due to the concerns that the Founding Father’s had with respect to their experiences with monarchies. Kinds and Queens were often times untouchable, and as a result unable to be removed unless by means of revolution. The Founding Father’s wanted to ensure that if a person was elected, but later deemed unfit due to specific circumstances, that there was a mechanism to have them removed.
Almost all litigation against any president has been politicized, and frivolous. The mechanism of impeachment is not what protects a president from politicized litigation, but rather immunity as interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Constitution as it relates to official acts.
I think it’s also important to understand what an indictment is. Indictments are formal charges after a jury of citizens determined that there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Grand juries are given physical evidence, and witnesses give sworn testimony. An indictment is not the same as a criminal complaint, or criminal charge in the typical scope of things that involves an arrest.
To this end, if a president were to be indicted, it would be a significant thing as it would ultimately mean that there is witness testimony and physical and factual evidence of wrongdoing.
Finally, I didn’t mention Trump a single time in my article. But, IF Trump were to be impeached, and subsequently removed, it would indeed be historic. But this would also require Republican votes that are simply not there. And if such votes did manifest, it would likely be due to overwhelming evidence. But my piece wasn’t about Trump, it was about an unsettled constitutional question that was asked during both Nixon and Clinton’s controversies and impeachment proceedings (Nixon resigned before impeachment, but Congress had enacted articles of impeachment).
