Section 1 of 10 sections

Last section

Next

Commentary

Go back to the book index page...

Commentary

1-1

Impeachment is not an abstract idea that lives in a vacuum, a dictionary, or a dusty document. Impeachment is ultimately rooted in history and current events, as well as in the provisions of our Constitution. In this chapter, the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings are examined together — and treated as one continuous historical event. If you don’t know a great deal about impeachment, you will find the background information and historical context of this chapter especially helpful. But this chapter is really a prelude to the thesis of the book. Chapters Two and Three present both essential supporting background information and an exposition of a new Constitutional theory regarding impeachment and removal of the President, Vice President and other Federal civil officers. The Constitutional theory of Chapter Three is the main thesis of this book. I know that busy people sometimes skip around in books before deciding to read a book in its entirety. If you decide to do this, you may want to start with Chapter Two, but don’t start with Chapter Three. While Chapter One is helpful background, the information and background from Chapter Two is required to understand the arguments presented in Chapter Three.

If you followed the impeachment story closely, somewhere along the line you probably picked up the fact the Hillary Clinton was on the Congressional staff of the House Judiciary Committee that conducted the Nixon impeachment proceedings. This may have been presented as a kind of trivia game answer-in-waiting for political junkies. I haven’t seen or heard it presented anywhere as a major theme, but I think it is exactly that. From the Nixon impeachment proceedings, a tragic flaw was introduced into the lives of the Clintons. The flaw is this: since the Nixon Watergate impeachment, both President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have believed that wrongdoing, even criminal acts, is not a basis for impeachment if the wrongdoing was not egregious, and if it could be characterized as "essentially private." As we review the Nixon impeachment proceeding, you will see how and why this idea took root with them.

Everyone learns from history — but sometimes different people and different groups learn different things. I hope to show that due to a fundamental difference between what I call the "Watergate Lessons" drawn by the electorate at large, and the Nixon "Impeachment Lessons" learned by the Clintons in particular, the Clinton administration was probably doomed from day one to either some kind of an impeachment proceeding or to re-election defeat. This chapter presents a view of the Nixon and Clinton Impeachments as a kind of single, continuous, Greek tragedy, in four acts: 1) Nixon Being Impeached, 2) No One Being Impeached, 3) Clinton Wounded, and 4) Clinton Being Impeached.

Hillary Clinton and the public "Watergate Lessons"

Hillary Clinton’s opponents and supporters alike will probably find it fair to stipulate that when recently graduated from law school, at the beginning of her professional career, Hillary Rodham was still impressionable. She was to be indelibly stamped and shaped in her view of the political and legal world by the proceedings, deliberations, conclusions and results of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.

What were these deliberations, conclusions, and results? Equally important, did the electorate distill significantly different "Watergate Lessons" than the "Impeachment Lessons" drawn by Hillary Clinton and her husband?

Let’s consider these questions — first from the point of view of the electorate. We'll start with a two paragraph summary, of both events leading up to the Nixon impeachment proceedings, and the actions and conclusions of the House Judiciary Committee. [1]

The Watergate break-in occurred June 17, 1972. As subsequent evidence indicated, Nixon’s involvement in the coverup began a few days later. Although the House Banking and Currency Committee investigated and issued a report days before the 1972 Presidential election that accused the White House of "...erecting a ‘curtain of secrecy’ over the president’s reelection committee, the White House, and the break-in", [2] the break-in was not a major issue in the 1972 election. By the Spring of 1973 Watergate was being investigated by both law Professor Archibald Cox, who was appointed by Attorney General Elliott Richardson, and by a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Sam Ervin. Nixon fired four of his senior staff April 30, 1973, including White House Counsel John Dean. Nixon claimed in May 1973 that all four had been involved in a coverup. Dean accused President Nixon of deep involvement in Watergate in four days of televised testimony to the Ervin Committee, from June 25th to June 29th of 1973. In July, White House aide Alexander Butterfield revealed the existence of Nixon’s tapes and taping system in deposition answers. Cox subpoenaed tapes October 20, 1973, and was fired by the third person in command, Acting Attorney General Robert Bork after his superiors Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than obey Nixon’s order to fire Cox. Nixon agreed reluctantly to turn over some tapes to Judge Sirica, who supervised the Watergate Grand Jury. Two tapes were missing and one had an 18 minute gap. Ten days after Cox was fired, the House Judiciary Committee began a preliminary inquiry into Watergate, that was to lead to impeachment hearings in April of 1974.

On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over more tapes to the Judiciary Committee. On July 27th the House Judiciary Committee approved three Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon. Article I, concerning Nixon’s alleged "...course of conduct... designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation..." of the Watergate breakin, was approved 27-11, with twenty-one Democrats and six Republicans voting to impeach. Article II alleged abuse of power in that Nixon "...engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens,..." including interfering with or misusing the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies and personnel to harass and harm his enemies — this was approved 28-10, with twenty-one Democrats and seven Republicans voting to impeach. Article III, alleging contempt of Congress in disobeying Congressional subpoenas, was approved 21-17. Two other impeachment articles were considered but not approved by the Judiciary Committee. Article IV, concerning alleged income tax evasion, was disapproved 12-26. Article V concerning the Viet Nam war bombing of Cambodia was also disapproved 12-26. On August 5th, Nixon released more tapes, including the "smoking gun" showing Nixon was definitely involved in the Watergate coverup. With both Congressional and Senate opinion moving decisively against him, and with public opinion shown to favor impeachment, President Nixon resigned four days later. [3]

There you have it, in two paragraphs, the incredible shrinking history of the Nixon impeachment proceeding.

In the immediate wake of Watergate, many people were loaded up with all the details. However, for most people history really does have a way of shrinking. At one point our mind is full of the details. As time goes on, we tend to retain only a few of the most salient facts, and a theory, in summary form, of "what it was all about." Our retention is selective — as our summary emerges, we tend to forget the facts that don’t fit into the summary.

Go back to the book index page...

Last section