This has been asked a few times before, but let's say Vice President Agnew was never exposed for corruption, and continues to hold his office. Does this impact Watergate at all? Or does it happen basically the same way as it did IOTL? And if Nixon does still resign, would Agnew likely choose Ford as his VP?
 
Because of the fear of an Agnew presidency, The Democrats hold office impeachment until after the midterms.

The Democrats gained 24 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.

After the midterms, The liberals in the Democratic caucus insisted on impeachment and the House began committee hearings.

Meanwhile, Spiro Agnew began building his campaign infrastructure for 1976. His main opposition for was seen as Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, John Connally.

In April 1975, Nixon unilaterally bombed the NVA massed offensive into South Vietnam. The surprise attack destroyed most of the NVA heavy equipment and set them back years. Liberal Democrats tried to add the bombing to the list of reasons to impeach but this gained little traction and actually allowed Nixon to gained support among conservatives and Republicans for his defense of America's allies.

By the summer, the impeachment drive was losing support among many moderate and conservative Democrats.

Will the House still vote on impeachment?
 
Ford's probably in the top tier as far as Agnew's pick, but there are easily another four or five people in the top tier

Reagan and Connally to cover his right-flank and prevent him running in the primary.

Personally I see him offering it to Reagan. Reagan almost certainly declines due to his well known over soon to the VP spot.

Agnew probably resented Connally since Nixon had wanted to replace Agnew with Connally in 1972.

Ford, Bush, or Mel Laird as a safe choice. Ford or Laird would be great placeholders until the 1976 elections. Bush would be more of a permanent pick.
 
Agnew's corruption went on so long--as Baltimore County Executive, as Governor of Maryland, and as Vice President--and involved so many potential witnesses that the odds of keeping it secret forever do not look good to me.
 
Agnew's corruption went on so long--as Baltimore County Executive, as Governor of Maryland, and as Vice President--and involved so many potential witnesses that the odds of keeping it secret forever do not look good to me.

His corruption indictment(s) (I forget whether it was single or multiple) all took place in courts in the state of MD; that is, all were in reference to acts while county executive or governor. It's something of a wonder it didn't come out in 1968 when he was eyed for the vice presidency, but vetting wasn't as thorough then (see also Thomas Eagleton, four years later).

I say this as someone who was a teenager in Baltimore County in the mid-1960s and someone who's a long-time old school establishment Republican: Agnew would have been a disaster as a president. He would have alienated people all over the map and would have gotten nothing done of substance. As unnerving a potential successor as Dan Quayle or Al Gore (he who invented the internet) were, Agnew was worse. I doubt there are many rankings of vice presidents by historians (on what would you base such a ranking?) but if there were, Agnew would be at or very close to the bottom.

A shame John Volpe didn't get the second slot in '68. Had that happened, Agnew likely would have been a one-term governor, voted out in 1970 when the Dems in MD got their act together. I could see Agnew making a run for the Senate, where his outrageous rhetoric would have made headlines and inflamed passions but would have had about as much of an impact as strong winds in the summer; i.e., not much. He'd have died pretty much as he did IOTL: namely, not much more than a footnote to history.
 
181_big.jpg
 

SsgtC

Banned
With Agnew's corruption, how difficult would it have been for Nixon to drop the entire Watergate mess squarely into his lap and say "it was all on him and I had nothing to do with it"?
 
Top