,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. The idea that an impeachment inquiry is a political trap—and not a devastating blow to a presidency—is today widespread. It’s one of the rare things on which Pelosi and Trump himself agree. But historically, that’s not what’s happened. theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
2. From Feb. 1-4, 1974, Gallup polled on Nixon’s job approval—28% approved, 59% disapproved. On Feb. 6, the House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry. From Feb. 8-18, Gallup polled again. Nixon’s rating sank to 27% approve, 63% disapprove.
3. We don’t have polling for Andrew Johnson. It’s difficult, though, to read the contemporary record—starting with the House referral on Jan. 7, 1867—as showing his political support being bolstered by the endless impeachment hearings he faced.
4. That leaves Clinton. The three top leaders of House Democrats were in office at the time. The GOP brought its articles to a vote without any substantive hearings, independent efforts at assembling evidence, or public testimony from witnesses.
5. So the question becomes: What’s the best parallel for the present? If you think that Trump’s conduct is most closely analogous to Clinton’s, and expect the process itself to be similarly short-circuited, then perhaps Clinton is the appropriate analogue.
6. The way Speaker Pelosi describes the president’s conduct, though, is more akin to the language Thad Stevens used to describe Johnson, or the way that Carl Albert described Nixon. And there, the precedents point in an entirely different direction.
7. I think impeachment a grave step, and it ought to proceed out of a sense of duty, not partisan interest. But if Democrats think their duty requires that step, but it would come at too high a political price? The history here suggests otherwise: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
