Today I am more than ever convinced that impeachment—or rather impeachment and removal—of the President is a remedy for when the President’s Party decides to turn on him. The job of the Other Party in impeachment proceedings against the President is to facilitate that Party’s turn, to create the political conditions where removing their President is a better option than sticking with them.
There are two possible scenarios here, where a President who is dangerous to the nation continues to be backed by their Party, and both are dreadful.
If we were to allow the removal of such a President over the objections of a Party that is essentially unified in support of them, then we’ve got nearly half the country believing that the removal is illegitimate. They are going to feel like the government is rigged against them and doesn’t (and won’t) represent them fairly.
If we don’t allow that removal, then we’ve got a dangerous President, which endangers the next election and leads to the same problem: nearly half the country feels that the government is rigged, and that ordinary politics won't and can't solve ordinary political problems.
People who don't believe that democracy ‘works’ are likely to resort to political violence. Either situation makes widespread political violence more likely. But I think the second is slightly less dreadful, if only because the first one comes with a readymade dangerous leader.
Essentially, if a country is in a situation where the President is a dangerous criminal (or incompetent) and the President’s Party continues to support that dangerous President, then the nation is in trouble that could not be fixed by removing the President against that Party’s wishes.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,