This is from the Twitter account of the historian and journalist Yoni Applebaum:
I want to share one strongly argued case for impeachment, from a leading constitutional scholar, that I stumbled across the other day.
“[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting.”
“The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law.”
“It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word.”
“We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot…”
“….But if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just lack lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not.”
The fire-breathing radical in question? Former U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee [and extremely right-wing Republican] Robert Bork, in a glowing review of [neo-fascist] Ann Coulter’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” published in The Wall Street Journal in 1998.
Bork died in 2012, so nobody can ask him if his views on impeachment have “evolved”.