Ever since Donald Trump became the upset winner of the presidential election in 2016, furious Democrats have searched for a way to get rid of him.
In September, having failed after a two-year investigation by a special counsel or through various other charges they couldn't make stick, the Democrats seized on a report by a whistleblower about a July phone call by the president to the new president of Ukraine.
In that phone call, Trump asked the foreign leader about doing him a favor and looking into the corruption of an energy company in the Eastern European country that once put former Vice President Joe Biden's son on its board for an annual five-figure stipend. Behind the scenes, it is alleged, the release of aid to the country was dependent on the initiation of that investigation.
Only the Ukraine president said no demand was ever made of him, the aid was released, and the investigation never happened.
But the Democrat-controlled House bungled forth, its blatantly partisan Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff creating one-sided rules for the process and then parading in witnesses who could only testify to what they believed or what somebody had told them because they didn't have firsthand information.
And then, in one Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, its partisan chairman brought in mostly college professors who were sympathetic to their cause and would be glad to testify to why Trump should be impeached (but also lacked any information as to what actually was said or happened).
One of the professors even had the gall to answer a question by citing the name of the president's 13-year-old son, Barron, in an answer to which the famously quiet first lady, Melania Trump, objected on Twitter.
Finally, on Thursday, U.S. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she has asked the chairman of the House Judiciary to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump over the supposed quid pro quo (something for something). Whether its members will be able to vote on any subsequently issued articles before the House adjourns Dec. 20 was not discussed.
During the earlier special counsel's investigation, the majority leader had warned her colleagues against impeachment talk, knowing - as we pointed out at the time - it would cause sympathy for the president and eventually cost her party votes at the ballot box.
However, in recent weeks, we said we didn't believe Democrats could help themselves at this point. Like an addict who must have a fix, they had gone too far to stop themselves. They had to impeach or lose the rapidly leftward lurching members of their party.
It's a decision they likely will come to rue.
Americans, in poll after poll, are less interested in impeachment the more they hear about it. Television ratings of Intelligence Committee hearings on the subject were dismal. Voters have told candidates - Florida liberal Democrat Rep. Donna Shalala as recently as this week - it's not on their list of most important issues.
Indeed, according to Google Trends search numbers, more people searched the web for "Peloton" (the exercise equipment company being castigated over the release of a controversial advertisement) this week than searched for "impeachment."
People also know if the House is wasting time on impeachment proceedings, it's not doing the job they sent members to Washington to do.
Nevertheless, we believe Democrats will - before or after Christmas - vote to impeach the president. They need only a simple majority of votes, so they could even lose a few and still get what they came for. Most other Americans will be wondering where they can return that ugly sweater.
Sometime after the first of the year, the proceedings will move to the Republican-led Senate, where a two-thirds majority is needed to convict the president. (We errantly referred to a three-fourths majority in an editorial earlier this week, though we knew better.)
Unless something of a bombshell is revealed between now and then, with perhaps Schiff, Biden and his Ukrainian board son Hunter Biden called as witnesses, Trump will be acquitted.
Democrats know this. For them, this has been a political exercise all along. What they hope is that an impeachment stain sullies the president just enough that voters either will stay home in November or hold their nose and vote for a Democrat whose wild-eyed proposals are likely to have already scared them more than just a little.
In the final analysis, we believe they weren't careful what they wished for.
The upshot could be the re-election of Trump with a margin greater than he might have had if impeachment not been ginned up, and the election of a Republican House. Time well tell.