On another subject, some people have wondered about this compared to Watergate. I was in uni and remember it well, although looking back I realize that I saw it through somewhat immature eyes. I was very politically involved at that age and watched the hearings and read the papers.
The thing is, the Watergate break-in was about getting Nixon reelected, period. It wasn't about destroying our democracy for the benefit of the 1%. It wasn't about throwing out civil rights and the rule of law. It wasn't even about pushing through a really horrific GOP 'agenda' because at that time the parties tried to work together for the good of the country. There just wasn't this polarization and 'othering' along party lines.
The Watergate investigation and hearings were about punishing unethical and illegal behaviour, behaviour that both parties were horrified by. Yes, the GOP may have wanted a little more concrete proof than the Dems were satisfied with, but the GOP did 'turn' and Nixon resigned as a result. I can't see that happening now. The GOP is going to deny and defend, even if there was incontrovertible physical evidence and documentation of Scrotus' wrongdoings. They want to keep their power base and ability to get what they want too badly. It's exactly the same as (and sorry if this is triggering) a woman who denies her child is being abused so she can keep her comfortable lifestyle.
The big thing is that there was a Dem majority in both houses during Watergate. This is why the mid-terms are so important. If it took a Dem majority Congress to get real movement towards impeachment when there was a more ethical Congress, it will certainly take one now, when it's "what's in it for me" is the rule in the GOP.
DH and I are NOT watching the SotU address tonight. We just can't do it, although I know we should be thinking 'know thine enemy'. I'm afraid both of us would have an apoplexy. We will watch the rebuttal and Rachel Maddow afterwards.