AHC: Bill Clinton Impeached
- Thread starter Nofix
- Start date
Have Clinton be guilty of something far worse than shading the truth over Monica Lewinsky.
What that something is, I leave up to others.
Thing is, the impeachment charges were pretty much a result of years of investigations. And all that the House GOP had to hang its hat on was a few statements that were technically truthful (as far as we know, at least), but practically misleading. And almost no president was gonna be convicted by the US Senate over something like that.
Remember, you need 67 votes in the Senate. And not a single Democrat in the Senate voted for conviction, with five Republicans voting joining the united bloc of Democrats on one charge and 10 on the other.
So to get Bill Clinton convicted, you need a far less politicized investigation (good luck on that score) and you need to find something far more damaging (ditto). Or you need a country that has decided that what Clinton was guilty of was so beyond the pale as to pressure Democrats to join in. But, as said, good luck.
Maybe Monica getting pregnant would do it. But that's really about all I can think of. And even there given just how politically polarized things were over it, he might finagle his way out of it. Dude wasn't called Slick Willie for nothing.
What that something is, I leave up to others.
Thing is, the impeachment charges were pretty much a result of years of investigations. And all that the House GOP had to hang its hat on was a few statements that were technically truthful (as far as we know, at least), but practically misleading. And almost no president was gonna be convicted by the US Senate over something like that.
Remember, you need 67 votes in the Senate. And not a single Democrat in the Senate voted for conviction, with five Republicans voting joining the united bloc of Democrats on one charge and 10 on the other.
So to get Bill Clinton convicted, you need a far less politicized investigation (good luck on that score) and you need to find something far more damaging (ditto). Or you need a country that has decided that what Clinton was guilty of was so beyond the pale as to pressure Democrats to join in. But, as said, good luck.
Maybe Monica getting pregnant would do it. But that's really about all I can think of. And even there given just how politically polarized things were over it, he might finagle his way out of it. Dude wasn't called Slick Willie for nothing.
Orville_third
Banned
After he orders Desert Fox, someone on the House Judiciary committee looks up Hussein Kamil's interview- and then subpoenas people involved in the interview, the UN inspectors and target planning.
(I do plan this for a story sometime...)
(I do plan this for a story sometime...)
BlondieBC
Banned
The old answer still stands. Dead girl or live boy found in his bed, so we either need Monica dying in some bizarre sex game or he needs to find a male intern.
That's what I've noticed. Impeached just means to accuse of "wrong doing". Considering how many Congressmen screw around on the side, Slick Willy is only guilty of getting caught.
Word gets out that Clinton 'forced' Monica to have an abortion when she didn't want one would probably do it. Although in that case, Clinton probably resigns before it ever becomes an issue.
See, this is the main problem. We need something serious enough that Clinton would get convicted in the Senate but NOT resign before it could happen. That's a pretty narrow band right there. You need something political enough that Clinton thinks he can win by fighting it, but serious enough that enough Democrats abandon him in the Senate at the end.
And in all honesty that's probably not happening unless he suddenly becomes Spiro Agnew in Drew's Fear Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72, i.e. a deluded idiot who's crazy enough to think his party will stick with him until the bitter end.
About the only way I could see my scenario happening is if some sort of political bombshell drops just before the Senate vote that changes Clinton's calculations. And even then, the Power Brokers of the party can probably delay the vote just long enough to meet with Clinton and tell him to fall on his sword.
Tis difficult to come up with a good reason for "stays in office for a Senate vote without resigning when the writing is on the wall".
Perhaps Monica plus some sort of fundraising scandal from the 1996 election would do it. But, the problem is that if the scandal were bad enough, it's hard to imagine him being removed rather than resigning. As with Nixon, a group of Senators would come and tell him that conviction and removal is inevitable.
usertron2020
Donor
Forget the whole fund-raising thing. In those days, regarding $$$, there were 3 Republican skeletons in the closet for every Democrat's. No legislator wanted to "raise to the highest standards" matters like political fundraising. To this day I have to wonder what the HELL people like Bob Barr, Robert Livingston, and Henry Hyde were thinking, going after a President for lying about sex, considering their own past and present affairs. Hubris, I guess.
I honestly think they were just frustrated beyond all measure. They had convinced themselves that Clinton was guilty of a bunch of stuff, but they could never find the smoking gun. So when they finally thought they could nab him for perjury and/or obstruction of justice? Well it might have been thin gruel indeed. But after years of wasted investigations and millions of dollars spent, they weren't gonna walk away when they thought that might finally have something even if it wasn't going to really gonna stick.
It's a form of Sunk Cost Fallacy at work.
Besides, they probably felt that they could fatally weaken the president and/or set back politically the Democratic Party for years. So win-win as far as that logic goes. Too bad they badly misjudged not only Clinton's political skills, but how the whole drama would pay out with John and Jane Q. Public.
usertron2020
Donor
A lot of it was also the idea of "feeding the base". You had the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy sinking vast sums of private $$$ to spread untrue rumors about the First Family (up to and including Lucianne Goldberg's claims of Hillary's molestation of Chelsea!
), leading a supermajority of registered Republicans BELIEVING all those lies long before Monica ever stepped foot in the White House. Add on the political effects of hyper gerrymandering of US House districts, and you have a "bubble effect" in Washington politics. So House GOP members were hearing THEIR constituents baying for Clinton's blood (GET HIM! JUST GET HIM! WE DON'T CARE IF ITS NUTHIN'! JUST GET HIM!).The problem was, they were making these calculations based on their own isolated worlds of gerrymandered districts, while totally ignoring the political realities of the US Senate. Senators are responsible to STATES, not House districts that have 98% White constituencies. While Senators from states like Idaho and North Dakota could get away with voting like the Bob Barrs of the world, even the most established senators of states that could be considered just to the paler side of red had to tread carefully.
The idea that they could get 13 Senate Democrats to go their way tho...
Yeah, worst pummeling in generations for an opposition party in an incumbent's sixth year in office.
Suppose somehow Democrats panicked more and they proceeded more quickly.
It occurs to me that somehow far right Republicans might have organize an analogue to the tea party and might just have won
Of course I also think there would be a HUGE reaction from much less puritanical Americans.
Dems do better than otl in 1998 mid terms
It occurs to me that somehow far right Republicans might have organize an analogue to the tea party and might just have won
Of course I also think there would be a HUGE reaction from much less puritanical Americans.
Dems do better than otl in 1998 mid terms
As to why the Republicans did it, as I recall there was a little of a witch hunt mentality towards sexual harassment at the time.
Indeed the Republicans had been getting quite beat up on the subject. As I recall it was really quite surprising that the then powerful NOW did not raise a huge ruckus against the President for his actions.
One might want to review the Sen Bob Packwood resignation to see how the lay of the land was at the time.
Indeed the Republicans had been getting quite beat up on the subject. As I recall it was really quite surprising that the then powerful NOW did not raise a huge ruckus against the President for his actions.
One might want to review the Sen Bob Packwood resignation to see how the lay of the land was at the time.
usertron2020
Donor
The problem at the time was the six year long rabid nature of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The public's minds were so desensitized by such an endless symphony of false charges that by the time of Monicagate the overwhelming response of non-Republicans was: "THAT'S IT!?"
It's almost hard to imagine how the Dems could have done better. 5 House seats gained, the Senate was a wash. For a sixth year incumbent off-year election, that's a historic landslide. The GOP should have gained minimum 6 new Senators and 30-40 House members.
1) You don't bite the hand that feeds you. They wanted those Clinton SCOTUS appointments.
They knew that the people hunting Clinton were no friends of NOW, and both sides knew it.2) Not quite. Democrats don't pretend to be moral champions, and Republicans (whatever they may claim) are not perceived to have the interests of the little guy in their hearts. So if a Democrat is caught cheating on his wife, he may survive it. If a Republican is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, if it isn't strictly illegal, he can survive it.
Eh, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. I tend to think post 1990, all sex scandals are different. You can have David Vitter surviving, but John Ensign getting (eventually) kicked to the curb. Meanwhile you can have Bill Clinton survive, but have Elliot Spitzer get thrown overboard.
A lot will depend on the support they already have in their constituency and how many political enemies that they already have within their own party. Not to mention their own innate political skills.