US Democrats have opened a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over allegations he sought help from a foreign power to damage a political rival.

---

It's clear that without at least an attempt to hold Trump accountable for his actions, he will continue to push further past the line of acceptable behaviour. And that will be precedent setting for future presidents, which is not good. It's not at all clear this attempt will be successful, and it might well hurt the Democrats politically.

But that shouldn't matter. I think if they frame this as someone has to stand up for the rule of law, the Constitution, and democratic political norms, they will at least have the moral high ground even if it ends up in flames.

I wonder too how this will fit into political realignment. Libertarians, I think, should be on board with this to the extent we see ourselves as part of the liberal tradition that cares about the rule of law etc.. And it becomes a chance for libertarians and the liberal wing of the left to find common ground if we so choose.

What happens if Trump is declared the GOP nominee then successfully convicted by the Senate between that and the November election?

---

Each party has rules authorising their national committee to replace a deceased candidate. I think the same would apply to a candidate who is removed for some reason other than death.

However, each state has its own ballot access rules, and that's where things could get sticky if a candidate has already qualified for the ballot in a particular state. I imagine - but am just hypothesising - that the norm would be to allow the replacement candidate, but in a highly polarised time, perhaps a state strongly aligned with one party might try to prevent such a replacement (worrying about a potentially more appealing candidate as a replacement). Legal battles would ensue, quite likely.

That's also assuming the ballots haven't been printed yet. If they have, and there's too little time to reprint them, then the deceased or impeached & convicted candidate would still appear on the ballot. But whatever electors they won would presumably have to cast their ballots for someone else. (But then, what if they decided to buck the conviction and vote for him anyway? More legal battles, certainly.)

Then, possibly, the conviction happens after the election but before the inauguration. That's actually more straightforward, as the VP-elect would become President. But holy cow would that ever look like the impeaching party (assuming, as in this case, that it's not the President's party) look like they're just overturning the results of the election.