AHC: Texas Gov. Bill Clements (R) impeached in 1987 over SMU scandal?

Okay, let me ask you this? Do you think we’re going to realistically find out that Clements did not say this while testifying?

And I’ll tell you, the fact that someone as politically knowledgeable as yourself is so hesitant about impeachment, I think illustrates that we human beings in general are just very hesitant to take down a leader. And Americans more than average, basically because we’re taught to give adulation to the president, and apparently some of this spills over to governors.

To answer your question it could be either yes or no which depends on what happens afterwards.

The fact about people being just very hesitant to take down a leader is not completely true. The likely fact is that is there any actual good cause to take down a leader and this also apply to Governors too regarding both Evan Mecham and Rod Blagojevich both of who I had mentioned in a previous reply saw themselves successfully taken down as the both of them had criminal charges pending at the time of their respective Impeachments (Mecham was at the time of his impeachment facing 6 Charges regarding Campaign Finance Law Violations and three of those counts we're for perjury while the feds had caught Blagojevich attempting to sell the U.S. Senate Seat that Barack Obama had vacated when be became President in 2009) and the criminal charges pending in both situations we're what caused the respective State Legislatures to fully move forward with impeachment.
 
Basically, to make it work, you need to move the scandal to U.T. Austin, Texas A&M, or Texas Tech, you need either a famous preacher giving eyewitness testimony or videotape certified as undoctored and unstaged showing at least one of the payoffs, you need corroborating bank records, and it has to have happened during a recession plausibly blamed on Clements' policies.
 
. . actual good cause to take down a leader and this also apply to Governors too regarding both Evan Mecham and Rod Blagojevich both of who I had mentioned in a previous reply saw themselves successfully taken down as the both of them had criminal charges pending at the time of their respective Impeachments . . .
If you and I are both elected Representatives in the Texas House, I don’t think we need to just sit on our butts until someone files charges against Clements.
 
If you and I are both elected Representatives in the Texas House, I don’t think we need to just sit on our butts until someone files charges against Clements.

That would depend on the seriousness of the matter. When the Watergate Scandal happened Congress did not take any time waiting for Criminal Charges to be filed against Nixon they just went forward with the Impeachment proceedings against Nixon although the proceedings we're completely stopped cold when Nixon completely knowing his impeachment and removal from office was definitely going to be a done deal had decided to just resign the Presidency (Gerald Ford had pardoned Nixon anyway before he could have been charged anyway). The same situation had happened with Clinton years later although Clinton did get impeached but fortunately for him the Senate was not able to get the 67 votes that would have been needed to convict him on any if all of the articles of impeachment that we're filed against him anyway (Clinton served out the remainder of his second term anyway and was never brought up on any Criminal Charges at all).
 
Basically, to make it work, you need to move the scandal to U.T. Austin, Texas A&M, or Texas Tech, you need either a famous preacher giving eyewitness testimony or videotape certified as undoctored and unstaged showing at least one of the payoffs, you need corroborating bank records, and it has to have happened during a recession plausibly blamed on Clements' policies.
The size of SMU which was roughly 9,000 at the time (nine thousand), does make a difference, because there was fewer alumni and fewer friends and family members of students.

And plus, there was a feeling, almost like a Greek tragedy, that SMU had gotten so good so fast that something had to be wrong.
 
. . When the Watergate Scandal happened Congress did not take any time waiting for Criminal Charges to be filed against Nixon . .
Let's not compliment ourselves too much. If it hadn't been the case with ol' Dick Nixon making the tape recordings . .

ap_17150606565766_6b75bd66fa4c94430e19c964ded8330d.fit-760w.jpg


there would have been no Watergate.


And please note, Nixon's top two aides Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resigned on April 30, 1973, due to suspected wrongdoing. In a better functioning democracy, Nixon pretty much would have had to step down, too. Either he would lose enough public support and/or face enough Congressional pressure, that he could not continue as an effective chief executive.

Even in a business setting where chief executives are cut all kinds of slack, if you can't control your top two aides, it might be time for you to leave, too.

Instead, Nixon held on until noon Aug. 9, 1974, which was approximately 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days later.



No, we didn't know at that time that Nixon had been personally involved in dirty tricks and cover ups. But when someone says that they assume full responsibility for what has happened under their watch, why does that seem to never include stepping down. Or, cleaning up the mess and then stepping down?
 
Last edited:
Technically Clements would only leave office if convicted. Either way this would heavily impact the 1990 Gubernatorial election, possibly becoming the biggest campaign issue.
if they impeached him, how would it play out in the 1990 election?
 
. . . play out in the 1990 election?
okay, a minority of conservatives end up believing Clements got a raw deal. But fewer if we put to the side the idea that we need to prove a smoking gun to the nth degree, and instead our standard is that we simply need to show a preponderance of evidence that he was involved in an ongoing criminal matter,

Texas Republicans are in the wilderness for a while.

Ann Richards (or Jim Mattox) wins rather easily in 1990. George W. Bush may not win in '94. Texas avoids becoming a one-party Republican state for maybe a decade, and this might butterfly in various hard to predict ways. And spillover effect perhaps slows Republican takeover in other southern states.
 
okay, a minority of conservatives believe Clements got a raw deal. But fewer if we put to the side the idea that we need to prove a smoking gun to the nth degree, and instead we simply show a preponderance of evidence that he was involved in an ongoing criminal matter,

Texas Republicans are in the wilderness for a while.

Ann Richards (or Jim Mattox) wins rather easily in 1990. George W. Bush may not win in '94. Texas avoids becoming a one-party Republican state for maybe a decade. And spillover effect perhaps slows Republican takeover in other southern states.

I like optimism; there's not enough of it these days. That said, I think you're underestimating the power of that Republican wave that swept the state around that time.
 
Top