I agree - now, as POTUS, what obligation is there to protect the presidency as an institution? Does the plan need impeachment for one reason or another? I can see how it justifies unleashing the hounds - but before or after? I think there’s a case to be made that impeachment should be avoided at all costs. NOTE “Q” said that there was no chance for removal from office and the Senate was the target - but the wording was always no chance for impeachment vs. removal. TBD ;)
Great rhetorical question, and it does drive much of the stonewalling and slow reveal.
-- Does the plan need impeachment for one reason or another? --
I figured a couple years ago that impeachment was inevitable. Not because it was part of a plan, just because that's the way DEMs roll.
I don't think a plan could count on DEMs overreaching in any particular way, unless the signs were there to see. Even then, they are unpredictable on details, even though the general direction is to run-over anybody who opposes their wokeness.
-- I think there's a case to be made that impeachment should be avoided at all costs. --
I don't. Just one example of tension ... at all costs would involve cooperation on House DEM terms, allowing all called to appear, to turn over all evidence -- similar to how Mueller was handled. That sort of cooperation damages the institution, because the institution is entitled to certain privilege and space.
The government is perpetrating one constitutional crisis after another. I sort of expect it, but then I view the entire government as a wasteful sham, a parasite on the body politic, worse than worthless, it is harmful. It is dishonest, corrupt. I see very few decent people in it. Not enough to make it work.