Democrats' desire to drive President Donald Trump from office is higher than it was to remove President Richard Nixon 45 years ago, according to a new poll that highlights the deep partisan divide over Democrats' current impeachment attempt.

In an October poll of U.S. adults conducted by Gallup, 87 percent of Democrats surveyed said that — based on what is currently known — Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office. This is compared to just 71 percent of Democrats who wanted to remove President Richard Nixon from office just days before his 1974 resignation.

The comparison also finds a much higher percentage of Republicans are now opposed to the removal of Donald Trump than were to Nixon's: 92 percent of surveyed Republicans opposed Trump removal in October, versus 59 percent in 1974.

Richard Nixon was never formally impeached by the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee recommended impeaching him on July 27, 1974, but he resigned before facing a formal House impeachment vote or subsequent Senate trial.

A Gallup article accompanying the recent survey results notes that the wide partisan divide in public opinion on removing Trump sets this impeachment episode apart from those of Nixon and former President Bill Clinton.

"Though Republicans did not favor removing Nixon from office, enough of them did that Republican members of Congress had more latitude to vote against the party majority on impeachment," the article notes. "As far as Democrats are concerned, their steadfast opposition to Trump throughout his presidency suggests they are unlikely to revise their opinions as the impeachment process unfolds."

The historic partisan divide shown in public opinion speaks to the uniquely partisan nature of the current impeachment probe that Trump's allies have criticized from its beginning.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., called the current effort "the first partisan 'impeachment' in the history of the republic" after proceedings were announced in late September. LevinTV host Mark Levin has consistently referred to it as a "Democrat Party impeachment." A recent ethics complaint lodged by dozens of Conservative groups accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of "using the impeachment process as a weapon of partisan political battle, rather than as the means to defend the Constitution our Framers meant it to be.”

Of course, since the drumbeat to impeach Trump started pounding so shortly after he was sworn into office in 2017, and the current effort piggybacks on years of previous attempts to undermine and delegitimize his presidency, it's kind of hard to see how public opinion wouldn't be so deeply split at this point.

Friday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin criticized the mass media's apparent disregard for the fact that they're being closed out of a presidential impeachment process.

"Not a single one of these phony journalists ... not one of them is speaking about freedom of the press when it comes to being closed out, shut out, of the secret testimony being conducted in a secret room — a vault, if you will — in the basement of the Capitol building, where there's not classified information being discussed," Levin pointed out.

More specifically, Levin criticized CNN's Jake Tapper over his characterization of House Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry and questioned how serious Tapper and CNN are about wanting an open process.

"How come CNN hasn't sued the Congress under the First Amendment?" Levin asked in response to Tapper's assertion that he wants a more open process.

"You know, CNN sued the White House when they removed Jim Acosta and took his press pass away, his permanent press pass ... even though another hundred journalists are in there reporting," Levin reminded listeners. "But when the House under the Democrats prevents any journalist from participating in a process that has nothing to do with classified information, where's the lawsuit from CNN? Where's the lawsuit from the other press rooms, press corporations, press associations? They're nowhere."

Levin picked apart Tapper's faulty comparison between the current secretive process and other investigations that used closed-door depositions conducted by House Republicans when they had majority in the chamber. The comparison fails, Levin explained, because those investigations weren't impeachment processes.

"So now you know Jake Tapper is a fraud," Levin concluded.

Listen:

Attorneys for the federal employee whose whistleblower complaint has been the basis for the House's ongoing impeachment proceedings say that their client's identity is irrelevant and should remain secret from members of Congress and the American public.

In a Friday op-ed at the Washington Post, Andrew P. Bakaj and Mark S. Zaid — both attorneys representing the federal employee — make the case that because the public already knows more than what was in the employee's complaint, the employee should remain anonymous to the public.

"Much of what has been disclosed since the release of our client’s complaint actually exceeds the whistleblower’s knowledge of what transpired at the time the complaint was submitted. Because our client has no additional information about the president’s call, there is no justification for exposing their identity and all the risks that would follow."

The lawyers also took issue with calls for their client testify publicly as "nothing more than a diversionary tactic," explaining that they  that they "have notified both the House and Senate intelligence committees in a bipartisan manner that the whistleblower is willing to respond to any questions in writing and under oath."

While Bakaj has said that his client is “entitled to anonymity” under “law and policy,” Republicans have cast the identity question as a transparency and credibility matter.

Earlier this week, ranking Republican members on the three House committees said that the employee — as well as the sources used for the complaint — should be brought in for testimony because "the Committees ought to fully assess the sources and credibility of the employee." The trio pointed to "inconsistencies between facts as alleged by the employee and information obtained during the so-called impeachment inquiry" as the reason such an assessment is needed.

"Why don’t we know who the person is who started this whole charade that Adam Schiff is now doing in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol?" House Oversight Committee top Republican Jim Jordan asked at a Wednesday press conference. "More importantly, why don’t the American people know?"

So far, it has only been reported that the employees is a male CIA officer who used to work with former Vice President Joe Biden during the last administration and is a registered Democrat.

The top Republicans on the three House committees currently conducting the impeachment proceedings criticized House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for not arranging to hear testimony from the whistleblower whose complaint is the very basis for the impeachment proceedings.

In a letter obtained by Blaze Media on Wednesday night, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said they were "surprised" by Schiff's saying earlier this month that "the Committees will not receive testimony from the anonymous intelligence community employee whose complaint initiated the so-called impeachment inquiry."

On October 13, Schiff said that the whistleblower may not testify due to concerns about protecting the person's identity.

According to the trio of Republicans, the impeachment probe has thus far gathered "information that contradicts the employee's allegations," therefore the federal employee and the sources used for the complaint need to be scrutinized by the investigating committees.

As examples of the information that contradicts the intelligence worker's complaint, the letter cites the transcript of a July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as well as Zelensky's contention that he didn't feel pressured to by president Trump during their interactions.

The anonymous August 12 complaint alleged that the president "sought to pressure" his eastern European counterpart in an effort "to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" in order to boost his re-election prospects.

"In light of these inconsistencies between facts as alleged by the employee and information obtained during the so-called impeachment inquiry, the Committees ought to fully assess the sources and credibility of the employee," says the letter, which was also sent to the Democratic chairs of the other two committees.

The three lawmakers cited the lopsided process powers of the current impeachment probe — which have drawn criticism from the White House — as the reason they have to ask Schiff to arrange the testimony instead of doing it themselves.

"Because Speaker Pelosi's unilateral impeachment inquiry has not provided us with co-equal subpoena power — as has been the bipartisan precedent in modern impeachment inquiries," the letter concludes, "we expect you to arrange for the Committees to receive testimony of the employees [sic] and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the August 12th complaint."

Decrying a lack of transparency in House Democrats' impeachment process against President Donald Trump, House Republicans gathered in the basement of the Capitol Wednesday morning to demand entry into proceedings they've been barred from thus far. And they reportedly got in.

At a press conference outside the SCIF, dozens of Republican representatives announced that they would seek to gain entry to the secure room — in which the Democrats of the three committees behind the current impeachment push were conducting a deposition — by demanding to be let in as a group.

SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. It's a secure room where classified intelligence and other secret information is discussed. Congress' SCIF is where much of House Democrats' investigation has so far taken place and where Republicans not on the investigating committees have not been allowed to enter.

"If behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election, we want to know what's going on," Rep. Matt Gaetz said while pointing to the SCIF entrance.

"And it's only reasonable that we would have questions," Gaetz added, noting that the impeachment probe has thus far "been marked by secret interviews, selective leaks, weird theatrical performances of transcripts that never happened, and lies about contacts with a whistleblower." Gaetz's last two examples were a specific reference to Schiff's conduct in recent weeks, for which he recently dodged a censure effort brought by House Republicans.

"You should be outraged if  you're an American at what's happening here," said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. "You should be allowed to confront your accusers; this is being held behind closed doors for a reason — because they don't want you to see what the witnesses are like."

"This is a Soviet-style impeachment process," Biggs added. "I don't care whether you are the president of the United States or any other citizens of this country: You should be allowed to confront your witnesses."

According to a senior GOP source who witnessed what happened next, the group went into the anteroom of the SCIF and chanted, "Let us in" outside the door guarded by Capitol Police. After that, the source says, the door opened, someone grabbed it, and a group of Republican members forced their way in.

After members attempted to sit in on the closed-door testimony that was occurring, "Chairman Schiff immediately left with the witness," Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., told reporters while flanked by a handful of other House Republicans.

The secrecy of the three committees’ investigation has drawn an immense amount of criticism from GOP lawmakers since last week, when members were first turned away from impeachment proceedings. Schiff has defended the clandestine process by comparing it to a grand jury.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct an error. In the sentence, "Congress' SCIF is where much of House Democrats' investigation has so far taken place and where Republicans not on the investigating committees have not been allowed to enter," the word "not" in "not on the investigating committees" was inadvertently left out. It has been added. CR regrets the error.

Watch: