Would a PResident today be impeached for something equivalent to Watergate?

In My Humble Opinion
1

In 1974, Richard Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency due to the Watergate scandal. The tipping point was the infamous “smoking gun” tape, which when released revealed that Nixon personally knew about the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, was involved in the conspiracy to cover it up with bribes, and had lied about the extent of his knowledge of the events. The coverup was very widespread, with 48 people convicted of crimes, and the details of the scandal and Nixon’s involvement were publically known and beyond reasonable doubt.

Immediately after the release of the “smoking gun tape” it was obvious Congress intended to impeach Nixon, and senior Congressional leaders, including Barry Goldwater, told him so. Goldwater felt that more than half of Senate Republicans would vote to convict. Nixon had no choice but to quit.

Suppose the following two scenarios:

  1. Hillary Clinton is elected President and in 2018 a scandal essentially approximating Watergate - a criminal act taken at her behest, followed by increasingly botched coverups involving many government officials working for her, is revealed beyond any doubt or question to have taken place with her direct involvement. Would Congress impeach and convict her or would the Democratic Party refuse to do so, and act to prevent impeachment or conviction, even in the face of undeniable criminal malfeasance?

  2. Donald Trump is elected President and in 2018 a scandal essentially approximating Watergate - a criminal act taken at his behest, followed by increasingly botched coverups involving many government officials working for him, is revealed beyond any doubt or question to have taken place with his direct involvement. Would Congress impeach and convict him or would the Republican Party refuse to do so, and act to prevent impeachment or conviction, even in the face of undeniable criminal malfeasance?

2

Unfortunately, the Lewinsky case turned impeachment into a political gesture instead of an indictment. With Nixon, even his greatest Republican defender on the Judiciary committee (Gurney) came down in favor of impeachment when the tape was released.

Nowadays, the president’s party will just ignore the evidence. If the president’s party holds the house, nothing will happen. If it doesn’t, then impeachment will go through.

3

Wasn’t Johnson’s impeachment pretty much just Reconstruction politics too?

4

I think the polarization of American politics means that impeachment is *more *likely, but removal from office is *less *likely. Because it is easy to get the 50%+1 majority for impeachment, but nearly impossibly to get to 67% for Senate conviction, given how hardened the battle lines are drawn.

5

It depends upon the president, public opinion and the power of the parties within that particular Congress. Personally, I think Reagan should have been impeached for Iran-Contra, but he wasn’t.

So IMO the question can’t be definitively answered.

6

And if the impeached president’s party holds the Senate, he/she won’t be convicted - probably no matter how damning the evidence is.