Indictment, it has to be said that prosecutors generally do not pursue an indictment when they think conviction is impossible. I don't disagree with your assessment of the seriousness of the allegations against Trump, or the evidence backing it. I don't believe the thinking of the framers is known well enough to support your view that Trump hit the trifecta. Framers disagreed about almost everything. Half the country seems to favor impeaching and removing. That is bad news for the president. But half does not favor it. One could argue that 50% is not the critical mass many framers envisioned for removing a president.

My main disagreement - nothing says that failure to impeach "codifies" Trump's transgressions as normalized. For that matter, nothing says that impeaching and acquitting does the opposite of that. If he's re-elected after acquittal?

We've rehashed our disagreements plenty of times, and I'm not sure the dems have much choice at this point. I just think the committed pro-impeachers need a little more humility. The definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is intentionally vague, and not even static. Decisions to impeach or not are inherently political and not about codifying anything. It's not a legal process. But there are analogies. Prosecutors don't seek indictments when they are not confident of conviction, because acquittal is a failure, bad for their careers, and indictments alone are no help in preventing codification of the indicted behavior. That's a meaningful analogy.