Thread by @TimInHonolulu

1. I was a young adult during Watergate hearings and was fairly well aware of what was going on. I remember when the articles were being teed up. What I don't recall is how much the early hearings were being sold as a run up to impeachment. It was implicated but

https://twitter.com/Politidope/status/1136028819616337920

2. I don't recall any early cry for impeachment. Remember, they had to get rid of Agnew first. Why impeach Nixon to end up with Agnew. did a quick search. Here are some links to NY Times articles on Watergate starting in June 1973. No mention of impeachment.

3. This is where the dots started to be connected.
June 26, 1973: Accusations at Hearing Fit Mosaic of Evidence nyti.ms/31b3xjF

4. Shortly after Nixon complicity was becoming clear, Nixon officially stonewalled.
July 8, 1973: President Gives Ervin Committee Formal Refusal nyti.ms/2ZdkmsN

NB: This is about where were are now. No mention of impeachment. Just an active Judiciary committee.

5. I've been arguing for going after the licenses of all @TheJusticeDept appointees engaged in obstruction. That started by Aug. 9, 1973: Letters to the Editor: Confirmation that the California Bar Association has in fact undertaken a preliminary investigation into the actions

6. of President & other lawyers involved in Watergate: nyti.ms/315NjbD

My advice: Go after Barr & all complicit political appointees at @TheJusticeDept. Don't mention POTUS impeachment. That time will come after we get Pence.😎 @SpeakerPelosi @RepJerryNadler @RepJeffries