Edit: Having been made aware that this thread could be locked as the original version didn't include a POD, I've decided to turn this into an alternate history scenario reflect the standards of the site.
During President Reagan's second term, it was revealed that his administration was illegally supporting the Nicaraguan Contras (a violation of the 1982 Boland Amendment) using weapons allocated by secret arms-for-hostages deals with Iran. As a result of this scandal, Reagan's Secretary of Defense was indicted and the President's poll numbers slipped to just barely above 40% in February 1987.
You are the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and your colleagues are debating whether or not to recommend Articles of Impeachment against the President. Reagan's critics argue that the Gipper should be impeached for violating US law and supporting right-wing death squads abroad. On the other hand, Reagan's supporters believe that the President himself is not personally implicated in the scandal and that he was a great President in spite of the mistakes made by his Cabinet. One Independent on the Committee hypothesizes that since Reagan's mental state has clearly shown to be on the decline, he might not even have the capacity to fully understand his own decision-making or the extent of the corruption in his administration. Supposing that you're the Chair of this Committee, would you or would you not press your colleagues to introduce articles of Impeachment?