WI: Clinton resigned in 1999? (A Collaborative TL)

[SomeGuyOnline]

(Following the success of my first collab TL, which is still in progress, (you can check it out here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...atles-died-in-1964-a-collaborative-tl.525360/), I figured I'd make another one, and it's about a much more recent even that could've gone in a different direction)

February 9th, 1999: The Senate begins closed-door deliberations about voting on the articles of impeachment.

February 10th, 1999: President Bill Clinton, worrying about the possibility of a conviction, considers resignation before a verdict can be reached. He later tells Vice President Al Gore of his plans.

February 11th, 1999: That morning, while closed-door deliberations are still in progress at the US Senate, Clinton drops the bombshell announcement that he is officially resigning as president of the United States. The surprising news quickly spreads across the country, shocking and angering many who supported and defended Clinton during his trial. Due to Clinton's resignation, Al Gore becomes the 43rd president of the United States.

February 11th, 1999, later that day: Al Gore is sworn into office as the 43rd president of the United States.

(This TL will be a year-by-year TL, meaning as opposed to my first TL, which is currently kind of jumping over the place, we will focus solely on the year 1999 first, then move to 2000 and so on. NO ASB EVENTS ARE ALLOWED)

(EDIT: Due to...complications, I decided to change the TL scenario so that President Clinton decides to resign rather than be removed from office. Hopefully this will fix things a bit)

 

[Deleted member 145219]

What changes to cause Clinton to be convicted and removed from Office? I don't think Clinton would remain in Office to the point where he was about to be removed, he would resign before that happened.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

What changes to cause Clinton to be convicted and removed from Office? I don't think Clinton would remain in Office to the point where he was about to be removed, he would resign before that happened.

TBH, there really wouldn't be that much of a change for Clinton to be convicted, it would be as simple as a couple of senators who voted to acquit him in OTL changing their votes to guilty instead ITTL, just enough to have the majority vote needed to remove him. Also, Clinton seemed to stand his ground in office in OTL during the whole impeachment trial - he would've resigned if he thought he was going to actually be removed from office in real life. Since he never did anything like that, I didn't include that here (I could've done a WI Clinton resigned scenario instead, but I thought that this would work better).

 

[Deleted member 145219]

TBH, there really wouldn't be that much of a change for Clinton to be convicted, it would be as simple as a couple of senators who voted to acquit him in OTL changing their votes to guilty instead ITTL, just enough to have the majority vote needed to remove him. Also, Clinton seemed to stand his ground in office in OTL during the whole impeachment trial - he would've resigned if he thought he wasgoing to actually be removed from office in real life. Since he never did anything like that, I didn't include that here (I could've done a WI Clinton resigned scenario instead, but I thought that this would work better).

To successfully remove a President from office, you need 67 votes in the US Senate. Clinton was acquitted on the First Article, Perjury 55-45. The Second Article, Obstruction of Justice was 50-50. And by the time that Clinton was actually Impeached in the House, public opinion was overwhelmingly in his favor.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

To successfully remove a President from office, you need 67 votes in the US Senate. Clinton was acquitted on the First Article, Perjury 55-45. The Second Article, Obstruction of Justice was 50-50. And by the time that Clinton was actually Impeached in the House, public opinion was overwhelmingly in his favor.

I already know about the two thirds majority vote needed for impeachment. ITTL, some of the senators who voted to acquit Clinton IRL decided to vote to convict him instead - 22 more senators convict him on the First Article and 17 more convict him on the Second Article than OTL. As a result, he is convicted of both articles by, say, 67-33, the absolute bare minimum for the majority vote to work. It doesn't matter how much public opinion was in his favor, if Senate votes to remove someone from office then they're gone.

 

[Mynock]

I already know about the two thirds majority vote needed for impeachment. ITTL, some of the senators who voted to acquit Clinton IRL decided to vote to convict him instead - 12 more senators convict him on the First Article and 17 more convict him on the Second Article than OTL. As a result, he is convicted of both articles by, say, 67-33, the absolute bare minimum for the majority vote to work. It doesn't matter how much public opinion was in his favor, if Senate votes to remove someone from office then they're gone.

Why? Why do they change their minds? Its like saying "What if a public option for Obamacare passed because x number of senators decided to vote for it?" To discuss the what happens, we need to know the why and for Clinton to be successfully impeached something drastic must have changed.

 

[Vidal]

I already know about the two thirds majority vote needed for impeachment. ITTL, some of the senators who voted to acquit Clinton IRL decided to vote to convict him instead - 12 more senators convict him on the First Article and 17 more convict him on the Second Article than OTL. As a result, he is convicted of both articles by, say, 67-33, the absolute bare minimum for the majority vote to work. It doesn't matter how much public opinion was in his favor, if Senate votes to remove someone from office then they're gone.

It was actually a 45-55 vote. You would need 22 senators, not 12 - more than 1/5th of the body.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

Why? Why do they change their minds? Its like saying "What if a public option for Obamacare passed because x number of senators decided to vote for it?" To discuss the what happens, we need to know the why and for Clinton to be successfully impeached something drastic must have changed.

For the sake of this scenario, I'd like to leave it up to your imagination as to why they changed their minds ITTL.

It was actually a 45-55 vote. You would need 22 senators, not 12 - more than 1/5th of the body.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

February 14, 1999:
"The Valentines' Protests" break out, Clinton had public opinion in his favor and Gore is booed at his inauguration speech.
Clinton himself though makes a speech urging his supporters to give Gore a chance.
Ex-First Lady, Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be seen on this day.

 

[Mynock]

February 15, 1999:
The newly formed "Democrats for Justice" releases a list of the Democratic senators who voted to impeach President Clinton, and begins marshalling resources for primary challenges as the 2000 elections approach. Intense media scrutiny is applied to the Democratic senators who voted to impeach, with many publicly struggling to justify their decision.

 

[iddt3]

February 15, 1999:
The newly formed "Democrats for Justice" releases a list of the Democratic senators who voted to impeach President Clinton, and begins marshalling resources for primary challenges as the 2000 elections approach. Intense media scrutiny is applied to the Democratic senators who voted to impeach, with many publicly struggling to justify their decision.

You can't have stuff like this without why the senators switched their votes. That implies *something* happened, which is going to change how things play out. Unless you want to move this to ASB.

 

[Mynock]

You can't have stuff like this without why the senators switched their votes. That implies *something* happened, which is going to change how things play out. Unless you want to move this to ASB.

If nothing changes but the votes as the reaction will be nothing short of fury from Democrats and probably backlash from independents considering the 1999-2001 Congress was elected in no small part as a reaction against the impeachment. On a Gallup poll from 12-13 February 1999 Clinton's approval-disapproval sat at 68-30 and approval by party gave him 91% for Democrats, 69% for independents and 35% for Republicans.
Unless something drastic happened before the impeachment (i.e. Monica Lewinsky testing positive on a pregnancy test and implicating Clinton) which would put the public behind impeachment the next political cycle will be dominated by the backlash against Democrats who voted to impeach. Poor Gore is going to have to try and establish himself in a party where likely vast majority don't believe he should be president. Without knowing why something happened you can't really work out what happens next.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

Okay, so it’s obvious that this issue has garnered some debate. I don’t know if some senators switching their votes to convict Clinton would really count as ASB, but judging by the way this thread is going right now, the issue has gotten a bit chaotic, especially considering the lack of context, which I deeply apologize for. If it’s better with everyone, I’ll change the thread so that TTL features Clinton resigning instead of getting removed, like someone said above.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

February 15, 1999:
The newly formed "Democrats for Justice" releases a list of the Democratic senators who voted to impeach President Clinton, and begins marshalling resources for primary challenges as the 2000 elections approach. Intense media scrutiny is applied to the Democratic senators who voted to impeach, with many publicly struggling to justify their decision.

Now that the scenario has been changed, should this be retconned?

 

[Mynock]

Now that the scenario has been changed, should this be retconned?

It's your thread, you're the boss. I agree him resigning is much more plausible. You only need to have one person come out with a drastically different decision than OTL as opposed to the 20-something people you'd need to convict. I think it would more likely be before 1998 elections if I had to nit-pick, just because those elections showed the American people were anti-impeachment and almost vindicated Clinton staying in a sense. But I think its still plausible after them as well.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

It's your thread, you're the boss. I agree him resigning is much more plausible. You only need to have one person come out with a drastically different decision than OTL as opposed to the 20-something people you'd need to convict. I think it would more likely be before 1998 elections if I had to nit-pick, just because those elections showed the American people were anti-impeachment and almost vindicated Clinton staying in a sense. But I think its still plausible after them as well.

Upon reviewing it again with the context of the thread, I think it can stay. That being said, now that the scenario has changed, hopefully the rest of this TL won’t be as rocky as it was in the beginning.

 

[SomeGuyOnline]

(EDITED as of Mar. 16)

February 16th, 1999: Clinton supporters continue to protest Gore's new presidency, complaining that Clinton did nothing wrong and inciting very minor protests around the country (thankfully, nothing violent happens).

February 17th, 1999: Ex-president Clinton decides to go on live tv to call out the recent protests, telling the protestors that arguing won't solve anything and that President Gore deserves a chance.

February 19th, 1999: Opinion polls release President Gore's first approval ratings, which are at an abysmal 33%.

February 20th, 1999: The Clinton supporters publicly demand that some of the Republican senators who voted to impeach Clinton step down from their positions.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

February 20th, 1999: A young Chelsea Clinton is thinking of running for office, she thinks she could be the first female president, this is encouraged by her parents despite the way Bill's presidency had ended

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

[ given that Hillary is a recent and somewhat polarizing political figure, this might need to go in Chat rather than After 1900 ... ]

 

[ordinarylittleme]

[ given that Hillary is a recent and somewhat polarizing political figure, this might need to go in Chat rather than After 1900 ... ]

[ but the POD is not about Hillary ]