# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/41 "2005-12-28T04:30:15Z")
> [@](#): > > (and for forcing the Clinton impeachment instead of censure), Show me anything in the constitution where it says the president can be censured. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/42 "2005-12-28T04:40:04Z")
There are many things Congress can and does do that aren’t explicitly in the Constitution. Censuring is one, and has been done a number of times, including to President Andrew Jackson. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/43 "2005-12-28T05:49:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Saying that he lied us into a war is a simple statement of fact, and there is no reason for you or anyone to be “enjoying” it. Gawdamighty, man. I’m no fan of the man, but he didn’t actually lie, did he? Wasn’t it a decision made on deeply flawed intelligence? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/44 "2005-12-28T08:24:22Z")
Technically true, **First,** but it only works if you ignore the fact that the “flawed intelligence” was cherry-picked by his own Administration to reach the conclusion they had pre-determined to reach. [Office of Special Plans](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/45 "2005-12-28T14:11:46Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > A notable exception would be the Johnson impeachment, however when the Senate voted to acquit Johnson, the Senator that cast the deciding vote said he did it because he did not think the President should be removed over politics. Please clarify (and correct if needed) this for me: Clinton was impeached and was convicted and punished via censure Johnson was impeached but was not convicted Nixon was impeached but resigned ending the process ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/46 "2005-12-28T14:12:23Z")
Nope, that’s not even technically true (and it’s a surprise to see you post that, **rjung** ). [A sample list](http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm), one among many easily available. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/47 "2005-12-28T14:35:43Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Clinton was impeached and was convicted and punished via censure WTF? Clinton was acquitted. They didn’t even get a bare majority of senators to vote for conviction. It was such a farce. This was only a few years ago. Where you at the time? Lower Slobbovia? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/48 "2005-12-28T14:40:48Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Clinton was impeached and was convicted and punished via censure No. He was indeed impeached, but in the Senate "trial’ not even one count achieved even a majority vote. The process thereby ended with the attempt to remove him having failed. There was a strong sentiment in the House that he should be censured (essentially a resolution expressing strong disapproval, but with no \*tangible \* effect), but DeLay (essentially acting as Speaker with Gingrich having quit the job but not yet replaced) refused to allow it to come to the floor as an option, out of what could only be simple vindictiveness. Jackson remains the only President to have been censured, but the House voted a few years later, after tempers had cooled and the rashness of the act had become clear, to nullify the resolution. > [@](#): > > Johnson was impeached but was not convicted True, although “convicted” is a misnomer, the strongest possible effect is removal from office and disqualification from future office. The chapter in JFK’s “Profiles in Courage” about Sen. Edmund Ross’s “No” vote is well worth your time. > [@](#): > > Nixon was impeached but resigned ending the process He wasn’t impeached, but certainly would have been in a matter of days, and would likely have been removed from office by the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee had approved bills of impeachment following months of hearings, these had been sent to the full House, but Nixon recognized the inevitable and resigned before they could be voted upon. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/49 "2005-12-28T14:49:55Z")
Has anyone read the Conyers report? It’s a PDF file (and quite a large one, too: 273 pages) [http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf](http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf) It seems to me that this is the first step towards serious investigation of the Administration’s possible impeachable offenses. It’s very detailed and well-supported. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/50 "2005-12-28T15:44:22Z")
thanks **ElvisL1ves** ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464/51 "2005-12-29T02:19:38Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Technically true, **First,** but it only works if you ignore the fact that the “flawed intelligence” was cherry-picked by his own Administration to reach the conclusion they had pre-determined to reach. > > [Office of Special Plans](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html) Again, although its by no means a defence whihc gives the man’s presidency a clean bill of health, the article in that link makes Bush sounds like he was actively mislead by his advisors, but there is nothing to suggest that he actually lied. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nixon-vs-bush-impeachment/336464.md?page=2)