Plausibility check: JFK Survives, faces impeachment

As we all know, Turtledove has been accused of being implausible (Iraq-esque insurgency in 1945 Germany, Southern Nazis in TL-191, and of course Aliens in WW2)

But he published several chapters of an incomplete book online:

http://bztv.typepad.com/altjfk/

And i was wondering: would it have been plausible had JFK lived for him to face being impeached?
 
In 1963, the unspoken rule among the press was that private life was verboten. If it had leaked, Clinton would be a nun in comparison, given the mores of the early 60's. Besides the pre-Watergate squeamishness of the press, there were two other factors. Hoover's own R-rated private life (which was an open secret in DC) and RFK's clean record.
 
Last edited:

Bearcat

Banned
Interesting

Was there anything which might connect RFK to the whole Marilyn Monroe mess? He wasn't the womanizer John was but I could see the fallout hurting him, particularly if he actually had links to MM that could be proven.

What exactly was known about Hoover? I've heard a lot of inuendoes, but how much of it was actually true? Even in a media feeding frenzy environment after JFK's fall, would anyone with proof have been willing to go public?
 
RFK had a clean record, in the view of distinguished historians and most academics. Hoover lived with his deputy in his mother's house since the 1930's. This is well-documented. Here's how RFK summed it up: "J. Edna".
 
Last edited:
This goes on my long list of hated cliches.

Firstly, there's only a minimal chance that the excesses of JFK's libido would get out in any destructive expose during his Presidency. The press back then respected the privacy of major figure's personal and private lives and Kennedy kept that air tight in most places and would have bought off or crushed anybody that tried to use it against him, reporter or otherwise. Likewise, it was even an open secret to many people and became a sort of running joke. And, every politician was screwing some mistress behind their wife's back back then. There was a case where they were gonna take down Kennedy by bringing before a tribunal a prostitution ring where the madam was believed to actually be an East German spy. Turned out that almost every senator in Washington had "sampled" from that prostitution ring so that if the names of the John's were published, it would ruin them all. Long story short, the investigation disappeared pretty damn quick. And even in the minimal chance it does somehow get out, all the President has to do is pull a Billy, go on TV, say he's sorry, have his wife's forgiveness and its over. Even if sex wasn't something discussed in civil society back then, everybody knew it existed and wouldn't have retreated from it en masse like a gaggle of Nuns and condemned Kennedy enough to throw him out. And if he were impeached, it would have fallen apart the same way it did with Clinton.
Could it get out after his Presidency, sure. Or more likely, could it get out after his death, sure. Still, I doubt it would have any more effect on those people in that ATL than it has on the people of our TL.

Could his medical condition have gotten out? Maybe. I'd doubt its something that couldn't be hidden under the rug, though, and why would it be impeachable?

And the rest of the other stuff is hearsay which lacks evidence for anything more than rumor.

In conclusion, half of the junk they say could impeach him or come out in an investigation were things not even stated or exposed in the OTL investigation of the Warren Report as far as I know. Why the hell would it get out if he survived then?
 
Last edited:
Could his medical condition have gotten out? Maybe. I'd doubt its something that couldn't be hidden under the rug, though, and why would it be impeachable?

The fact that JFK as doped up on prescription drugs would not have been viewed the same at the time as it would today. Then, drugs would still have been considered "marvels" of science. The recreational drug culture (LSD, etc.) was not well known at the time.

Evidence of impairment would have had to surface. Had he finished his term, it could have, but you can't be sure.
 
The fact that JFK as doped up on prescription drugs would not have been viewed the same at the time as it would today. Then, drugs would still have been considered "marvels" of science. The recreational drug culture (LSD, etc.) was not well known at the time.

But JFK was never "doped up". From all accounts, even while on medication, he had perfect cognitive abilities.
 
as well as that, there were covert actions in Laos, Congo and Latin America.

To top it off, according to the church committee, JFK and RFK were both arranging warrantless wiretaps.
 
Yes, that scandal broke in late '66, and instantly knocked fifteen points off RFK's approval rating. Double whammy after the Manchester nonsense.
 
hmm, I'm scheptical of JFK's infidelity coming out any time before he leaves office, even after a second term. The press back then didn't dig into the personal lives of politicians back then, hell the pentagon papers didn't come out until 71 and that almost didn't get released. Besides wouldn't Kennedy have gotten Hoover to lean on any reporters who thought of stepping out of line?

Secondly, how exactly does cheating on ones wife constitute an impeachable offense? Sure it would have been a grossly unpopular scandal, but I don't see any congressman actually going through with an impeachment proceeding just because kennedy can't keep his willy in his pants, especially when most of them probably had something on the side anyways.
 
Hoover had an R-rated personal life that would be extremely controversial even today. He had no compunctions, because he could take JFK (and RFK in the fallout) down hard with him. RFK's summary of Hoover's "issues" is below: "J. Edna". That would cause public uproar, not so much "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
 
as well as that, there were covert actions in Laos, Congo and Latin America.
Which is little different from actions taken under Eisenhower, which there were a heck of a lot more of than under Kennedy if I recall.

To top it off, according to the church committee, JFK and RFK were both arranging warrantless wiretaps.
Wiretaps were not considered unconstitutional until I believe '67. And I don't think there were that many outside of MLK.
 
And JFK also had the CIA "dispose of" diem.

To be more specific in Laos, the Hmong were given arms and training under Vang Pao, which aimed to subvert the laotian government, and thus Laos got a finely woven handbasket to hell with the rest of indochina.

JFK also had links with the Mafia (remember the iffy eleciton count in illinois)
 
But JFK was never "doped up". From all accounts, even while on medication, he had perfect cognitive abilities.

There was no impairment up until the time he died. But had JFK lived longer, the medication could have been increased, as he had severe back pain. At some point, his cognitive abilities could have been challenged. Then, he could have faced pressure to leave office.
 
And JFK also had the CIA "dispose of" diem.

To be more specific in Laos, the Hmong were given arms and training under Vang Pao, which aimed to subvert the laotian government, and thus Laos got a finely woven handbasket to hell with the rest of indochina.
Eisenhower let the CIA pull coups and assassinations in the 50's (Iran, Guatemala, etc.), and those were democratically elected governments which were overthrown simply because the US feared they'd have ties with the Soviets. Diem was a tyrant who was not so much democratically elected as denying any democratic process to question his power, and was not "disposed of" by the CIA nor Kennedy. Rather, Kennedy and the CIA allowed a coup to take place by the military rather than funding it or carrying it out themselves believing it would lead to a more democratic and effective and competent government. And CIA operations in Laos began under Eisenhower's administration.

Regardless, if Eisenhower didn't get any flack for it nor had it revealed to the general public nor had it lead to his impeachment, there's little reason for Kennedy to.

JFK also had links with the Mafia (remember the iffy eleciton count in illinois)
Highly specious. John F. Kennedy did not have links with the mafia and if his father did is debatable and enough to declare it not a fact as you present it as.

There was no impairment up until the time he died. But had JFK lived longer, the medication could have been increased, as he had severe back pain. At some point, his cognitive abilities could have been challenged. Then, he could have faced pressure to leave office.
His back was gonna hurt the same in 1962 as 1966. It's not like he'd exponentially grow worse and worse after November 22, 1963 magically. Slowly over the decades after, perhaps, but the condition wouldn't go into hyper mode in 1963 and after for no reason. Likewise, it'd be highly debatable whether his back would grow really that worse over the years to come and I wouldn't say it would go that much more down hill to dope Kennedy up till he was tripping or a vegetable or something.


In conclusion, an impeachment is interesting and an interesting story concept, don't get me wrong, but it's highly implausible in actuality. I mean, the things they say he'd get impeached for are very unlikely to ever get revealed, unlikely to destroy him if they were ever revealed, much of the rest (such as the mafia,etc) is dubious, and the very process of impeachment is unlikely. The reason Clinton got impeached had largely to do with political revenge by the GOP for the condemnation of Reagan during Iran-Contra, and the negativity toward the GOP during that time. In this TL, there is no such thing to get revenge for so the most likely thing to get revealed, which is sex, is a hell of a lot less likely to lead to impeachment (and especially given the context of a world where sex is hush hush and every politician and prominent person is screwing someone behind their wife's back). Perhaps the GOP loss in '60 and a Republican belief that Kennedy had stolen the election, but that's still not the same thing as you had in the 80's and 90's where there were calls for impeachment of Reagan and the GOP got revenge on Clinton, and the Republicans lacked a presence in the Congress to do anything. So there is just too much working against it.
 
Last edited:
Top