disagree.
from larry tribe's book 'bout impeachment:
"Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power."
hillary, in particular, is a bad example for your example 'cause she were so unpopular at the time of the election. if she beat trump, it woulda' been by skin of teeth and she woulda' had republicans in both house and senate for first two years. trump, 'cause o' 'bove observations, could be impotent for the first thee years o' his term and still hold onto his base. the only reason why republicans in the house and senate is standing by trump is 'cause he has gone from being an unpopular President who even people his own party reviled, to a guy who has a stranglehold on his party in spite of a historical Presidential record o' policy failures as well as abuses o' constitutional law which occur almost daily.
is no way hillary develops such a base, and the only reason republicans is willing to overlook the obvious overstep o' this President is 'cause o' the popularity o' trump which complete ignores his accomplishments or any kinda facts. am not seeing democrats putting their own necks on the line for an unpopular hillary.
the only way your roles-are-reversed scenario holds is if you got a democrat President who is equal popular with a base, and maybe obama or bill clinton is that guy, and perhaps kennedy, but after he died.
consider a different what if scenario. turn back time to september 2016 and tell us that after three years o' Presidency there would be evidence that the President colluded with a foreign state to get elected, but that 'cause there wasn't enough coordination 'tween the foreign power and the President, there weren't criminal conspiracy. same President fired the head of the fbi in part 'cause o' the investigation into election meddling and admitted to such during a televised nbc interview. furthermore, a special counsel who investigated the election meddling found at least ten instances o' possible obstruction of justice by wh and President, but because o' a department memo which states a sitting President cannot be indicted, the special counsel did not decide the merits o' those ten obstruction claims, although more than 1000 former fed prosecutors signed a letter memorializing their belief that anybody but the President would be indicted on obstruction charges. special counsel's report specific states that the President's answers to interrogatories were insufficient, misleading and in multiple instances, untruthful. furthermore, mere months after being cleared of conspiracy (but not cleared of collusion) the same President active solicited help from a foreign power to investigate a political rival, and when a whistleblower brought claims o' such to the inspector general for review, the President tried to bury the whistleblower complaint.
at the time you likely believe hillary becomes President, but maybe not. regardless, is there any doubt in your mind such President would be facing impeachment?
please.
do you realize where we are today? because o' trump, norms has been complete shattered. a Presidential candidate may now active pursue dirt on political opponents with the help o' foreign powers just so long as the coordination 'tween the foreign power and the candidate isn't too excessive. in other words, a politician can accept dirt and need not actual report such to fbi or other authorities. furthermore, if trump gets away with his most recent bit o' wacky, Presidents will have free reign to have foreign powers investigate their political rivals. investigating corruption? HA! investigating "dirt" by its very nature means you is investigating that which is either illegal or embarrassing. every such "dirt" investigation will by necessity have a corruption analogue. oh, and future Presidents will also recognize that a blanket refusal to comply with any and all Congressional oversight related to an impeachment inquiry is a valid tactictic.
wtf?
many democrats is hypocrites. we listened to 'em defend bill clinton lies. again, weren't the monica lewinsky stuff which bothers us even if it got republicans angry at the time, but lie under oath is a freaking bridge too far. perhaps if democrats had stood up to clinton lies instead o' standing with him we wouldn't be where we are today with a pathological liar in the wh who uses gaslighting and alternative facts with indifference. am not defending democrats.
at the same time, this is not simple a if the roles were reversed situation. this is complete unprecedented and as cynical as you are, there is no way three and a half years ago you predict everything which has happened with the trump Presidency w/o assuming impeachment. no way.
HA! Good Fun!