That article makes two cogent, concise arguments and is well worth reading.
The electorate passes judgment on its presidents and their shortcomings every four years. But the Framers were concerned that a president could abuse his authority in ways that would undermine the democratic process and that could not wait to be addressed. So they created a mechanism for considering whether a president is subverting the rule of law or pursuing his own self-interest at the expense of the general welfare—in short, whether his continued tenure in office poses a threat to the republic. This mechanism is impeachment.
The question of whether impeachment is justified should not be confused with the question of whether it is likely to succeed in removing a president from office. The country will benefit greatly regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes. Even if the impeachment of Donald Trump fails to produce a conviction in the Senate, it can safeguard the constitutional order from a president who seeks to undermine it.
The importance is the process
, not the result.
I admit, I had not approached the question this way, and thought of impeachment as a forlorn goal. But, it's not even whether the House votes
articles of impeachment, but rather, the public investigative process
that restores the constitutional balance. Many pundits have discussed the importance of "oversight", but I hadn't really appreciated what the specific
process of an impeachment inquiry would bear on the subject. It is all
about Congress doing its job. The Mueller investigation can continue separately, and should, but Congress has a responsibility to separately consider the question
This article has changed my mind on the subject. I now think a Select Committee is in order.