I Have Never Been A Quitter: The Impeachment of Richard Nixon

================================================================================-

March 1, 1975

Editorial: Give Nixon another chance
[1]

A crisis is brewing in Indochina. The Communist armies of North Vietnam are killing, raping, and pillaging their way through the South. Our politicians should be helping the South Vietnamese and giving the North all we’ve got. Instead, the Congress and media are attacking the President.

This does not mean we should ignore what the President did. But there will be a time and place for things to be sorted out. Do not forget all the good that Mr. Nixon has done for our country! And do not forget the hypocrisy that has been shown by his critics. The unprecedented barrage of criticism from a small but vocal minority is hurting America.

By impeaching Mr. Nixon, we are putting South Vietnam in grave danger. Over the last few months, Mr. Ford has shown that he will do nothing to stop the North Vietnamese. And the Democrats in Congress would rather see Communist parades in Saigon than give a dime to our friends and allies in South Vietnam. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Our only hope is to keep President Nixon in the White House. It is he, and he alone, who can achieve peace with honor.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon would not only dishonor our Presidency, it would dishonor our military. The 58,000 men who died fighting for our country and for the freedom of South Vietnam will have given their lives in vain! If we do not act now in Vietnam, all that bloodshed and expense will be for nothing. Only President Nixon has the strength to ensure that the people of South Vietnam remain free.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] This is a fake editorial cobbled together from quotes from various Nixon apologists, including Nixon himself.

======================================================================-

March 2, 1975

Nixon addresses nation on eve of closing arguments


The President once again took to the airwaves to defend his actions in the Watergate scandal. In his address, Nixon acknowledged making mistakes, but did not admit to committing any crimes. “I did not commit, in my view, an impeachable offense. Now, the House has ruled overwhelmingly that I did…As far as the handling of this matter is concerned, it was so botched up, I made so many bad judgments. The worst ones were mistakes of the heart rather than mistakes of the head, as I pointed out, but let me say a man in that top judge job, he's got to have a heart but his head must always rule his heart.”

Nixon also put the blame on the media for his ‘misleading’ statements: “The statements [that I made] were misleading in the enormous political attack I am under. It is a five-front war: a partisan Congress, a partisan media, a partisan judiciary committee, and a fifth column.” [1] He also blamed liberal protesters, who have begun amassing outside the White House, for poisoning the minds of the American public. But, he claimed, that despite the best efforts of his enemies to discredit him, many Americans still support him. The President claimed to have received “thousands” of letters and telegrams supporting him [2]. He said that the support of Americans had gotten him through this very difficult time and has given him the courage to fight back.

Nixon concluded his speech by calling on the “silent majority” of America to march in Washington to show their support for him before the Senate vote, setting aside Saturday, March 15 as “Defend America Day”. [3] "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support," said President Nixon, in a nod to his famous “Silent majority” speech from 1969. [4]

----------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] All quotes up to this point from the Frost/Nixon interview from 1977, with minor modifications: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1

[2] And he certainly had many more such supporters: http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html#!/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html

[3] This isn’t Nixon’s first rodeo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_America_Day and http://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/30/archives/peak-capital-crowd-foreseen-on-july-4-honor-america-day.html?_r=0

[4] http://watergate.info/1969/11/03/nixons-silent-majority-speech.html

=============================================================================-

March 3, 1975

Mr. Nixon's Supporters Don't Take It Quietly


The more the rest of society maligns Nixon, the more vociferously his stalwart defenders proclaim his innocence. What unites these Americans is a sense of alienation and outrage that has increased as the President’s troubles have worsened. Caldwell Butler – no liberal – jokingly warned that his constituents would load up their pickups with rifles to descend upon him when they learned he was going to vote to impeach. [1] Now the President has invited them to Washington so that they can make their voices heard.

And polls bear this out. A new poll finds that Nixon’s approval rating has risen to 31%. Instead of hurting the President’s image, Watergate has brought Nixon a newfound wave of popularity. White House speech writer Patrick Buchanan, meanwhile, has stepped up his attacks on the press, charging that “the big media” distort their coverage of the news by giving “enormous, positive and favorable publicity to movements associated with the far left.” [2]

Mr. Nixon is still popular in the South, where the talk about Watergate and the possible impeachment of President Nixon is subdued. The few who raise the subject dismiss It as little more than a Northern liberal plot —some even suggest it is a Communist inspired plot—to embarrass the President. “The news media is just looking for bad things to say about our President,” said one woman. [3]

Various left-wing groups have vowed to counter-protest at Defend America Day. More than 10,000 attended an impeachment rally called the March to Impeach Nixon, which was held in Washington and Los Angeles last year. [4] Washington police are anticipating an even larger crowd of pro- and anti-Nixon protestors at Defend America Day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image, pp. 188, 205, 207

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/21/archives/mr-nixons-supporters-dont-take-it-quietly-aides-and-outsiders-damn.html

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/13/archives/mood-of-deep-south-is-against-impeachment-constituents-drop-by.html

[4] As OTL, only a year earlier: http://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A65937

==========================================================================-

March 5, 1975


Closing arguments in Nixon Senate trial


As Nixon’s impeachment trial draws to a close, House prosecutors seem confident that they will convince the Senate to remove Nixon over charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice relating to Watergate. They appealed to Senators by arguing that Nixon shows no remorse and should not get away with his offenses. Almost without exception, the managers defended their vigorous prosecution of the president and complained about not having the time and scope to present their case as they would have liked.

Nixon’s defense, however, said the prosecutors' opening statements were focused on retribution and were designed to achieve partisan ends. Herbert J. Miller Jr., Nixon’s attorney, matched the intensity of House prosecutors' rhetoric with biting criticism of the case against the president, picking through the case in exhaustive detail.

Predictions for the number of votes on the two articles vary widely. If a two-thirds majority of the 100-member Senate convicts Nixon on one or both articles, he will be removed from office. Before the trial, Nixon’s impeachment seemed certain. But now there are rumors that Republican support for impeachment wavering. Some Senate Republicans believe that the second impeachment article, accusing Nixon of abusing his power, may not even get a simple majority of votes in the Senate.

When the court of impeachment re-convenes next Monday, the 100 senators will begin their final deliberations, with an up or down vote on the two articles of impeachment expected soon thereafter. Democrats are trying to drum up support for a motion to change the Senate rules to allow final deliberations to be held in the open, which would take 67 votes. But Republicans disagree strongly that the deliberations should be open. [1]

---------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] Loosely based on: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/08/impeachment.01/

===========================================================================-
 
Excellent analysis. I have been thinking along much the same lines, mulling over these scenarios. I have chosen one of these options, but I don't want to give too much away at this point.

I've actually done simple estimates for the Senate for the scenarios, and House samples for the first two.

I should probably work out the last one soon.
 
You know, I really think this is less Nixon trying to get off as it is Nixon trying to take as much of his own party as he can with him...
 
I wonder how younger versions of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and even Coulter are handling Watergate and what they are thinking.....
 
I wonder how younger versions of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and even Coulter are handling Watergate and what they are thinking.....

Oh, for the Radical Right of TTL this is even more the stab-in-the-back myth then it is IOTL.

And it's a big one. There's a root reason these people publish defenses of McCarthy.
 
Besides serious mental issues?

Well that plays a role too. But essentially, these people are retrying Watergate all the time, with every Right-wing Republican accused of wrong-doing in the role of Our Dick.

And with that said, as we near the end of the Nixon presidency's Schrödinger's Cat status, with it either surviving or perishing, I feel obligated to note that all my previous estimates involving an impeached Nixon were based on the simple assumption that Nixon is not pardoned. This is fairly likely, I'd argue--digging in his heels like this has probably increased ill feeling among the Republicans, and made a pardon more toxic. But hey--people make similar blunders all the time.

So what happens? I'd argue the damage is probably more immediately obvious in the first scenario--the Republicans, having managed to at least put themselves generally on the right side of history have then scotched it at the last second. The second--well, I suspect the immediate damage isn't as severe--a good chunk of the population has already decided the GOP are hacks already in this scenario. Here, the problem is more... chronic. The Republicans have acted like a party of crooks and hacks, AND reinforced that. If I were going to make a scenario where the existing two-party system fell apart in the 70s and early 80s, this would be it.

As for Ford, this would probably kill his chances in the primary in scenario 1, and as for scenario 2... well, he's likely to have several senior Republicans approach him and tell him to sit this one out.
 
Last edited:
So what happens? I'd argue the damage is probably more immediately obvious in the first scenario--the Republicans, having managed to at least put them generally on the right side of history have then scotched it at the last second. The second--well, I suspect the immediate damage isn't as severe--a good chunk of the population has already decided the GOP are hacks already in this scenario. Here, the problem is more... chronic. The Republicans have acted like a party of crooks and hacks, AND reinforced that. If I were going to make a scenario where the existing two-party system fell apart in the 70s and early 80s, this would be it.
Honestly, as it is, it's looking bad.

Nixon bowing out probably helped salvage the party. Here though, with his "ill health", and stonewalling? Not so lucky.

Remember, to the public, the President basically runs or is emblematic of the Party, and here we have a guy known for spying on his opponents, sowing chaos, and now probably covering stuff up. And I suspect that some people are asking "What if it's happened in the past, and this is the first time he's been caught"?

Or worse, "what if it's happened in the past, and this is the first time the party doing it's been caught"?
 
Honestly, as it is, it's looking bad.

Nixon bowing out probably helped salvage the party. Here though, with his "ill health", and stonewalling? Not so lucky.

Remember, to the public, the President basically runs or is emblematic of the Party, and here we have a guy known for spying on his opponents, sowing chaos, and now probably covering stuff up. And I suspect that some people are asking "What if it's happened in the past, and this is the first time he's been caught"?

Or worse, "what if it's happened in the past, and this is the first time the party doing it's been caught"?

Oh, yes. There's a pretty good chance this might act as the sort of disruptor to the two-party system as it is. It's just the "scenario 2 with pardon" situation makes it highly likely, as the Democratic Party's past dominance is reaching its end now, and in this case, the Republicans have damaged their brand so badly that it might not be reparable.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
 
You know, I really think this is less Nixon trying to get off as it is Nixon trying to take as much of his own party as he can with him...

That is pretty much what I had in mind. There are two reasons for this. First, Nixon knows that he is very likely to be impeached thanks to members of his own party. He likely sees this as treachery. He might think, 'Whatever happened to party loyalty? And loyalty to the country (as embodied by the President)?' So what does he have to lose by indulging in a little pre-revenge while he still has power? Not much.

There is a second reason for his behavior. He can no longer hold up the pretense of innocence. But Nixon still has one last glimmer of hope: he can try to intimidate his fellow Republicans into voting against impeachment. That is what happened with the Packwood incident in this TL. It's very risky, and could easily backfire, but it's his only shot.
 
==============================================================================

March 8, 1975

Excerpt of telephone call between President Nixon and JCS Chairman General Brown

(Declassified April 22, 1995) [1]

NIXON: “Good morning, General.”

BROWN: “Good morning, sir.”

NIXON: “I have a hypothetical question for you. There are people in this country that want to kick me out of office. I think I know who I’m talking about.”

BROWN: “I’m not sure what you mean, sir. Can you clarify?”

NIXON: “The Jews are all over the government, General. They’re out to get me. Generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us.” [2]

BROWN: “Well—”

NIXON: “I know you feel the same way. [3] Now, when the President gives an order, the generals have a duty to carry it out, right?”

BROWN: “Correct, sir.”

NIXON: “And it’s illegal to disobey a legal order from the Commander-in-Chief, right?”

BROWN: “That is correct, sir.”

NIXON: “So if an order comes through Haig or Schlesinger, I want you to ignore it until you check with me. And if I give an order directly, carry it out.” [4][5]

BROWN: “I will keep that in mind, sir.” [6]

NIXON: Good, good. Thank you, General. Good-bye.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] This, of course, is a fictional conversation, but I tried my best to make it sound realistic.
[2] Real quotes from Nixon. See “The Final Days”, pp. 169 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm
[3] He probably did: http://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/15/archives/ford-personally-rebukes-yardwide-midamerican.html
[4] In OTL, Schlesinger was concerned that Nixon would order the military to launch a coup. From https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1983/08/the-pardon/305571/

“Schlesinger's overriding concern, in case a crisis did arise, was the possibility that the armed forces would follow their inherent loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief. One comfort was his firm belief, based on what he had seen in the previous five and a half years, that any such order, if given, would come not directly from Nixon but from Haig. The Joint Chiefs would respond to an order from the secretary of defense, Schlesinger believed, before they would respond to one from Haig. As he explained to the acquaintance, ‘If an order came from below the Commander-in-Chief level, I could handle it.’”

[5] Haig was Catholic, but Schlesinger was originally Jewish, and converted to Lutheranism in his twenties. Nixon, with his paranoia and anti-Semitism, might come to suspect Schlesinger’s religious loyalties. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/politics/james-r-schlesinger-cold-war-hard-liner-dies-at-85.html

[6] I was careful not to have Brown give a firm yes or no. In OTL, Brown was skeptical of Schlesinger’s fears about Nixon. From “The Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon”, pp. 546: “General Brown sent a message on August 8 to various American military commanders in the United States and abroad, advising increased vigilance. Yet he also urged them not to be overly ambitious in implementing the order.”


===========================================================================

March 10, 1975

Senate begins closed-door deliberations in Nixon trial


Today, Senators began their deliberations prior to casting their vote to impeach or not to impeach President Nixon. On Friday, the Senate voted to keep its deliberations closed, by a vote of 64-36, falling just short of a two-thirds majority. Sixty-four Democrats voted to keep deliberations open to the public, but 36 Republican senators and the 2 Independent Senators favored keeping the deliberations closed.

Senators stood up one at a time, walked to a microphone in the well of the chamber and were given the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes. The deliberations are the only opportunity that senators have to express their opinions during the trial.

Although senators are forbidden by Senate rules to divulge many details of the closed session, some of them did sketch broad outlines of what occurred. Nixon’s chances for escaping impeachment look slim. A Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that many Republicans hinted that they would vote guilty on the first article of impeachment, which charges Nixon with obstruction of justice. All the Democrats, the senator said, announced that they would vote to convict the president on both articles.

Some senators suggested that they would release statements about their positions before the verdict. Deliberations are expected to conclude on Thursday or Friday. Once deliberations are over, they will cast their votes of guilty or not guilty. [1]

Meanwhile, in Vietnam, North Vietnamese troops today launched attacks around Ban Me Thuot, a placid Central Highlands provincial capital, assaulting its two airfields, an ammunition dump and other positions, the Saigon command said. The North Vietnamese campaign in the Central Highlands, which began last Tuesday, was developing with surprising swiftness. Yesterday, Maj. Gen. Pham Van, the Government's commander in the Highlands, ordered a top priority “red alert” for Ban Me Thuot and ordered troops to occupy all high buildings in the provincial capital. [2]

---------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] Loosely based on: https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/021099impeach.html?mcubz=0

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/10/archives/vietnamese-reds-press-offensive-in-highlands-area-troops-from-north.html?mcubz=0

===============================================================================

March 11, 1975

Nixon: “A great nation cannot renege on its pledges” in Vietnam


In a televised address, President Nixon reminded the country once again about the importance of containing the spread of Communism in Vietnam and the need to enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
Nixon argued that impeachment would be a “grave mistake” and a threat to national security. “Strength without respect is meaningless”, Nixon intoned gravely. [1]

Nixon laid the blame for the failures of the South Vietnamese to repel the North on Congress, who according to Nixon, did nothing as Phuoc Long and Ban Me Thuot fell into enemy hands. “By 1973, we had achieved our political objective; South Vietnam’s independence had been secured. But by 1975, the Congress destroyed our ability to enforce the Paris agreement and left our allies vulnerable to Hanoi’s invading forces. If it sounds like I’m blaming Congress, I am.” [2]

Expressing his belief that his impeachment was virtually certain, Nixon pledged that he would aid Thieu, even if it meant defying Congress. The President argued that he was not violating the law, because he believed the War Powers Act was unconstitutional, and would eventually be vindicated by the Supreme Court: “I believe that both these provisions are unconstitutional. The only way in which the constitutional powers of a branch of the Government can be altered is by amending the Constitution--and any attempt to make such alterations by legislation alone is clearly without force.” [3]

Nixon also spoke directly to the military. He reminded them that he was responsible for the release of POWs in North Vietnam, saying that he resisted those who wanted to “settle for a peace” that would have “abandoned our prisoners of war.” [4] He also reminded them to support their fallen comrades: “So let us bear witness to the plain truth that we can only ensure that our soldiers and sailors and Marines and Airmen have not died in vain by resolving, as citizens of the land for which they died, that we shall not ourselves live in vain. Your sacrifice and the sacrifice of all of your colleagues and comrades who died in Vietnam, and the sacrifice of all who have served in Vietnam, will have been worth it only if we build a world of peace now. It is our responsibility to see that they have not fought in vain.” [5][6][7]

Nixon also spoke of the plight of the South Vietnamese. “When we assumed the burden of helping defend South Vietnam, millions of South Vietnamese men, women, and children placed their trust in us. To abandon them now would risk a massacre that would shock and dismay everyone in the world who values human life…Abandoning the South Vietnamese people, however, would jeopardize more than lives in South Vietnam. It would threaten our long-term hopes for peace in the world. A great nation cannot renege on its pledges. A great nation must be worthy of trust. If we simply abandoned Vietnam, the cause of peace might not survive the damage that would be done to other nations' confidence in our reliability.” [7]

Nixon said that the nation must be willing to “think big” [8] in North Vietnam in order to defend the South. “North Vietnam has stripped away all pretense of respecting the sovereignty or the neutrality of South Vietnam…I have concluded that the time has come for action.” [9]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3856

[2] “No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam”, pp. 7

[3] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4021

[4] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3808

[5] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=107048

[6] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v38p1/d12

[7] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2047

[8] Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, pp.650

[9] Replacing “Cambodia” with “South Vietnam”: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2490


=========================================================================


March 12, 1975

Nixon calls up 82nd Airborne to “defend” White House as demonstrators gather


As deliberations continue in the Senate, many thousands of protesters have arrived in Washington. The President, in response to what he deems an imminent threat to national security, has ordered the 82nd Airborne to defend him from possible violent action by radical left-wing groups. According to aides, the President fears that a repeat of May Day 1971 protest, which nearly shut down the city, is coming. [1] President Nixon has authorized the National Guard to use any force it deems necessary (including lethal force) to keep the peace in Washington, to prevent “interference” with Congressional deliberations.[2]

The 82nd Airborne is led by General Robert E. Cushman, who has been Nixon's friend since the 1950s. Cushman served four years on the staff of then-Vice President Richard Nixon as Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, and was later appointed to be the deputy director of the CIA, a post he held for 2 years, and is currently the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Cushman’s loyalty to Nixon is concerning to some, and he has previously assisted the President in dubious schemes. [3] In 1973, it was disclosed that General Cushman initially approved CIA assistance for the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist in 1971. [4]

Some are worried that the President’s actions are not intended to protect the White House from acts of civil disobedience, but are actually a scheme to set up a fortress-like barrier that might allow him to remain in the White House in the case of impeachment. [5] And with the end of the Vietnam War, Nixon has many soldiers at his disposal. Some fear that elements within the military may be loyal to the President, due to his efforts in securing the return of POWs. [6] Officials, however, say that this is a totally unfounded rumor. “The U.S. military will not assist in any sort of attempt by the President to circumvent the will of Congress, should he attempt it.” said a Defense Department spokesman.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

[1] In OTL, during a massive protest in Washington, DC on May 9, 1970, the 82nd Airborne was stationed in the Executive Office Building across the street from the White House: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house-july-dec11-nixontapes_11-25/

[2] Oh, what Judge Battisti must be thinking now…

[3] Secretary of Defense Schlesinger had similar concerns in OTL. From https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1983/08/the-pardon/305571/

“Schlesinger was clear, however, about his concerns. He continued to believe that Cushman, with his personal loyalty to Nixon, was a weak link in the new chain of command. He carried his own deliberations further and quietly investigated just which forces would be available to Nixon. He found out how quickly the 82nd Airborne Division could be brought to Washington from its home base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Marines, he learned—Cushman's troops—were by far the strongest presence in the Washington area, with an honor-guard barracks in southeast Washington and a large officer-training facility at Quantico, Virginia, some thirty miles to the south.”

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/04/us/gen-re-cushman-ex-marine-head-dies.html

[5] http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/15592939634/what-have-i-done

[6] The Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon, pp. 546


============================================================================
 

SsgtC

Banned
I was really enjoying this until that phone call you wrote at the start of the update. Completely and totally lost me with that.
 
Top