Gilles Paris: The interest of this trial, the outcome of which was beyond doubt, was indeed to show the limits of the clairvoyance of the Founding Fathers. The latter obviously could not anticipate the effect of the political clanism which paralyzes Washington today. They have built a system based on a minimum dose of good faith on the part of its players. This is why the threshold of 67 votes has been set for dismissal, which requires a consensus between the two parties (none of which will have these votes alone for a very very long time, if this ever happens. day).
The impeachment of Bill Clinton, charged with a trifle compared to what was accused of Donald Trump (perjury to mask an extramarital affair), had been a first warning. It was a question for the Republicans of settling scores with a president just over a year from his departure from power. The Senate Republicans' follow-up to the White House in the case of Donald Trump is a second. Part of Congress chose to relinquish its power and mandate.
Another path was possible, as some Republican senators have shown, very frustrated with the way things are going. They could further investigate the Ukrainian affair, highlight more clearly the possible responsibility of Donald Trump, while concluding that these faults, if they were proven, did not deserve a dismissal. But this path has not been explored, as we saw with the vote against hearing new witnesses.
Therefore, two options are possible: impeachment can effectively become a useless constitutional tool or be trivialized and be lowered to a kind of symbolic censorship.
