Nixon led to Clinton and then Bush/Cheney

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rothiemurchus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Led
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of President Nixon's actions and subsequent pardon by Gerald Ford on later political figures, particularly Presidents Clinton and Bush/Cheney. Participants explore the legal and moral ramifications of leadership accountability and the perceived differences in the legal situations of Nixon and Clinton, as well as the broader implications for political conduct and law enforcement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that if Nixon had been imprisoned, it could have deterred Clinton and Bush/Cheney from committing similar offenses.
  • Others contend that Nixon's and Clinton's situations were fundamentally different, with Nixon's actions involving serious allegations of election interference and misuse of government agencies.
  • Some participants highlight that Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice related to a sexual harassment case, while others note that the impeachment did not affect his presidency significantly.
  • A few participants discuss the implications of Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, suggesting it undermined the rule of law and accountability for leaders.
  • There are claims that the political context of investigations can lead to perceptions of political attacks rather than legitimate inquiries into wrongdoing.
  • Some participants mention the legal outcomes of Clinton's cases, including the settlement of the harassment suit and the suspension of his law license.
  • Discussions also touch on the nature of the charges against Clinton and the definitions of "sexual relations" as they pertain to his impeachment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of Nixon's actions on subsequent presidents, the nature of the charges against Clinton, and the overall accountability of political leaders. The discussion remains unresolved with no clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various legal definitions and political contexts that may influence the interpretation of events, but these remain subject to individual perspectives and interpretations.

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 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
19K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K