Regarding historical perspective and partisan politics.
The two previous impeachment proceedings which seem highly relevant here, and which keep coming up, are Nixon and Clinton.
Articles of impeachment adopted against Richard Nixon:
article 1 - obstruction of justice
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
article 2 - abuse of power
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
article 3 - contempt of congress
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
[/quote]
Some republicans voted for these, but mostly it's democrats voting for them. For the most part, the charges here are not that Nixon overtly engaged in criminal acts, but engaged in a criminal cover-up of other bad actors. So the charges here are primarily that he had a disregard for the process of justice. In short, this is three flavors of obstruction of justice.
Articles of impeachment adopted against Bill Clinton:
article 1 - perjury
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
article 2 - obstruction of justice
Article II charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses.
Some democrats voted for these, but it was
overwhelmingly republicans that voted for these.
Interesting to me is that the facts surrounding these cases, and surrounding Trump's case, are basically not in dispute. Everyone knows Nixon engaged in cover-up. Everyone knows Clinton lied under oath in order to get away with sexual harassment. Everyone knows Trump bribed Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden.
I read an article just the other day by someone who worked on all 3 cases, and who characterized Clinton's impeachment as basically "about sex", at which point I basically stopped reading. It floors me that democrats still think Clinton's impeachment did not rise to what she called "a threat to national security" because it was fundamentally "about sex". The facts are not in dispute, he lied under oath in order to get away with a crime. This demonstrates a disregard for the US legal process, and is very clearly obstruction of justice. He was placing his own personal interests above the interests of the nation
Likewise, Nixon apologists (yes they exist today) characterize Nixon as basically falling on his sword out of loyalty to his subordinates. He, of course, would not have condoned their actions, but they were his men and he was going to protect them even if it meant he was taken down. The facts are not in dispute, but somehow the motives are characterized as being pure. Who could possibly argue with loyalty?
More severe than Clinton obstructing justice and perjuring himself to get away with a crime, and more severe than Nixon's obstruction justice to help others get away with a crime, is Trump obstructing justice in order to try to get away with a crime. Nixon's transgression was basically the second half of Trump's (the attempt at cover-up). Although I have to say that Nixon's version of cover-up was much less dangerous than Trump's. Burying evidence is not as bad as threatening and harassing the people that would bring it forward. Trump's obstruction of justice is also more severe than Clinton's, but it's also more similar to Clinton's. Clinton was attempting to tamper with one witness (Lewinsky), whereas Trump was attempting a wholesale tampering of many many witnesses and others who might bring information forward. Since Clinton's scope was smaller, he was more successful.
In order to compare Trump's abuse of power charge (for bribery) against the other two, we'd need to compare it against Clinton's perjury, and Nixon's break-in. Now, as far as I know, Nixon was never actually tied to the break-in itself. We'd have to suppose he was to make a direct comparison, and since that evidence seems to not exist, at this point I'll excuse Nixon from the comparison. Clinton's perjury was entirely a self-serving move which threw Jones under the bus. Trump's bribery was entirely a self-serving move which threw the nations of Ukraine and the US under the bus. Trump comes out Trump on that one.
So in terms of severity of obstruction of justice, I rank them this way:
Trump > Nixon > Clinton
And in terms of abuse of power, I rank them this way:
Trump > Clinton
Now, I know technically Nixon has his own abuse of power charge, but really it's a re-framing of his obstruction of justice charge, which is why I'm dropping it for this comparison.
Democrats still today want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to impeachment. Clinton's was apparently, despite clear and overwhelming evidence, frivolous and a vendetta by the republicans. But with Trump suddenly they have principles. Similarly, Republicans were all about the letter of the law when it came to Clinton, and viewing the clear and present danger of someone who was willing to forsake the law for personal gain. And yet with Trump they think it's frivolous and silly, despite clear and overwhelming evidence.
I find it fascinating the none of the facts are in dispute here. It's clear that all 3 deserved to be impeached and removed from office. It's also clear that party-line cronies attempted to support all 3. In Nixon's case, public opinion turned on principle, and the cronies bowed out, so he resigned. In the latter two, public support seems to be strong despite all of the evidence, so the cronies hang on and defend.
Democrats got it right with Nixon. Republicans got it right with Clinton. Democrats have it right with Trump.
. You and all here have known from the beginning that I'm not a fan of Trump. Gore Vidal has said correctly that the first requirement of every politician is tact, something that Trump has not an ounce of. But you are right in that a sitting US President cannot be arrested or tried for common crimes - it's in the law. But he can be impeached. I see no problem with that. Let the chips fall where they may. My personal cup of revenge/justice was filled when I saw - live on TV - Nixon resign in disgrace.
There were decendants of genocide survivors in that room!
