# nixon vs. bush impeachment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464 "2005-12-20T16:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![frostyhawaiian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a5b964/32.png) [@frostyhawaiian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frostyhawaiian)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/1 "2005-12-20T16:13:45Z")
If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/2 "2005-12-20T16:29:43Z")
> [@frostyhawaiian](#): > > If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones. The difference is Bush’s party controls the government. _Nothing_ Bush does will get him impeached. ---
**Author:** ![frostyhawaiian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a5b964/32.png) [@frostyhawaiian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frostyhawaiian)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/3 "2005-12-20T16:35:44Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The difference is Bush’s party controls the government. _Nothing_ Bush does will get him impeached. after 2006 hopefully that won’t be a factor. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/4 "2005-12-20T16:38:35Z")
> [@frostyhawaiian](#): > > after 2006 hopefully that won’t be a factor. Bush might back off enough to avoid impeachment by a House Majority of Dems. Look who’s in line for succession. Makes you tremble a little, doen’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/5 "2005-12-20T16:45:12Z")
> [@frostyhawaiian](#): > > after 2006 hopefully that won’t be a factor. It’s almost impossible for the Pubbies to lose control of the Senate in the 2006 election, and only a extremely rosy scenario for the Dems gives then control of the House. I am afraid that, like it or not, we have a Dictator Until 2008 in Dubya. All the Dems can reasonably hope to do is to pick up seats in both branches. I am encouraged that even some Republicans have been able to get their noses out of Bush’s butt long enough to be frightened by some of the things Dubya has done, but I don’t expect them to be frightened enough to do anything substantive, like an impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/6 "2005-12-20T17:49:15Z")
> [@BarnOwl](#): > > Bush might back off enough to avoid impeachment by a House Majority of Dems. > > Look who’s in line for succession. Makes you tremble a little, doen’t it? Step 1: Speaker Pelosi. Step 2: Bush/Cheney simulpeachment! Yeah, I know just how large a quantity of finite improbability we’d need here. But a guy can dream. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/7 "2005-12-20T17:58:56Z")
Consider that DeLay, the man by far the most responsible for whipping his Pubbies into line (and for forcing the Clinton impeachment instead of censure), will be out of there - either on trial, or in jail, or simply defeated, which nearly happened in his last election. Add in the possibility of SCOTUS reversing his Texas gerrymandering now that they’ve taken the case. You’ll certainly see a reduction in their majority if not an outright reversal, and it would only take a few Pubs with the conscience to put country ahead of party (or at least the ability to read polls) to make it happen. The flat insistence by the **Bricker** faction that it ain’t gonna happen has an air of desperation about it, doesn’t it? Yes, both Bush and Cheney would have to be subjected to it to accomplish any good, and why not, they’ve done the same things for the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/8 "2005-12-20T18:04:14Z")
> [@frostyhawaiian](#): > > If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones. You are mistaken, in large part. Watergate was mainly about the obstruction of justice impeding the investigaton of the burglary of the Watergate and the role of the White House in that, as outlined in the first article of impeachment. The second article of impeachment did mention secret wiretapping, but that was a peripheral issue for most. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/9 "2005-12-20T18:08:25Z")
> [@frostyhawaiian](#): > > If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones. There are apparently no newspapers with balls these days. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/10 "2005-12-20T18:18:53Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > It’s almost impossible for the Pubbies to lose control of the Senate in the 2006 election, and only a extremely rosy scenario for the Dems gives then control of the House. Not just lose control of the Senate: the Dems would need to pick up enoguh seats to get to two-thirds, which is required for a successful conviction by the Senate. (_Vide_ - Johnson, Andrew, impeachment thereof.) So succesful impeachment only becomes likely if Bush substantially loses Republican support in both houses. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/11 "2005-12-20T18:22:02Z")
Which is exactly what happened to Nixon, since the OP asks. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/12 "2005-12-20T18:39:23Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Not just lose control of the Senate: the Dems would need to pick up enoguh seats to get to two-thirds, which is required for a successful conviction by the Senate. (_Vide_ - Johnson, Andrew, impeachment thereof.) > > So succesful impeachment only becomes likely if Bush substantially loses Republican support in both houses. I think you’re confusing impeachment with being convicted in the Senate. Remember, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted in the Senate-- that effort failed in the Senate. The president would be impeached once the House voted on articles of impeachement, and it passes by a simple majority. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/13 "2005-12-20T18:45:07Z")
No, **NP** said “\*successful \* impeachment” - that would be one that led to the removal of the targeted official. Clinton’s and Johnson’s were \*failed \* impeachments. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/14 "2005-12-20T18:51:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, **NP** said “\*successful \* impeachment” - that would be one that led to the removal of the targeted official. Clinton’s and Johnson’s were \*failed \* impeachments. That’s a meaningless addendum to a defined phrase. If you’ve been impeached, you’ve been impeached. There is nothing extra needed in order to be “successful”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/15 "2005-12-20T19:00:03Z")
Sure there is. The actual removal of the targeted official. You know, the \*purpose \* of the process? If you’re among those who insist on analogies to the (unrelated) system, try this: Is the case over when the indictment is obtained? Isn’t a prosecution that fails to produce a conviction a failed prosecution? You know the answers. What is the value, then, of an impeachment that fails to remove the targeted official? The value isn’t even political - the partisan impeachments of Johnson and Clinton damaged the impeaching party, and the presidents’ stature was actually enhanced. You are making a stand on a trivial point, even after having its irrelevance pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/16 "2005-12-20T19:07:30Z")
I’ve fixed the thread title, as even Nixon deserves to have his name spelled correctly. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/17 "2005-12-20T19:11:01Z")
But not capitalized? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/18 "2005-12-20T19:23:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sure there is. The actual removal of the targeted official. You know, the \*purpose \* of the process? > > If you’re among those who insist on analogies to the (unrelated) system, try this: Is the case over when the indictment is obtained? Isn’t a prosecution that fails to produce a conviction a failed prosecution? You know the answers. What is the value, then, of an impeachment that fails to remove the targeted official? The value isn’t even political - the partisan impeachments of Johnson and Clinton damaged the impeaching party, and the presidents’ stature was actually enhanced. > > You are making a stand on a trivial point, even after having its irrelevance pointed out. Here’s the definition from Wikipedia (I did a Google search on the term and this was the first definition site to come up): > [@](#): > > Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. _Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office._ I take your point that what counts is really whether the impeachment results in the removal of the official, but it’s not the end result of a “successful impeachment”. A successful impeachment opens the door for a conviction via legislative vote. I _know_ this is sort of nitpicky, but it seems sloppy not to make the distinction between impeachment and conviction via legislative vote since the distinction has real-life consequences. (i.e. whether an official is removed from office or not). Oh, and I’m not saying you don’t know the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/19 "2005-12-20T19:46:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sure there is. The actual removal of the targeted official. You know, the \*purpose \* of the process? > > If you’re among those who insist on analogies to the (unrelated) system, try this: Is the case over when the indictment is obtained? Isn’t a prosecution that fails to produce a conviction a failed prosecution? You know the answers. What is the value, then, of an impeachment that fails to remove the targeted official? The value isn’t even political - the partisan impeachments of Johnson and Clinton damaged the impeaching party, and the presidents’ stature was actually enhanced. Good ananlogy. But you don’t say the indictment was unsucessful because a conviction was not obtained. A successful indictment process is one in which an indictment is handed down. A successful impeachment process is one in which impeachment is achieved. > [@](#): > > You are making a stand on a trivial point, even after having its irrelevance pointed out. No. I corrected a factual error. You’re the one making a bid deal about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/20 "2005-12-20T19:51:25Z")
The term “impeachment” is similar to “indictment.” If someone referred to a “successful indictment,” we’d assume he meant that the grand jury was successfully persuaded to return an indictment. If someone referred to a failed indictment, presumably that would mean a grand jury that did not return a true bill. But in no event are you talking about the eventual trial and/or conviction when you say “indictment.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464.md?page=2)