This can only be true if Matt believes that Impeachment withoput removal is a cogent political agenda. And yet, his entire discusssion seems to demonstrate an opposite belief.

However, then new impeachment craze HAS begun to embraced "impeachment with no removal" as its own reward. At bottom, what I fear is behind the psyche of the new impeachment craze is this type of thinking:

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can't be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

Let's get something straight:

Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment.  Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

The most ironic and humorous part of that diary to me is the end:

DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of  "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now out in a paperback edition).

"The Legal Argument for Removing President George Bush." I guess impeachment USED to be about removal, until it wasn't.

Interestingly, the history of impeachment and removal from office is quite clear that impeachment is not a stand alone punishment. Start with the Constitution:

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is clearly not a stand-alone punishment or remedy. It is a political indictment to be tried for the purposes of determining whether removal of federal officers should occur.

The Constitutional Debates on the subkect also demonstrate this:

The Framers' Debates on the Impeachment Provisions (from the notes of James Madison, taken at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787):

Saturday, June 2

Mr. Dickenson moved "that the Executive be made removeable bv the National Legislature on the request of a
rnajority of the Legislatures of individual States." It was necessary he said to place the power of removing

somewhere.  He did not like the plan of impeaching the Great officers of State.  He did not know how provision

could be made for removal of them in a better mode than that which he had proposed.  He had no idea of abolishing

the State Governments as some gentlemen seemed inclined to do. The happiness of this Country in his opinion

required considerable powers to be left in the hands of the States.

Mr.  Bedford seconded the motion.

Mr.  Sherman contended that the National Legislature should have power to remove the Executive at pleasure.

Mr.  Mason.  Some mode of displacing an unfit magistrate is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of those who
choose, as well as by the corruptibility of the man chosen . He opposed decidedly the making the Executive the

mere creature of the Legislature as a violation of the fundamental principle of good Government.

Mr.  Madison & Mr. Wilson observed that it would leave an equality of agency in the small with the great States;
that it would enable a minority of the people to prevent ye. removal of an officer who had rendered himself justlv

criminal in the eyes of a majority; that it would open a door for intrigues agst. him in States where his

administration tho' just might be unpopular, and might tempt him to pay court to particular States whose leading

parfizans he might fear, or wish to engage as his partisans.  They both thought it bad policy to introduce such a

mixture of the State authorities, where their agency could be otherwise supplied. . .

. . . On Mr. Dickenson's motion for making Executive removeable by Natl.; Legislature at request of majority of
State Legislatures was also rejected--all the States being in the negative Except Delaware which gave an

affirmative vote.

Friday, July 20

"to be removeable on impeachment and conviction for mal practice or neglect of duty." see Resol: 9

Mr.  Pinkney & Mr. Govr.  Morris moved to strike out this part of the Resolution.  Mr. P. observd. he ought not to
be impeachable whilst in office

Mr.  Davie.  If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself
re-elected.  He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.

Mr. Wilson concurred in the necessity of making the Executive impeachable whilst in office.

Mr. Govr.  Morris.  He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who mav be punished.  In case he should be
re-elected, that will be 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

Col.  Mason.  No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued.  Shall any
man be above justice?  Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injusfice?  When

great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors.  There had been much

debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive.  He approved of that which had been adopted at first,

namely of referring the appointment to the Natl.  Legislature.  One objection agst.  Electors was the danger of their

being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office.

Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be

suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?

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?  Whv 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 he should be unjustly accused.

"HONORABLE acquittal" said Franklin! That is what impeachment without removal is. It is NOT a punishment onto itself.

There has come a point now where impeachment proponents will say anything to forward their obsession. Nothing matter now to them but that impeachment be deemed a serious option.

This species of impeachment supporter does harm to the progressive cause.