Hold up, man-- I get that you operate on a black-and-white level, but dig a little into the full context of her tweet. Ask yourself a few questions:
- Do you believe, had he not resigned, that Nixon would have been impeached as a result of the charges brought against him? Should he have been? If 'no' to either of these questions, please explain.
- Do you honestly believe Rep. Jordan, who was a Democrat in 1974, was saying the Constitution should literally be shredded if charges of impeachment were not brought against him? Regardless of your answer, at least consider that she wasn't-- that she was instead making a point that his crimes were blatantly obvious, and if that body lacked the will to bring articles of impeachment against him, it might as well be shredded and rewritten to meet their corrupt interpretation. Clinton is merely equating the gravity of Nixon's actions to Trump's, and not calling for the Constitution to be shredded.
But here's the thing: You have made it clear you believe Trump's actions do not merit investigation, much less articles of impeachment. How do you defend that? I'm asking this in earnest: When you read the call transcript between Trump and Zelensky (I'm assuming you did), did you not understand the contingencies made by our president around the US-Ukrainian relationship-- namely, that if good relations were to continue, Zelensky would need to perform 'the favor' of investigating Biden? If not, how exactly did you interpret that conversation, because Zelensky seemed to understand very clearly in his response that current and future relations with the US would depend on his full cooperation with Trump's request. If you did understand those statements to be coercive, are you saying you believe this is acceptable behavior by a US president? If so, how do you defend that?
Edit: Just a note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, fwiw.