X

Why are Republicans who voted to impeach Clinton so unmoved by Trump’s actions?

Clarification: An earlier version of this column said that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) failed “to deal with the Ukraine conduct” of President Trump. Rubio staff note that he has called allegations that Trump improperly pressured Ukraine’s president “very serious” and said of Trump’s request for a Ukrainian probe into former vice president Joe Biden and his son: “I don’t think he should have done that.” This version has been updated.

This is a column about two impeachments and the boundless human capacity for rationalization and self-delusion.

The first time I wrote about the prospect of a president being impeached was on Jan. 21, 1998. The Monica Lewinsky story had broken that morning, and, as a reporter on the national staff of The Post, I was asked to write an analysis of the potential legal risks to President Bill Clinton. My editors were reluctant to have a reference to impeachment in the lead of the article. They thought it sounded far-fetched.

As a result, the article began like this: “The allegations facing President Clinton — that he lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with a White House aide and told her to deny it — represent serious possible criminal violations that, if supported, could lead to his removal from office and prosecution.”

View the complete commentary by Ruth Marcus on The Washington Post website here.

Data and Research Manager: