Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process.
There's no real precedent for impeachment proceedings, though*.. so if the R's argue that the availability of information in the Clinton case was good for everyone, then I'm open to changing the rules. They just have to swallow that pill the next time a Dem POTUS is on the hot seat. Which I'm fine with.
It wont change the fact that closed door investigations nearly always precede any open, formal investigations, and if the R's are crying that this is foul play, then that's nonsense. We definitely want to quietly weed out false and spurious claims from getting undue attention and this is done via closed door investigations.
* I mean, yes, there is the legal framework and there are a few instances where it's happened, but I don't think the current political climate puts too much weight on that. As I mentioned before, Trump got elected for things that Andrew Johnson got impeached for, so using the Johnson impeachment as a standard wont be a clean fit.
Nixon had lost his party's support by the time it got that far, whereas Trump still has his party's and his base's support.
Clinton lied about sex in public in America. While under oath! Yeah. That was juicy, right? It's nothing like this case, though, so treating it like a precedent is again, not a clean fit.
Reply With Quote