I'd have to refer you to the article posted in the OP for an explanation.
I know you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater...maybe as President, you can't say certain things in public
Well, sir, maybe some things need to be said.
This "impeachment inquiry" has been initiated by the say-so of the Speaker, not a vote of the entire House as was done with Presidents Clinton, Nixon and Johnson.
The minority was given the right to subpoena witnesses in the Clinton impeachment, whereas here the rights of the minority are being trampled. Here's what Georgia Rep. Doug Collins said the other day:
"Vigourous debate and formal votes are part of our democracy. When one party silences the other by gaveling down debate, denying subpoena power, and refusing to hold votes, they are hiding from accountability to the electorate. It's more than partisan - it's antidemocratic. . . .
Until now, only the full House could trigger impeachment proceedings. By denying that vote, [Pelosi] is laying the ground for perpetual impeachment proceeding - and transforming the most severe constitutional power into an irreverent messaging tool."
Well the people need to send a message of their own, by any means at their disposal. And as for "civil war fractures", listen to Gerald Nadler himself, about a year ago in an interview with Roll Call:
If you're serious about removing a president from office, what you're really doing is overturning the results of the last election. You don't want a situation where you tear this country apart, and for the next 30 years half the country's saying "we won the election, you stole it".
Well, that's right, Mr. Nadler, you don't want that. But now you do. Now you want to steal it. Over sixty million Americans elected this President, and you would deny their sovereignty. How is that any less of a fracture than what triggered the Civil War?
