On Ponnuru's 4 Impeachment Tests

Ramesh Ponnuru has some interesting things to say about impeachment here. He suggests that any argument in favor of impeachment should have to pass 4 tests.

First, they should have to show that the facts they allege are true. Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president. Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable. And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil.

I think that the first three provisions have been satisfactorily met, though perhaps the case for the third is somewhat weaker. I am undecided about the fourth, which relies on a guess about consequences (what the future holds). Would impeachment do more harm than good? Or more good than harm? Who can say?

The answer to that fourth question is mere guesswork, and it is also probably more influenced by our biases than the others (though all of them are likely to be so influenced, of course). Does this mean I don't think the impeachment of Donald Trump should be pursued? No, only that people ought to think hard about that 4th question.