Is made by Michael Tomasky and focuses on the pragmatic case that it's "the dumbest move the Dems could make." And certainly I'm sympathetic to that political judgment. Were I Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or someone else charged with winning elections, this seems like a risk that mostly features downside. But as a journalist, or a pundit it seems odd to primarily focus on this point.
That the votes aren't there is a completely sound point. But on the other hand, it's uncontroversial to say the Democrats need to do oversight, need to bring things to light. Why shouldn't Democrats maintain as a goal that if such oversight reveals further evidence of crimes to convince the opposition and the public of that fact? It's all fairly hypothetical, yes, but it seems curious to prejudge the outcome of an investigations into an unpopular and seemingly criminal administration in its favor merely because pointing out the constitutional implications of its criminality would be politicaly inconvenient.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.