Again, you ducked the issue : What was the political upside of the 1999 Democratic senators to acquit Mr. Clinton? How would they get more votes in the next election for this decision?

For example, there are "puritan" voters throughout the political spectrum. The puritans of the right are going to vote Republican regardless of Mr. Clinton's moral inclinations. But the puritans of the center may have switched to voting R in 2000. Puritans of the left may not have bothered to vote.

Like it or not, a lot of citizens do not want their politicians having a promiscuous lifestyle. These citizens still have the right to vote and the right to cast their vote as they see fit.

Five thousand more D votes in Florida in 2000 would have put the decision out of the hanging chads and supreme courts. The state's EC votes would have gone D.

But I guess it is more important that a president has the right to seduce vulnerable interns. Well that attitude cost the USA the Al Gore presidency.

-----------------

You claim that I am offering a utopia that cannot work. Well, there were naysayers of the new democracy emerging in Britain in 1688, the new democracy emerging in the USA in 1787, and the new European democracies emerging after WW2. Naysayers in all places and all times.

I get about 10 reads per Medium article. My website is almost dead, and I had less than 10 book sales this year.

I doubt you spent any time investigating the TDG to determine whether it would work or not.

----------------

And you also ducked my point about Richard Nixon and the constitutionality of his possible impeachment and conviction.

There was no treason there.

There was little treason in the first Trump impeachment.

There was a lot of treason in the second Trump impeachment. Yet the constitution could not follow through to the rightful conclusion.

Sounds like an arbitrary and broken system to me.

Maybe you need to spend the 3-4 hours to read my ideas.