I will respectfully differ somewhat from just about all of the respondents on this thread in saying that impeachment should be a last resort. I believe that was the original intent of the writers of the constitution.
I believe that intent is reflected in the requirement that conviction requires two thirds of the members present in the senate. Our founding fathers did not want it to be easy or convenient to remove people from office. They set a very high standard.
Right now we have some indication that Holder has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, but evidence right now is not sufficient to convince two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict.
If the question were phrased differently, for example, should Holder be removed from office? or should congress impeach and move to convict Holder if all other measures fail? then I can say unequivocally, yes! As the title of this article says it, should congress impeach Holder? then I have to say maybe, but it is too early to say anything more definitive.
‘evidence right now is not sufficient to convince two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict’
Wouldn’t matter. They just won’t convict.