What if Watergate were today?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO


Mtg, If that law had been later overturned and Johnson had been dismissed as President, what would the Constitution guide us to do?

Impeachment and removal are not judicial proceedings and are not appealable, so my assumption is that the removal would stand, but the act in question would be overturned, and thus not useable in the future.

What is more interesting, because AFAIK, it's a huge gap in the Constitution (since the Framers never really intended judicial review ), is what happens if a sitting President under threat of impeachment goes to the judiciary seeking a ruling on the law in question and a stay of the impeachment or trial.

Traditionally, the judiciary most often takes the approach that disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches are "political" and beyond judicial review. That's somewhat gutless, but practical because the judiciary can't really afford to seriously piss off the rest of the government.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor

Exactly... but as the Johnson affair showed us, Congress can make just about anything into a 'high crime'. Those Senators voting to kick Johnson out didn't care that he dismissed Stanton, but instead because they hated his adminstration.

They had to contrive a law that Johnson would violate, in order to create a "high crime" and they couldn't do it ex post facto. They had to draw a line for Johnson to cross after they drew it.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Honestly, I don't give a **** about who Bill, George, or anyone is screwing, just as long as they can do their job good.

But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

[chequita guevara]

Even if the judiciary was inclined to strike down a law being used to impeach and remove a president, they would most likely judge the mood of Congress first. Congress has in the past, told the SCOTUS to back off or watch its power be stripped (which Congress can legally do, except for what is given to SCOTUS in the Constitution). That's what SCOTUS stepped aside and let Johnson be impeashed on a clearly unconstitutional law.

As for the initial question, it is unlikely that Watergate could happen again today. It was a product of its times, in which a large section of the populace was very angry and suspicious of the government (due to the war and civil rights). Furthermore, neither party today has the integrity to take on a President from their own party, and the Dem's don't have enough spine yet to take on a Republican president. On the other hand, we've seen to what lengths the Republicans will go to get a Democratic president.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

Losing Bin Laden is F.o.S. It repeats disproven allegations as if they were still fact. The Republicans are more at fault for crippling the Clinton presidency, which hampered his abilty to do his job.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

If the thesis of that book is that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from hunting Bin Laden, permit me to laugh at it right now. Is that really what the book says, or are you drawing an unwarranted conclusion about why Clinton didn't do some things?

Even if one were to accept as true that Clinton was negligent in pursuing Bin Laden, proving such carelessness was a result of his chasing skirt would be pretty much impossible. After all, it didn't prevent him from being very active about other policy matters during his presidency, so asserting it just affected him in regards to terrorism is absurd.

[Ned]

Nixon resigned after the revelation of the smoking gun. At that point, Goldwater came to him and said that he had only twenty votes in the Senate. He was counting on 34. When he got the news, he resigned.

The greatest question is whether there will be another Deep Throat. Deep Throat is the person who unravelled the Nixon Presidency.

And what would we call Deep Throat today?

(BTW, does the term Deep Throat imply that the person was either a woman or a gay?)

[realpolitic]

In 1926, it was ruled unconstitional.

BTW, misdemenor has two meanings: a class of crimes and misbehaviour.

Originally posted by The diplomat


But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

Bush was in the White House for almost a year before 9/11, what was he doing all that time - taking English classes?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Losing Bin Laden is F.o.S. It repeats disproven allegations as if they were still fact. The Republicans are more at fault for crippling the Clinton presidency, which hampered his abilty to do his job.

If Watergate happended today, the radio talk shows would all be mocking the Democrats' claims of a rightwing conspiracy, the Justice Department would bury all investigations, and the witnesses would be held in protective custody for national-security reasons. Oh yeah, somehow it would all be Bill Clinton's fault.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If the thesis of that book is that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from hunting Bin Laden, permit me to laugh at it right now. Is that really what the book says, or are you drawing an unwarranted conclusion about why Clinton didn't do some things?

No, the book does not say that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from fighting terrorism.

I am saying that it was highly irresponsible for Clinton to be having sexual excapades when he knew that a 9-11 style attack was a possibility.

I am simply saying that as President, he should have done more to protect the American people instead of having sex with Lewinsky all the time!

Even if one were to accept as true that Clinton was negligent in pursuing Bin Laden, proving such carelessness was a result of his chasing skirt would be pretty much impossible. After all, it didn't prevent him from being very active about other policy matters during his presidency, so asserting it just affected him in regards to terrorism is absurd.

Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

White House documents clearly show that the Clinton administration knew that Bin Laden was behind the WTC bombing and the USS Cole bombing. Yemen government offered to help the FBI capture Bin Laden, and Clinton turn them down for political reasons. To refuse to pursue a terrorist like Bin Laden purely for political reasons, especially when you know he is a such a dangerous threat to America, that is utterly irresponsable!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

Actually, it's quite disputed. That's why we're disputing it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No, the book does not say that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from fighting terrorism.

Well then, at least it isn't egregiously stupid, as opposed to:

I am saying that it was highly irresponsible for Clinton to be having sexual excapades when he knew that a 9-11 style attack was a possibility.

I am simply saying that as President, he should have done more to protect the American people instead of having sex with Lewinsky all the time!

This doesn't make much sense, because if Clinton knew everything he is believed to and was not acting on it, it doesn't matter what else he was doing. His negligence would be a thing unto itself, not dependent on what else he was doing at the time.

Regardless, this isn't what you initially asserted. You said that his sexual behavior was precluding him somehow from acting, which is a far cry than what you're saying above. You've offered zero evidence that the blowjobs in the White House negatively effected his job performance as President in any way.

Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

It is being disputed. As realpolitic pointed out, it's kind of amusing you'd accuse Clinton of being negligent, when Bush not only had the exact same information, but also inherited from the Clinton Administration strong recommendations in pursuing Bin Laden and dealing with Al Queda, which Bush & Co. summarily ignored before 9/11 bit them on the ass. It certainly is baffling as to why Bush sent Powell to the Taliban with over a hundred million dollars in "aid" to help "fight drugs" when he knew, as Clinton did, their connection to Bin Laden.

If you think Clinton was negligent, you have to think Bush was even moreso.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
but also inherited from the Clinton Administration strong recommendations in pursuing Bin Laden and dealing with Al Queda, which Bush & Co. summarily ignored before 9/11 bit them on the ass.

If Clinton made all these strong recommendations to Bush, then why didn't Clinton just act on his own recommendations and take Bin Laden out himself? Why wait 8 years to recommend that the next president do something?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If Clinton made all these strong recommendations to Bush, then why didn't Clinton just act on his own recommendations and take Bin Laden out himself? Why wait 8 years to recommend that the next president do something?

That's not the issue--if you want to assume negligence, go ahead. If so, it still won't absolve the Bush Administration from being just as negligent, perhaps even moreso. However, it is indisputable the intelligence and recommendations were passed on:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30TERR.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-25-drones-osama_x.htm

[Ned]

Let's this say that Watergate happend because Nixon was an out-of-control political animal. He had a hate list, for God's sake. He was willing to commit burglaries and to use the government to cover up his crimes. The closest we have see to such political extremism in recent years is Hilary Clinton - the FBI files, the billing records, Travel Gate, and the rest. She is an extremist, just as was Nixon. Bush simply is not in their class, IMHO. Neither was Bill Clinton.