News Nixon led to Clinton and then Bush/Cheney

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rothiemurchus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Led
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of President Nixon's potential imprisonment for his actions during Watergate and how it might have influenced subsequent leaders like Clinton, Bush, and Cheney. It argues that had Nixon faced legal consequences, it could have deterred future misconduct by political leaders, reinforcing the rule of law. However, participants note that Nixon's and Clinton's situations were fundamentally different, with Nixon's actions involving serious abuses of power and obstruction of justice, while Clinton's impeachment stemmed from perjury related to a sexual harassment case. The conversation highlights the complexities of political accountability, suggesting that rigorous application of the law could discourage wrongdoing among leaders. It also touches on the political motivations behind investigations and the public perception of such cases, indicating that without a non-political resolution, investigations may be viewed as partisan attacks rather than legitimate inquiries. The discussion concludes by acknowledging the outcomes of both Nixon's and Clinton's legal challenges, emphasizing the need for accountability in leadership.
Rothiemurchus
Messages
203
Reaction score
1
If President Nixon had been imprisoned for breaking the law it would have set a precedent that would have deterred Clinton from lying to Congress and Bush and Cheney too.Isn't it about time leaders got locked up for law breaking or else what is the point of the law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rothiemurchus said:
If President Nixon had been imprisoned for breaking the law it would have set a precedent that would have deterred Clinton from lying to Congress and Bush and Cheney too.Isn't it about time leaders got locked up for law breaking or else what is the point of the law?

Nixon's and Clinton's situations were completely different. Nixon's situation didn't affect Clinton's situation.

Nixon was accused of obstructing an investigation into crimes that affected the fairness of elections, misusing government agencies, such as the IRS and FBI, to persecute political opponents, and ignoring Congressional subpoenas. It's very doubtful Nixon would have been found guilty of the last, because there was a divided opinion about whether the President should be required to respond to Congressional subpoenas. He would have almost certainly been found guilty of the first two articles. Whatever deterrence a conviction would have provided, being forced to resign as President (because of the inevitability of being found guilty) provided nearly equal deterrence.

Clinton was accused of lying about sexual relations with an intern and obstructing an investigation into sexual harrassment claims. The sexual harrassment case was a civil case (not a criminal case) that still proceeded independently of the impeachment and was eventually dismissed. While Clinton may have made a crude sexual advance to Paula Jones in a hotel room, she failed to show any evidence that could relate a single sexual advance into harrassment. Even if guilty of sexual harrassment while governor of Arkansas, the only impact it would have on his job as President of the US is that a lot of people would be muttering that they would have liked to know that during the last election.

Edit: And I think Clinton was actually charged with lying to investigators in the sexual harrassment case, not Congress.
 
Last edited:
And I think Clinton was actually charged with lying to investigators in the sexual harrassment case, not Congress.
Yes. Clinton was impeached for (allegedly some might say) lying under oath (perjury) to the grand jury and obstruction of justice.

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote), . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Impeachment_by_the_House_of_Representatives
 
BobG said:
Clinton was accused of lying about sexual relations with an intern and obstructing an investigation into sexual harrassment claims.
It's not good to be accused of jaywalking and murder, even if you weren't jaywalking.
 
holy crap the guy got a blowjob, how can you possibly compare that to crimes against humanity?? (torture, imperialistic warfare etc...)
 
Isn't the bottom line here that leaders would be less inclined to do wrong if the law was rigrously applied - Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon - he could have got him tried in court.Nixon was a friend of Ford - this looks bad - it is bad!
 
Rothiemurchus said:
Isn't the bottom line here that leaders would be less inclined to do wrong if the law was rigrously applied - Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon - he could have got him tried in court.Nixon was a friend of Ford - this looks bad - it is bad!

Having the issue resolved in a court of law would have had some benefit. For one thing, the 'lesson' of Watergate is that the cover-up was worse than the crime. That ignores the second article of impeachment.

Focusing on the first article rather than the second suggests that many politicians saw Watergate as a politically motivated move rather than a legitimate investigation of potential crimes.

You hear the 'lessons' of Watergate rehashed all the time. None of Clinton's 'crimes' affected his presidency, but alledged attempts to block the investigation led to impeachment. No one was prosecuted for leaking Plame's name, but Libby was found guilty of obstructing the investigation into the leak.

Unless the facts are resolved in a non-political environment, every investigation into wrong doing is perceived as a political attack designed to trip someone up into committing a trivial, but real crime.
 
As I remember (or disremember) it, Clinton was sued for harassment. During the trial he was asked certain questions which were to determine whether there was a pattern of such behavior. I believe that while under oath he lied in order to hide that pattern. If so, that would leave him open to a charge of perjury. No such charge was brought. Regardless of the political implications, the implications for the harassment suit were clear. Clinton could not continue to pursue his defense and he settled.
 
jimmysnyder said:
As I remember (or disremember) it, Clinton was sued for harassment. During the trial he was asked certain questions which were to determine whether there was a pattern of such behavior. I believe that while under oath he lied in order to hide that pattern. If so, that would leave him open to a charge of perjury. No such charge was brought. Regardless of the political implications, the implications for the harassment suit were clear. Clinton could not continue to pursue his defense and he settled.

The case was dismissed. When it appeared that an appeals court might grant the appeal Clinton settled for $850,000 to drop the appeal.

He was impeached for denying having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky during his deposition. He was allowed to review the legal definition of "sexual relations" and concluded that oral sex was not "sexual relations".

BTW he was acquitted.

When he left office he had his law license suspended for 5 years.

Now he is the most popular man in the word, and Paula Jones is being called trailor trash by non other than Ann Coulter. :smile:

Of the $850,000 about $600,000 was legal expenses.

She bought a house and then posed for Penthouse to pay the taxes.
 
  • #10
Skyhunter said:
The case was dismissed. When it appeared that an appeals court might grant the appeal Clinton settled for $850,000 to drop the appeal.
Thanks for clearing that up. I hadn't realized this.

Skyhunter said:
He was impeached for denying having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky during his deposition.
This page shows 4 versions of the bill connected with the impeachment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.RES.611:
The exact wording of the charge on the first of these is:
H.RES 611.RH said:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In other words, denying would not have been an issue if it hadn't been perjury. I don't mean to imply that he perjured himself, only that he was impeached for that reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/business/media/05decency.html
WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.
:smile: :rolleyes: I tell my children not to act like Bush or Cheney.

Nixon also apparently used colorful language.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
143
Views
18K
Replies
44
Views
7K
Replies
53
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top