• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Watergate

It seems as if we have lost track of the fact that an impeachment is a trial, not a verdict. Nixon ordered evidence to be suppressed on the grounds of national security. If there was a reasonable question of whether national security was at issue (as I think clearly there was), or whether the extent of the cover up exceeded the need for national security, then an impeachment would be appropriate. We should know by now, having been through a completed one, that an impeachment is not a conviction, and that an impeached President can win his case.

I've always suspected that Nixon's relative innocence in the original breakin was much like that of King Henry II with Becket. "Won't somebody rid me of this man," says the King, and happy as he is that it's done, he can say "I didn't mean that!" There are many who would assert that Nixon was always clever, always devious, and always corrupt.

In any case, as it also should be pretty clear all these years later, Nixon was not impeached. He was pretty sure he would be, but he avoided it. I don't think Nixon was generally inclined to admit defeat or to back down, and one might surmise, even if it's only a surmise, that if he had thought he had a defensible position he would have used it.

Now I'll admit to being an old Nixon hater, but I don't think the good of the nation was foremost in his mind when he resigned, except as a handy excuse. He had a reputation as a dangerously savvy poker player, but he folded this time, and my guess is that he knew that the less everyone knew of his role in the whole thing, the better.
 
bruto said:
It seems as if we have lost track of the fact that an impeachment is a trial, not a verdict. Nixon ordered evidence to be suppressed on the grounds of national security. If there was a reasonable question of whether national security was at issue (as I think clearly there was), or whether the extent of the cover up exceeded the need for national security, then an impeachment would be appropriate. We should know by now, having been through a completed one, that an impeachment is not a conviction, and that an impeached President can win his case..
Click to expand...

This very thread is for discussing if the smoking gun is criminal obstruction.
 
bruto said:
I thought it for discussing whether the smoking gun was grounds for a charge of criminal obstruction, with emphasis on the "criminal" part since the obstruction was clear. I contend it was.
Click to expand...

I will give a tentative "I agree."
 
BobTheCoward said:
"Open the whole bay of pigs thing up again."
Click to expand...
It didn't mean anything.


Nixon’s attorney James St. Clair [told U.S. District Court]: “The president wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”
Click to expand...
 
There was no legal claim of national security. It was a made up claim that was going to be used behind-the-scenes to pressure the FBI to drop the investigation. If there was a legitimate national security risk involved Nixon himself would have picked up the phone, called Patrick Gray the head of the FBI and ordered him to drop the investigation. But there was no legitimate risk, which is why Nixon was acting secretly.

The reason the taped conversation was considered a smoking gun is, after months of denying he had even heard of the Watergate break-in until months after it happened, here's the president discussing it six days after the fact. Discussing ways to stop the FBI investigation of it.
 
newyorkguy said:
There was no legal claim of national security.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Here is the scenario. A district attorney has brought charges. The defense has filed a motion to dismiss....Or we are at trial and the defense has just objected to the prosecutor's characterization of the law.

What does the judge rule based on what rule or precedent?
 
Bob this isn't current events. I'm not merely voicing my opinion. The verdict of history is pretty much in. Nixon was guilty as charged.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Prove it.

Here is the scenario. A district attorney has brought charges. The defense has filed a motion to dismiss....Or we are at trial and the defense has just objected to the prosecutor's characterization of the law.

What does the judge rule based on what rule or precedent?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
newyorkguy said:
Bob this isn't current events. I'm not merely voicing my opinion. The verdict of history is pretty much in. Nixon was guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, there wasn't anyone pursuing criminal charges for obstruction of justice. Congress was, but that isn't a criminal proceeding. It is political.

If it is so easy, no one has bothered to write down the test for assertion of national security. The Brandenburg standard has its own wikipedia page. There are dozens of articles on the legal aspects of the complicated and mundane. Where is it on this?
 
Spindrift said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Suppose a hypothetical where Nixon doesn't resign, Congress doesn't pursue impeachment, but the DoJ pursues criminal obstruction of justice. Suppose the defense asserts the order was Legitimate national security concern. What does the actual precedent and laws say about it and how would a judge apply it?
 
BobTheCoward said:
As far as I can tell, there wasn't anyone pursuing criminal charges for obstruction of justice. Congress was, but that isn't a criminal proceeding. It is political.

If it is so easy, no one has bothered to write down the test for assertion of national security. The Brandenburg standard has its own wikipedia page. There are dozens of articles on the legal aspects of the complicated and mundane. Where is it on this?
Click to expand...

So what? Congress was going to impeach Nixon. They had enough proof to convict with the recordings.

While there may not be a test for national security, covering up a burglary being done on behalf of a political campaign is not national security.
 
Beerina said:
Nixon Articles of Impeachment
Click to expand...

Bob everything you're asking about is answered in the link that was posted (and which I'm repasting) above. You.re really making a mistake by not at least looking at it.

Article I was Obstruction of Justice. Section 3 reads:
  • approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
Section 5:
  • endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

The "national security" issue Nixon talks about on tape is the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion ten years earlier. That the investigation might "open that whole thing up again." Open what up again? That didn't make too much sense and is undoubtedly the reason the FBI Director Patrick Gray didn't buy it. Why Congress accused him of trying to "misuse the CIA."

Where you seem to be getting confused is, Nixon didn't try and use the national security claim as a legal defense. He tried to use executive privilege. Essentially he argued the president is above the law. Which is what I was referring to -- if the president does it it's not illegal -- which started this whole segueway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom