1. A short thread for followers, readers, and interested United States senators about what impeachment is for, and how it actually works.
2. The first point—one I made at length two years ago—is that impeachment is not just an outcome, but a process. Specifically, it functions as a public inquest, pulling facts into view and allowing allegations to be tested and debated: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
3. What does it mean that impeachment is a public inquest? Two sitting Vice Presidents wrote to the House *demanding* that it open impeachment proceedings against them. They understood it to be a process of discernment, and were hoping to clear their names of allegations.
4. Again, it’s a mistake to focus solely on the outcome of impeachment proceedings. Historically, House proceedings and Senate trials have forced facts into light and drawn attention to evidence. And when it proceeds to a Senate trial, that in itself is a powerful statement.
5. In 1876, the Senate debated whether it had jurisdiction to try William Belknap, who was impeached after he left office. Senators voted 37-29 that they did, and then voted to convict 35-25, falling short of the required two thirds majority.
6. Was the Belknap trial a failure? Let me quote from the House impeachment managers: "Notwithstanding this result, the managers believe that great good will accrue from the impeachment and trial of the defendant. It has been settled thereby that…"
7. “...persons who have held civil office
in the United States are impeachable, and that the Senate has jurisdiction to try them, although years may elapse before the discovery of the offense or offenses subjecting them to impeachment…."
8. “….To settle this principle, so vitally
important in securing the rectitude of the class of officers referred to, is worth infinitely more than all the time, labor, and expense of the protracted trial closed by the verdict of yesterday.”
9. Whatever happens in the second Senate trial of Donald Trump, this remains the best way to think about impeachment—it’s a fight for the principle of honest and faithful governance, and when that fight is joined in earnest, it is always worth having.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Yoni Appelbaum

Yoni Appelbaum Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @YAppelbaum

24 Dec 20
1. A brief thread about a truly obscure episode in American constitutional law that may well become all-important in the days ahead.
2. No president has ever issued a self-pardon. But in 1857, territorial Governor Isaac Stevens in Washington State clashed with the judiciary in an extraordinary episode. Stevens had ordered some settlers arrested.
3. Federal Judge Edward Lander tried to hold a habeas hearing. Stevens declared martial law, and had Lander arrested. When he released him, Lander convened a new hearing—issuing writs of habeas and holding Stevens in contempt, sending Marshalls to arrest him.
Read 12 tweets
23 Dec 20
1. The president has just vetoed the military’s funding bill, rather than allow the Army to rename bases that honor traitors.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
2. Why are there ten U.S. bases named after generals who took up arms against the Union, and for the preservation of slavery?

Michael Paradis unpacks the history of these base names:

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
3. In June, Gen. David Petraeus explained why he had decided the bases must be renamed—the Army "should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their country,” he wrote: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 4 tweets
23 Dec 20
1. A short thread of @TheAtlIdeas authors on the president’s fondness for, and propensity to extend pardons to, war criminals:
@TheAtlIdeas 2. "Being no different from or better than our enemies has not been the aspiration of previous presidents, nor of our military," writes @KoriSchake

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
3. “Trump is a war-crimes enthusiast,” writes @AdamSerwer, adding that the president seeks to "forge the [military] into a partisan weapon for himself to wield against his enemies, using the promise of impunity for crimes against the weak or despised.”

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 9 tweets
10 Dec 20
1. Five perspectives on what’s happening right now, as most House Republicans join most GOP attorneys general in asking the Supreme Court to set aside the election.

First, clarity from @GrahamDavidA: This is a direct attack on democracy
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
@GrahamDavidA 2. "Republican officeholders appear more concerned about provoking a backlash from the right if they don’t support Trump than pushback from the center or left if they do,” writes @RonBrownstein

theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
@GrahamDavidA @RonBrownstein 3. "When they say the 2020 election was stolen, Trumpists are expressing their view that …the nation belongs to them and them alone, whether or not they actually comprise a majority,” writes @AdamSerwer:
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 5 tweets
23 Nov 20
1. Biden has named Jake Sullivan his national-security adviser. In 2019, Sullivan laid out a vision for reviving American foreign policy in @TheAtlantic theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
@TheAtlantic 2. More recently, Biden’s newly named national-security adviser has been working on a Carnegie project, aimed at reorienting foreign policy around the middle class. What does that mean, in practical terms? Former Deputy SecState Bill Burns lays it out here theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
3. Biden’s orbit contains two competing visions of foreign policy, argues @thomaswright08—with the restorationist and reformist impulses battling against each other: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 4 tweets
22 Oct 20
1. If Texas turns blue this cycle—and that’s a huge and somewhat improbable “if”!—what’s happening right now in Harris County could be incredibly consequential for voting rights across the country.
2. The county has been aggressive about expanding access to voting, and turnout has surged. The partisan valence of that remains unclear. (A good breakdown here: houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/…) But by week’s end, there could be 1 million ballots cast—against 1.3m in all of 2016.
3. There’s an interesting set of incentives baked in here—if a particular metro area can boost turnout by liberalizing access, other areas will have to keep pace or risk losing relative clout in future elections.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!