.  . . . the same who is subject of the hugely successful musical, for what that’s worth.

[A] constitutional framework that bids Congress shrink from ousting a president confronts a party that lusts for the chance. Which vindicates a warning from Alexander Hamilton.

Impeachment, Hamilton warned in the Federalist papers, is bound to “agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties.” It would “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest.”

Hamilton feared that the decision would be “regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

See how the founders talked? 

It would be a first in our history, as we know. Worth it, you think?

via ‘Get Ready’ For the Perils Of Impeachment

Let us keep this in mind:

In 2002, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York was hired by the “full body of Catholic bishops of the United States” to “conduct research, summarize the collected data, and issue a summary report” on clergy abuse in the Catholic Church.

The report, titled “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010,” revealed that 81% of victims of Catholic priest abuse were male, and that 78% were pubescent or post-pubescent boys between the ages of 11-17 (51%  were between ages 11-14, 27% were between ages 15-17).

The remaining 22% were between 1-10.

Even as we look at it this way: perps were a minority of same-sex-attracted priests. So it’s a telling datum that you can cite without condemning or impugning the majority of them. 

Question, however: To what extent were they less likely than others to report the perps? Assuming reporting was at all common, which is surely the rub.

via Homosexuality in the Catholic Church