Comparison of Clinton impeachment, Nixon impeachment and Trump pre-impeachment

[struggle4progress]

by Sidney Blumenthal
May 14, 2019

... President Bill Clinton’s case is widely assumed to set the terms for understanding Trump’s. But the facts and history instead indicate that the Clinton case bears little if any relevance to the Trump one, while the Nixon case shows similarity to Trump’s, including how President Richard Nixon, a far more popular president than the abysmally rated Trump, collapsed in public opinion as the drive to his impeachment unfolded.

In 1973 and 1974, the Democrats attacked a once-mighty but now badly weakened president with a strong case for impeachment. Nixon resigned.

In 1998 and 1999, the Republicans attacked a mightily popular president on a political upswing in his second term with a politically contrived and feeble case for impeachment. Republicans lost.

In 2019, the Democrats confront the weakest president in modern history with a stronger case for impeachment than the one against Nixon ...

https://www.justsecurity.org/64057/an-open-memo-comparison-of-clinton-impeachment-nixon-impeachment-and-trump-pre-impeachment/

[watoos]

1. It's frustrating to me

because I see it as a no brainer.

[BigmanPigman]

2. Someone was on MSNBC yesterday making this realistic comparison.

I am glad you posted this. To me it seems so clear and simple...like apples and oranges. I don't know why the comparison has been allowed to be made on any legit news network for so long.

[DeminPennswoods]

3. That was Sidney Blumenthal who was on MSNBC

He made a further point that Clinton's approval barely moved before, during and after impeachment. It was around 66% the entire time. His point was that Americans understood Clinton's impeachment was purely political and based on the irrelevent crime of lying about a personal love affair between two consenting adults.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Thanks for refreshing my crummy memory.

When I listened to him yesterday he cheered me up (that lasted for a whole 5 min when the subject changed). He made some good points, too bad most people won't hear it.

[DeminPennswoods]

5. Unsure if it's still in print, but his book about

his years in the Clinton WH was really good.

[BigmanPigman]

6. I just Googled him.

Was The Clinton Wars the title?

[DeminPennswoods]

9. Yes

nt

[DFW]

7. Three totally different situations

Nixon was obviously guilty, AND there were enough Republican votes to convict him. They told him so, and he resigned rather than be forcibly removed from office.

Clinton was not guilty of impeachable offenses, and there were not enough Republican votes to convict him. The Republican House went through with it anyway, figuring it would damage Gore to the point where he would have trouble succeeding Clinton.

Trump is clearly guilty of impeachable offenses, and there are clearly not enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for conviction, even if Trump murders their children in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. Times have changed. Since the obedient but unpopular Pence will in all likelihood NOT be the Republican nominee in 2020, it will be either Trump (if his health holds up) or a younger right wing firebrand (if his arteries clog first). Republicans are cool with both, so conviction is out of the question. The only question is: do we want to go through the motions anyway, knowing in advance the exercise is doomed to failure?

"The Republicans did it to Clinton" is not an argument. What IS an argument is, "do we want to do it, knowing it will fail, but will nonetheless bring Trump's crimes (and who knows what else?) to the public eye?" THAT is a question worth contemplating, and I'm sure Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are having daily discussions on the subject.

[Trumpocalypse]

8. 1973 and 1974

This glosses over the fact that there were over a year of non-impeachment Congressional hearings and investigations that were bi-partisan before the first impeachment hearings in May 1974.

[DeminPennswoods]

10. The point is, that hearings are what caused Nixon's approval

to drop. Really, until the WH tapes came out, it wasn't a given Nixon would lose the support of GOP senators.

This is what Dems have been trying to do, hearings in the mold of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, but they've been stymied by the complete stonewalling from the WH. What they should consider is starting at the bottom with little fish witness who cannot afford to or won't ignore a subpoena. My choice would be Mike Flynn since he has not yet been sentenced and his plea agreement requires him to co-operate with investigations. If he doesn't co-operate, he risks offending a judge who already has made it clear he doesn't think Flynn has done enough to merit 0 jail time.

[Trumpocalypse]

11. Very good points nt