Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Squashing evidence illegally obtained (or its "fruits") is considered more important (by most people) than convicting an obviously guilty murderer who would go free without that evidence.
So what if that illegal evidence is necessary to remove a president from office who would clearly be convicted with it but most likely not without it? Does the same principle apply?
Not sure if you're trying to argue law or logic? Of course, squashing evidence illegally seized by the government is more important than conviction in every case. Without 4A we lose our protective rights as citizens against illegal search and seizure as well as our ability to travel and move about freely in this country without being harassed (see BLM !).
But I agree with Wookie on this one. Impeachment is a political process in which evidence isn't even necessary. It's more a matter of whether or not a sitting president is still able to effectively govern and function.