To those who want to use Nixon impeachment as a justification for a Bush impeachment

[beaconess]

please go back and check your history:

1) Impeachment proceedings were not brought against Nixon in the House until AFTER the Senate Select Committee (aka the Watergate Committee or Ervin Committee) conducted a thorough investigation into Watergate;

2) Prior to the Senate Select Committee hearings, there was absolutely no support in the country for impeaching Nixon;

3) It was not until after the Ervin Committee, through very slow and careful investigation, unveiled wrongdoing in the Nixon White House that the House Judiciary Committee even began to consider looking into impeachment;

4) Throughout 1973 and part of 1974, the hard-core anti-Nixon crowd screamed and yelled and lambasted Congress for not trying to impeach Nixon immediately after the 1972 election. At the time, Senator Ervin, House Judiciary Chair Peter Rodino and other Senate and House Democrats refused to take the bait and, instead, very carefully and methodically laid the necessary groundwork. It was not until February 6, 1974 that the House of Representatives authorized the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings. That authorization was based largely upon the evidence developed by the Ervin Committee.

Had Congress launched into impeachment proceedings right after the 1972 election, as some pressed them to do, Nixon would have finished out his term since, not only was there insufficient evidence to support an impeachment investigation, there was no public will to impeach the president. It took the Watergate hearings - and the testimony of John Dean, Alexander Butterfield (who revealed the existence of the tapes that helped to bring Nixon down), and others - to slowly, but surely, give the public probable cause to believe that Nixon was a criminal president. Only then was impeachment feasible.

So, while the Nixon impeachment may be instructive, it is important not to distort the history or try to draw analogies to it based upon a misreading of what actually happened.

[mzmolly]

1. Thank you so much. Bookmarked and recommended.

:hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Good Points - But...

1. With Nixon, I believe that things had to be pried open. There's no question that Bush flagrently violated - and continues to violate - the law. He did it right in front of everyone.
2. Bush is way worse than Nixon. He's incredibly dangerous while in office - Lord knows when he'll decide to start nuking stuff.
3. I believe that Bush's favorables are already as low as Nixon's were at resignation.

In the end, it's clear that even if the Congressional Dems wanted to impeach Bush (which is not at all clear - I think they like him twisting in the wind), they can't impeach until some Rethugs want to impeach. Once enough Rethugs push for impeachment, the Dems will have to go along.

And I expect that the Rethugs will roll soon - they know that unless they get rid of Bush, they will be decimated in the 2008 elections.

[beaconess]

3. Response

1. Proof of Nixon's illegal activity had to be proven through the hearings, but many people believed from the start (June 1972 and prior) that Nixon "flagrantly vioated the law." While you and I may believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, most people aren't yet there.

2. Whether Bush is or isn't worse than Nixon isn't the issue. The issue is whether Congress has yet laid the groundwork for impeachment. They have not.

3. Bush's favorables may be low, but that's irrelevant to this question. At the time he was impeached, Clinton's favorables were nearly 3 times higher than Bush's. The issue is not whether the public approves of the job he is doing - the issue is whether people believe he should be impeached and removed from office. A majority of people do not.

I agree with you, however, about Democrats needing some Republicans to go along with impeachment before they can move forward. That's exactly what happened during Watergate, when 4 of the 17 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment. But there's no way they would have done that had the Watergate hearings not so solidly exposed the wrongdoing.

[AndyA]

4. Thank you for the voice of reason.

Comparisons between Nixon and Bush are difficult, as the situations are somewhat different. The big problem here is Bush is a very dangerous man right now, we're at war - a war he lied about to start.

Bush is eroding our liberties and rights, spying on us, outing COVERT CIA agents, none of which Nixon did.

There should be a much greater urgency to put a stop to Bush. The crimes are much, much worse. For that reason alone, Congress must get the process rolling.

[beaconess]

5. Do you really believe that impeachment would stop this man?

Especially since he would probably never be removed from office?

I don't.

[AndyA]

6. Even if impeachment doesn't stop him, what are the other options?

Just let him get away with it? Give him a pass? Make him a hero who was a war president, who had to make tough decisions?

That's the way they'll frame it. Bush was a great man, who was president during one of the most tumultuous periods in our nation's history, but he was up for the challenge. A brave man, who served in Vietnam and brought integrity, values, and morals back to the White House after Bill Clinton was impeached for having sex in the hallways.

Bush restored our failing economy, that was handed to him after 8 years of Democrat control... blah... blah... blah...

Is that how you want it framed?

Bush could be removed from office if the Democrats found the courage to do the right thing and make this happen.

Bush and his administration have been the most corrupt and the most dangerous we've ever had. Impeachment is the only option left to Congress at this point.

Failure to impeach will leave open the possibility that someone much worse, more sinister, and smarter may come along and do even worse things in the years ahead. Impeachment will put Bush/Cheney under scrutiny, something they will not like, and it will prevent them from pulling any more stunts until they leave.

And who knows, with enough public outcry and enough dirty laundry aired, maybe they'd resign. But we must try, to do nothing is criminal at this point.

[beaconess]

8. There's lots of room between impeachment right this minute and "letting him get away with it."

I remember when the right wing screamed bloody murder that the Senate let Bill Clinton "get away with it" by not removing him from office - I'm still trying to figure out what in the hell Bill Clinton "got away with." I can't imagine anyone wanting to go through what he did, even without the impeachment.

Not impeaching right this very minute does not mean letting Bush get away with anything. Richard Nixon, as I noted, was not subjected to impeachment until well after other investigations took place. In fact, had the House launched impeachment proceedings prematurely before the investigations developed enough evidence, he WOULD have gotten away with plenty.

While impeachment proceedings now might be very satisfying to a segment of the political spectrum, I do not believe that they would do anyone or anything much good in the long run. Let Congress do what they're doing - they are pressing harder and harder in their oversight role and almost daily revealing more about this administration that is inching the public further and further away from this president.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[AndyA]

10. The Democrats need to say that all options, including impeachment, are on the table.

The investigations should continue, but they must be vigilant at maintaining a time frame that is to our benefit, not Bush/Cheney. The fact that our party leaders have said impeachment is off the table is giving Bush/Cheney too much leverage.

The Democrats must let everyone know that all options are open for consideration.

It was foolish of Pelosi and Conyers to say that impeachment is off the table.

Impeachment is the right thing to do, and I want a government that operates in that manner because it IS the right thing to do. Not good for them politically, or for any other reason. Just because it's the right thing to do.

The only Cat getting skinned right now is on the left. The Dems cannot allow subpoenas to be ignored, evidence to be destroyed, and lies to be told to them under oath. Condi Rice still hasn't presented herself before the committee, and she was also subpoenaed. What do you suppose the chances are that you or I could get away with that? So why is Condi being allowed to?

Impeachment needs to be put on the table. And they need to do it soon, or they will run out of time, which is what Bush/Cheney are trying to do anyway. The Dems should not fall into this trap, like they have so many others.

[Perry Logan]

7. If we impeached Bush, the Republicans would call it a political stunt

Just as their impeachment of Clinton was a political stunt.

When Clinton was impeached, nearly 500 distinguished American historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and C. Vann Woodward, signed a letter publicly deploring the impeachment on historical and constitutional grounds. Soon thereafter, a group of more than 400 leading legal scholars, including Cass Sunstein and Laurence Tribe, issued a similar statement.

And that's the meme you would hear repeated ad infinitum on the media.

Win or lose, impeachment would damage the Democrats.

[beaconess]

9. I agree

And the first order of business for Republicans under a new Democratic president (even if they're in the minority) will be to launch a 24-7 impeachment movement.

I don't want to see impeachment become the standard tool of political opposition. It should be rare and necessary. In this instance, I believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, but I'm in the minority. And given that impeachment probably would take up the rest of his term, he would likely never be removed from office, and, even if he were to be, we'd end up with President Cheney, impeachment just doesn't seem like the smart way to go right now.

Of course, that could change, depending upon what Congress uncovers in their investigations, which I think are proceeding quite nicely.