,
23 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
A former Watergate prosecutor looks at the impeachment question. @JillWineBanks omits a key factor — the state of the economy in 1974, headed toward what turned out to be an unpleasant recession. Nixon’s declining approvals were likely not only due to Watergate. But...[thread]
2....her larger point stands: historical precedent does not suggest impeachment proceedings would be a major political risk for House Democrats. The sample size — two cases in the 20th century, Nixon’s and Clinton’s — is admittedly too small to be conclusive.
3. @JillWineBanks makes an important — really, an essential — point: about the nature and scope of alleged misconduct and criminal wrongdoing by Trump & his closest associates, much more analogous the Nixon situation than to Clinton’s case.
4. Extensively televised and intensively covered by print media, Congressional hearings on Watergate and related subjects coincided with a major decline in Nixon’s popularity — notable because Nixon was otherwise broadly respected, and had been re-elected in 1972 in a landslide.
5. It wasn’t the process, but the nature of the evidence that had the greatest impact, argues @JillWineBanks. The Clinton impeachment, involving a much narrower range of allegations and shot through with egregious bad faith, did not similarly damage Clinton’s popularity.
6. The House Democratic leadership knows all this. It regards the prospect of impeachment with evident dread anyway. Why? Some possible reasons have been widely discussed: the very advanced age of the most senior House Democrats, their fear of conservative media,...
7...their reliance on pollsters & campaign consultants who tell them voters care more about other issues, and the success Democrats had in the 2018 midterm elections. It may be as well, though, that House Democrats fear impeachment because they doubt the House’s capacity...
8...to do what the House did in 1974. At that time, House Democrats were used to acting as the majority party; committees had considerable autonomy; service on committee staff was a prestigious career move for many talented lawyers. None of these are true today.
9. The House is weaker as an institution than it was in 1974. In fairness, of course, we must remember the Senate in 1974 had a large Democratic majority as well; televised Senate hearings in 1973 did much to weaken Nixon’s defenses against impeachment.
10. Today’s Republican Senate majority is a Trump majority, its members either revelling in Trump’s corruption or so terrified of him they hesitate to criticize even his worse excesses. The existence of a Senate majority willing to celebrate a President above the law...
11... would seem a poor reason for a House majority to acquiesce to such a thing. Yet it is one reason House Democrats have given for avoiding impeachment proceedings. I wonder if it is a real reason, or a pretext allowing House Democrats to avoid the unfamiliar.
12. An impeachment proceeding would be very demanding, requiring greater staff resources than the House majority now has, and a great commitment of time on the part of some House members (specifically, Democrats on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Oversight committees).
13. Time spent on an impeachment proceeding could not be spent on fundraising and campaigning for re-election, two activities the Democratic leadership under @SpeakerPelosi prioritizes above all others. By its nature, as well, an impeachment proceeding could not be run...
14...by the House leadership. It would have to be directed by the committees, particularly the Judiciary Committee responsible for recommending charges to the full House. This would be a major departure from the way the House has operated in recent years.
15. A very limited ability to accurately assess the risk of the unknown or unfamiliar is part of human nature. So is exaggerated confidence in our ability with respect to activities (in this case, campaign messaging and organization) we think we know.
16. An impeachment proceeding would be, inescapably, an exercise of institutional power: the House against the Executive. Protracted focus on Presidential misconduct and corruption that damaged the President politically would make future Presidents wary of crossing the House.
17. Conversely, tacit acquiescence by the House in a Presidency putting itself above the law will make it more likely this President, or a future President, will act like a dictator and think he can get away with it.
18. Big talk by some House Democrats about “aggressive oversight” in lieu of impeachment of a lawless President is, I fear, an excuse to avoid having to choose between committing to impeachment, or not. Avoiding the choice, is a choice.
19. Strengthening a muscle requires exercising it. Institutional power is no different. Either it is used when called for, or it atrophies. If impeachment is not called for now — after all we have seen over the last 30-odd months — it never will be again.
20. The remedy of impeachment will still be in the Constitution, but it will never be used. House acquiescence to Trump’s egregious corruption, enlistment of foreign involvement in our politics, and obstruction of justice will become the controlling precedent.
21. America will eventually end up with a real dictator, not just a small time crook who likes to act like one in between bouts of watching himself be praised on the Murdochs’ TV network. These are the stakes.
22. The choice facing House Democrats — to respond to a President placing himself above the law and the national interest, or not — is a choice that will influence the future of Constitutional government long after the results of the 2020 election have been forgotten. [end]
Addendum: Barry Sussman, Woodward & Bernstein’s editor during Watergate, points out that media coverage of Trump scandals is now driven by....Trump. He’s exercising a kind of power House Democrats shrink from wielding themselves. newrepublic.com/article/153927…
