Nixon wasn't just going to be impeached. All the votes were lined up to actually oust him, and he had basically zero Senate support so the hearings would have been brutal. This was obviously not the case for Clinton, seeing as he survived his impeachment.
2007-07-06 08:03:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by House 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
Thank you for the question. President Nixon was well aware he had little support and did the "right thing." Even though it was the responsibility of other agencies he took the hit as the man in charge. I admire the integrity, guts and history has spoken well of his actions. Not re-actions.
Yes, if WJ had not laid out the general plan he may have had a few less supporters. That being from the start his initiation of extensions to the Presidential term. The bill did not pass. Clinton-Executive Orders. The Hill has no term limits. Congress & Senate stay as long as they bankroll their way in. There is a book out on this. If you think these folks do not have long term agenda, think again. Nixon had no longevity to offer. Plus with Vietnam he was toast anyway despite Watergate.
YES if the man had integrity and the hope to walk away. He had no such idea.
The charges were brought to his attention via a sexual harrasment & rape investigation.
As a lawyer and the President of the United States he lied during the process. Not once but twice. In front of a Grand Jury and a nation. If it was not for a smart girl with a pearl necklace in a bank vault he would have escaped scottfree.
Judge Holloway Johnson. VS Kenneth Starr he had no prayer. Clinton financier's no pursued and where will she be sitting in 2009? Watch the name. The Clinton's have alot of debts.
Al Gore on his own wings would have been an excellent President. I half think here the votes were rigged to put Bush in place and then show up as saviour Hillary '08. As VP he could have had extra time and that is allowed in the terms of agreement. SO, no way we could have Gore when they want back in town asap.
Just my very researched, and bias set of opinions. Thank you very much. I have alot to shout about but will spare u this once. But my profile is open unlike some of the folks who ... well, talk alot. TY
2007-07-06 08:14:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mele Kai 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
because of the fact impeachment would not eliminate an elected genuine from workplace. Impeachment is the act of bringing formal rates against somebody in public workplace. Clinton grow to be impeached by skill of the domicile of Representatives, however the impeachment grow to be no longer upheld the Senate and the technique ended there. If the Senate had upheld the impeachment, the subsequent step could be conviction. this is the place the Senate considers the guy's guilt or innocence. If he's got here across responsible, then he could be required to step down from workplace. Nixon is a various tale entirely - he resigned (voluntarily left workplace) while he found out that he could very probable be impeached, and then convicted. somewhat than circulate in the process the embarrassing criminal complaints, he surely stop the Presidency and went returned to being a private citizen.
2016-11-08 08:22:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by kujala 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nixon wasn't impeached he stepped down and was pardon by Ford from being tried. Both were guilty of lying to the public neither were good presidents. But Nixon did get us out of the Vietnam War which Johnson got us into under the made up tale that the U.S. Maddox had been fired on. Seems like the democrates have a problem with making up stories and even some of the liberal press has the same problem but I'd RATHER not get into that. And Clinton would never have been elected if Ross hadn't decided to keep Bush from being re elected.
2007-07-06 08:21:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The scenario you lay out is a good one, but I still think he followed the best course.
You see, Nixon knew they had him. You may or may not know it, but if you get impeached, you can't be pardoned, and you can still be impeached even when you are out of office. So he resigned, this giving the power to pardon to Ford, who then pardoned Nixon before any action could be taken against him.
Clinton, on the other hand, knew the case against him was crap and winnable. He gambled on winning, and it payed off. He remains one of the most successful presidents of the 20th century.
But, had he resigned, Al Gore would have run in 2000 as the incumbent, and surely that would have been the leg up to win the electoral college fair and square.
2007-07-06 08:11:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Stepping down would have been the honorable thing to do. However greed stands before honor under the Clinton household as history has taught us.
If Clinton stepped down Gore could have taken over as President and had he made ONE good decision, he could have easily been re-elected.
But as I said, greed stood before honor with Bill Clinton in the White House. That one-ill decision by churning up all the republicans to stand against him, and allowing hundreds of democratic supporters and government officials to steer far away from him (including his wife) was a complete sell-out of greed.
The bottom line is he did what he normally would do after completely ruining something and in that case, his charm, wit and charisma wasn't nearly as infallible as he expected.
2007-07-06 08:25:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I have never been a fan of Bill Clinton, but I do not believe he should have stepped down before being impeached.
The fact that he was ultimately not convicted by the Senate and therefore was not removed from office confirms why he should not have stepped down. It would have short-circuited a process that, as it played out in reality, did not truncate his term.
In short, it would have short-circuited the pursuit of justice and short-changed Bill Clinton. The fact that he might have done Al Gore a favor by sacrificing himself is irrelevant. My sense of it is that it would have been a cold day in Hell before Al would have done it for Bill.
2007-07-06 08:10:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Hind sight is 20/20 but yes I think that he should have stepped down. I am sure Al Gore would have done a good job but he was obviously not loved by the Americans at that time because when he ran for president he did not win the election....
2007-07-06 08:02:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by davenlinshart 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, he should have.
It didn't happen because, like his supporters, Clinton rotates between total denial of his behavior and the assertion that he has a innate right to be an error-ridden 'human' at any and all costs to the nation.
Nixon eventually stepped up to the plate, admitted his wrongdoing and stepped down to prevent further cost to our nation.
There lies the most common difference in attitude between the parties. We see it time and time again.
Dems are allowed and even championed when making errors. Republicans are held to a much higher level of decency and most often, accept that responsiblity willingly.
2007-07-06 08:22:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, let's see, where are all the Libs screaming for Libby to go to jail now? He did the exact same thing that Clinton Plea bargained his way out of, Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Yet Libby should do Time and their hero, Slick Willie did nothing wrong? Ha, you Libs are so ridiculous, it is impossible to take you seriously when you make ignorant statements like, Clinton did nothing wrong. The President of the US lying to a grand jury and obstructing the investigation. Yeah, that Clinton was a great President, no doubt about it.
2007-07-06 08:09:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by booman17 7
·
2⤊
2⤋