Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation. In addition to everything else, he did not destabilize our system of government; attack the free press; appoint completely incompetent people to every post; fill the judiciary with moronic ideologues . . .
Clinton's relevant only insofar as the historical lesson of unintended consequences that have arisen from impeachment proceedings. The similarities between the public response to Clinton's impeachment and Trump's impeachment are interesting to me. Ironically, impeachment increased the president's popularity in Clinton's case and the same seems to be happening with Trump.
A bit of a stretch, csm. Clinton had a pretty good approval rating, even after Starr accused him of lying under oath. He was in the mid to upper 50%s, and rose to a 71% approval rating after the articles of impeachment were brought against him. He never fell below the low 60s after.
tRump was somewhere in the low 40s in late October, and even with a couple point pickup in the past week or so, is stuck at an unenviable 43% approval rating. Apples and oranges, methinks. I'll wager that the dotard will never hit 50% in his (hopefully) short tenure.
Most of us know that polls are of limited utility, but the difference between these men, and the difference in the circumstances of their impeachments is quite different. When evangelical magazines start to bail on this guy, it's not a good sign for his longevity.