I think a repeat of Watergate - that is, everything happening just as it did back then, with the break-in and whatnot - would probably lead to impeachment, but not removal from office - the reason being that politics is so polarized today.
Had Nixon been impeached, he would almost certainly have been convicted by the Senate - some say by 90+ votes or maybe even unanimous removal from office - but today I think that even if a Watergate happened again, there is no way that you could get to 67 votes in the Senate for removal from office, people being so bitterly divided along partisan lines as they were today.
Additionally, the American public has probably developed a much greater tolerance for scandal these days and would not *really *consider a Watergate worth removal from office. Paradoxically, because some shrill folks now call for presidents to be impeached for just about anything, this actually waters down the potency of calls for impeachment and removal from office.
An ACTUAL Watergate, complete with the most incompetent cover-up ever managed? I think it would still sink a politician. We haven’t had a real, honest-to-god, landscape changing scandal since Blowjob-gate, despite what keeps getting thrown around. Depending on who you ask, that’s only because we’re better at hiding it now.
I don’t think a true Watergate-like event would have much impact today. We’ve just had a situation where Russian hackers broke into the DNC servers, and released information to attempt to benefit Trump’s campaign.
If it was found that there was direct and incontrovertible proof that Trump himself gave the orders directly to the Russian agents, and then covered it up with bribes, the Republicans would circle the wagons and defend him to the end. They would make crap up to defend him. They would accuse the opposition of doing worse. They would threaten to shut down the government.
It wasn’t the break-in, it was the coverup. It was the firing of the special prosecutor (and the subsequent resignation of the attorney general), the hush money, the direct order to the FBI to call off their investigation, the refusal to give up the tapes – the piling of one thing on top of another for more than two years that led to the final realization that the President himself not only knew what was going on, but had taken an active part inthe wrongdoing.
I don’t think any President would be stupid enough to go down that road after seeing what happened to Nixon, but I think one did, there’d be the same result, at least to the point of the party leadership saying “get out now, because we won’t save your ass.”
I think Reagan already did go down that road, and got away with it because of the doddering grampa act.
Hell, maybe he DIDN’T know what was going on, but I think Iran-Contra was similar to the scenario posed by the OP, but there was no impeachment for a totally different reason. Everybody in Congress seemed to like Ronnie and was willing to believe whatever bullshit he spun. There was no such good feeling about Nixon.
Maybe on sentence 2, absolutely not on sentence 1. The US has far less corruption than it did during the 1950s. Most people don’t support Citizens United: most believe that anonymous funding of campaigns by billionaires, corporations and monied interests is a bad thing. (Citizens United permits a ban on anonymous funding, but unsurprisingly Republicans have opposed such legislation.)
Yeah, ordering the CIA to do wiretaps of political opponents for political gain would still be an impeachable offense. Ordering the secret bombing a foreign country would not be, but would still piss people off after you promise, “Peace with honor”. Disagree with the OP.
ETA Disclosure: Actually I think that Nixon had his decent points, though he also had his personal demons. I’m not a Nixon hater. I do think certain Oval Office behaviors such as the Saturday Night Massacre demand investigation.
Yeah, ordering the CIA to do wiretaps of political opponents for political gain would still be an impeachable offense.
How about working covertly with a foreign government to hack into a political opponent’s servers? I still firmly believe that if it was proved beyond any doubt that a President Trump (God forbid) had done this, then a majority of Republican voters and politicians would circle the wagons, and come to his defense.
We are now in the era of 100% “party before country”.
I don’t think a President would resign over a Watergate-level scandal today, but I guess it depends on the temperament of the President. Nixon was a “get things done” kind of guy, and also a very experienced politician, so he knew that with zero political capital, he couldn’t do anything worthwhile as President. Plus he had no base. Movement conservatives never liked him. His base was pretty much just beltway Cold War hawks. So when Nixon went down, he had very few friends.
A politician with cred among the liberal or conservative base basically has friends for life. No matter how bad things get, they’ll defend him and many will believe it’s all just a big conspiracy. So a Reagan or Obama, the type of politician who enjoys sky high ratings among base voters, can literally never need to resign. He’ll always have enough fans to keep a shell of a Presidency going. Arguably, Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate and Reagan should have resigned, but his popularity among conservatives plus the public’s general affection for him let him survive in office.
Nixon quit because he was told that if he didn’t he would be impeached out of the office. It had nothing to do with what he thought still needed to be done, or that he didn’t have the clout to get it done.
Well yeah, I did neglect that tiny little detail. But that does reinforce my second point, that he had no one who was really invested in his Presidency. I doubt Democrats would consent to impeaching Obama under any realistic circumstances, including wiretapping of unfriendly media. Oh wait, that actually happened.
Plus didn’t he get charged with a crime? Seems that today the standard is, “no charges, no evidence.” We give politicians way too much benefit of the doubt. It should be assumed they are all trying to get away with something because they are.
But that does reinforce my second point, that he had no one who was really invested in his Presidency. I doubt Democrats would consent to impeaching Obama under any realistic circumstances, including wiretapping of unfriendly media. Oh wait, that actually happened.