> Honest question, you don't see a danger to our system of checks and balances if the executive gets to block impeachment investigations?
No, because its pretty clear that there is no system of checks and balances curbing executive abuse except when the systematic overrepresentation designed into the Constitution fails, barring the rare and unstable condition of a partisan disalignment (which has happened only a handful of times in US history), because the systematic factional overrepresentation in the Senate and in the Electoral College are aligned (and the overrepresentation is stronger in the Senate than the Electoral College.)
There would only be a system of checks and balances for executive abuse if the decisive actor in removal were the House rather than the Senate.
Absolutely ludicrous. The House and the Senate are both part of the legislative branch. If the legislative branch doesn't see enough of a problem to unify, and no compelling cases can be pushed through the judicial branch, why should half a branch of government be able to remove the most powerful member of another branch?
Both parties play the electoral college and both the college as well as pandering have existed since before Trump, Obama, Clinton, etc. The Democrats lost to Trump for the same reason Obama beat the Republicans, they didn't play as well as the other team.
No, because its pretty clear that there is no system of checks and balances curbing executive abuse except when the systematic overrepresentation designed into the Constitution fails, barring the rare and unstable condition of a partisan disalignment (which has happened only a handful of times in US history), because the systematic factional overrepresentation in the Senate and in the Electoral College are aligned (and the overrepresentation is stronger in the Senate than the Electoral College.)
There would only be a system of checks and balances for executive abuse if the decisive actor in removal were the House rather than the Senate.