,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
(1 of 3) But @JoshuaMatz8, in fact 40% of the country is *not* "demanding" impeachment. Pollsters reach out to voters and ask them if they think the facts made public thus far warrant impeachment, which (as a matter of law) they do. So 40% answering "yes" when asked is admirable.
(2 of 3) If 40% of the country were natively—not in response to pollsters—demanding impeachment we'd see nationwide rallies for impeachment and Congresspeople flooded with calls for impeachment. We don't. As for impeachment being political, you're both right and wrong about that.
(3 of 3) Procedurally impeachment is a political process—of course. By anyone who believes in the rule of law and sees Emoluments, Oath of Office, Abuse of Power, Bribery, Obstruction and other high crime/misdemeanor offenses and opposes impeachment *is* damaging our rule of law.
(PS) I didn't "assert that pragmatism and statecraft have no role to play." Were the allegation that a president lied about sex—cf. Clinton—the role pragmatism and statecraft *do* play might argue against impeachment. Here, we have *dire* national security and rule-of-law issues.
(PS2) My view: if warranted by law, a president should, as a starting matter, be impeached—as only that standard being used as a foundation ensures proper conduct by presidents. That doesn't mean statecraft can't present a counterargument if a president has merely lied about sex.
(PS3) I agree it is facile to conflate "Democrats" and the "Left," and I should not have used those shorthands. But if "40%" of likely American voters say public evidence supports impeachment, that pretty much means most Democrats (which includes most progressives) do support it.
(PS4) I read and RT @tribelaw and @JRubinBlogger, so my critique here is merely a critique of this argument, @JoshuaMatz8, not some broader attack. I think the 40% you describe deserve credit for tracking the evidence and *still* wanting more investigation to precede impeachment.
(PS5) As an attorney, I feel it damages the rule of law if impeachment is warranted but not pursued—but that's not saying (as in the Clinton case) statecraft can't reasonably militate for a different outcome. But I'd still say—even in the Clinton case—that rule of law is damaged.
