Discussion: Ronald Reagan Impeached Over Iran-Contra?

I did a search and didn't find anything on this, so I'm soory if this has come up before, but I've been here almost a year now and haven't seen anything, so I thought I'd start a thread to discuss the affair that we now know as Iran-Contra.

I recall reading awhile back that President Reagan himself thought that Iran-Contra might be an impeachable offence, and seeing as this would have only been a decade after Watergate, I think Iran-Contra couls turn into a very large scandal.

So, my question is, is it possible to have Reagan impeached over Iran-Contra, and if was, what would be the impact of this on US and world history?
 
I think it's impossible for Reagan to be removed from office, as long as he handles it the way he should. Of course, if he screws up MAJORLY, then it's up in the air.
 
If Reagan knew and aquiesssed he certainly should have been impeached convicted an removed from office. I fear that this was not politically realistic.

I also have a suspision that there might have been at least as much evidence against Geaorge HW Bush.

I never understood how come this scandal was not bigger.
 
Isn't the general consensus that Reagan was unaware of what was going on? I can't see Reagan being impeached over something he didn't even know was happening.

Also, if Reagan decides there's no way he can escape impeachment and resigns, there's still a chance Bush can win in '88, especially if Dukakis is his running mate and Lee Atwater runs a similar campaign. Bush's win though, would be a hell of a lot closer.
 
THe twofold problem for impeachment is that one Reagan was very popular. Two, the laws broken (ie running guns to anti-communists and attempting to ransom hostages) aren't going to upset very many voters.

This could turn out similarly to the Clinton Impeachment. Fails in the Senate and backfires on the Impeachers.
 
Simple. While there was a highly vocal support group for the Contras, it did not have the support of the American people. If politicians were to make it an issue, they could raise awareness of Iran-Contra. (And, lest we forget, this did involve sales of arms to Iran.) If Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh had the guts of Kenneth Starr and the support of Congress, Bush would be replaced by whoever was President Pro Tempore.
 
Which Reagan

In talking with my more conservative friends and listening to right wing radio, there were 2 Reagans. If something went well, like the fall of the Soviet Union, then I'm told " Reagan was in charge, he was on top of every detail. Nothing got past him." If it was bad news, like Iran-Contra, then I'm told " How could Reagan know everything going on," So he was either a Super Strategist and Organizer or conveniently ignorent, whatever helped him most.
 
Tothlord: There's a reason they call Reagan and Clinton the Teflon Presidents.

Orville: even speaking as a GOP sympathizer, Starr was a partisan hack on a personal vendetta.
 
Reagan committed treason. Any form of punishment was too good for him. But the politics of that time period was not as hate filled when the republicans in the 90's wanted revenge for losing an election.
 
I don't think it's impossible to impeach Reagan over Iran Contra. His approval ratings took a dive over the affair so the public didn't muster their support behind Ronnie. And, if I recall correctly, even after the public forgave Reagan, the whole thing left a bad taste in their mouths for the remainder of his term.

I think the thing that prevented it most was that the public didn't want another disillusioning thing and another shamed president in little over a decade.
 
Tip O'Neill said he would not put the country through another impeachment process. I believe his words were "for the good of the country." Even with Iran-Contra GHWB still (thankfully) curbstomped Dukakis.
 
I think the biggest thing that could have came out of Iran Contra, is having Reagan removed from office via the 25th Amendment. Once word got out on how distanced from reality and off handed he had become during his presidency, there was serious questions about his ability to lead. I recall watching the PBS AE special on Reagan, and how Chief of Staff Howard Baker, had called together a complete cabient meeting upon getting settled into his new office, to kinda of watch and see how Reagan's responded with things. He seemed like his old self, and thus wiped away any thoughts of removing him. So maybe just have him bomb that meeting and maybe Baker could bring it on himself to get the majority of the adminstration needed to force the president to resign...A stretch, but possible
 
Tip O'Neill said he would not put the country through another impeachment process. I believe his words were "for the good of the country."
Agreed. People simply wanting to feel good again was the cover for a lot of ills (although, contrary to mythologizing of Reagan during the 90's, it didn't make Ronnie invincible or the most belov-ed president of the century). But I still don't think it's impossible to get Reagan impeached necessarily. Like I said, Reagan fell off the cliff popularity wise and (again, if I recall correctly) the public -even after forgiving him and him avoiding impeachment- had a bad taste in their mouth.

Even with Iran-Contra GHWB still (thankfully) curbstomped Dukakis.
I'd rather have Dukaka than Georgie.
 
I don't think it's impossible to impeach Reagan over Iran Contra. His approval ratings took a dive over the affair so the public didn't muster their support behind Ronnie. And, if I recall correctly, even after the public forgave Reagan, the whole thing left a bad taste in their mouths for the remainder of his term.

I'm not positive, but IIRC Ronnie's approval ratings didn't go down that low. I think his lowest during the Iran-Contra scandal was like 46%, which in the grand scheme of things really isn't that bad, though 50%+ is certainly better.
 
The most relevant factor is the timing. The incident did not enter the pubic domain until 1986. Reagan would address the pubic in 1987. Oliver North was indicted in 1988, only a year before Reagan's term would end.

No matter how much of a bad guy you can make Reagan, his term will end before the evidence will accumulate for impeachment. And what Democrat, with a desire to retain office, would support a fruitless Clinton-esque impeachment?
 
Well Lawrence Walsh did help decide the 1992 election...of course, there's a fat lot of good Clinton did him...
And thanks to O'Neil's weakness, and Gingrich's strength, we don't impeach Presidents for High Crimes and Misdemeanors...
 
if you had some kind of pentagon papers type of leak where there is clear and irrefutable evidence (some sort of white house memo or something with ronnies signature) I think the dems almost have to.
 
I think it was Speaker of the House Jim Wright who explained the predicament of the Democrats:

Reagan's defense was that he didn't know what was going on, which had been the position of the Democrats since before Reagan won in 1980.:D
 
THe twofold problem for impeachment is that one Reagan was very popular. Two, the laws broken (ie running guns to anti-communists and attempting to ransom hostages) aren't going to upset very many voters.

This could turn out similarly to the Clinton Impeachment. Fails in the Senate and backfires on the Impeachers.

Reagan was not very popular at all during 1981-1982 years. If the scandal had gone on for long enough and been propped up by the press, it could be reasonable that he would resign seeing impeachment as unavoidable.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I did a search and didn't find anything on this, so I'm soory if this has come up before, but I've been here almost a year now and haven't seen anything, so I thought I'd start a thread to discuss the affair that we now know as Iran-Contra.

I recall reading awhile back that President Reagan himself thought that Iran-Contra might be an impeachable offence, and seeing as this would have only been a decade after Watergate, I think Iran-Contra couls turn into a very large scandal.

So, my question is, is it possible to have Reagan impeached over Iran-Contra, and if was, what would be the impact of this on US and world history?
Wasn't going to happen. Much like the War Powers Act, nobody wants to have the Boland Amendment challenged in the courts. The SCOTUS is likely to find Boland to be an unconstitutional infringement by congress on the powers granted to the executive branch.

Even if impeached, there won't be enough votes in the Senate for conviction.
 
Top