Edit: Having been made aware that this thread could be locked as the original version didn't include a POD, I've decided to turn this into an alternate history scenario reflect the standards of the site.

During President Reagan's second term, it was revealed that his administration was illegally supporting the Nicaraguan Contras (a violation of the 1982 Boland Amendment) using weapons allocated by secret arms-for-hostages deals with Iran. As a result of this scandal, Reagan's Secretary of Defense was indicted and the President's poll numbers slipped to just barely above 40% in February 1987.

You are the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and your colleagues are debating whether or not to recommend Articles of Impeachment against the President. Reagan's critics argue that the Gipper should be impeached for violating US law and supporting right-wing death squads abroad. On the other hand, Reagan's supporters believe that the President himself is not personally implicated in the scandal and that he was a great President in spite of the mistakes made by his Cabinet. One Independent on the Committee hypothesizes that since Reagan's mental state has clearly shown to be on the decline, he might not even have the capacity to fully understand his own decision-making or the extent of the corruption in his administration. Supposing that you're the Chair of this Committee, would you or would you not press your colleagues to introduce articles of Impeachment?
 
Last edited:
I'm completely biased, because any opportunity to take Reagan down a few pegs is a golden one to me, but I say yes. Whether he knew all the nitty gritty details of Iran-Contra or not (i'm not super educated on the topic myself), he certainly knew enough to give basic approval. He also knew that what he was doing was wrong. Impeachment doesn't mean an automatic removal, but it could have given the public more information as to Reagan's involvement, and ultimately might have even cleared him.
 
Yes, he probably should have been both impeached and removed, but . . .

. . . we would have gotten unlucky because we probably would not have gotten the INF Treaty between U.S. and USSR regarding intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe.

———————————

The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Dec. 1987 and ratified by the U.S. Senate on Friday, May 27, 1988.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-28/news/mn-3390_1_senate-democrats
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
If anyone that would be impeached - it would be George Bush who gave the orders, while another person took the fall for him. However, in a different universe, that person (who will remain nameless) decides to bite the hand that feeds him - Bush will be the first to fall, he would fall on his sword so Reagan would not be impeached.
 
No. Fundimentally, though I personally think it's more likely than not he was deeply involved, the investigations couldent prove him guilty behyond reasonable doubt. That's the standard of American criminal justice, and it needed to be upheld especially in a landmark public case
 
I voted yes but I will be the first to admit that I'm biased. Reagan may not have been involved or aware of the nitty-gritty details but he had to know enough to condemn him. This reminds me of a debate I had with a friend over Obama's nuclear deal with Iran with him saying that what Obama was doing was treasonous and that no president especially Reagan (who he idolized) would have done such a thing. My response was verbatim: "Three words: Iran-Contra Scandal". His silence was glorious!
 
Yes, he probably should have been both impeached and removed, but . . .

. . . we would have gotten unlucky because we probably would not have gotten the INF Treaty between U.S. and USSR regarding intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe.

———————————

The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Dec. 1987 and ratified by the U.S. Senate on Friday, May 27, 1988.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-28/news/mn-3390_1_senate-democrats

That treaty was years in the making, and Bush 41 was even more in favor of arms reduction than Reagan (just compare INF with START I, signed by Bush), so either INF or something very similar (maybe even better due to 41's diplomatic skills) would likely be signed and passed.
 

I've changed the purpose of the thread so that it's not a political discussion, but rather an alternate history scenario where you are the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and you have to decide whether or not to impeach Reagan. If that still doesn't fly then I'd like someone to explain if I can just take down the poll and move this to chat, or somehow amend it. If not then just explain the policy in detail.
 
I think if I was in the House, I would impeach to provide a more public investigation, but in the Senate would not vote to convict unless there was much clearer evidence.

Illegal arms sales abroad differ somewhat from the stuff Watergate did, mostly because the president has inherent foreign powers.
 
Yes. What Reagan did was legally and morally wrong. He surely knew something and should had stop that. I admit that as anti-Reagan I am quiet biased but still I say yes for impeachment.
 
That treaty was years in the making, and Bush 41 was even more in favor of arms reduction than Reagan (just compare INF with START I, signed by Bush), so either INF or something very similar (maybe even better due to 41's diplomatic skills) would likely be signed and passed.
Reagan believed God had saved him from the assassination attempt for a reason, and that reason may have been that God wanted him to prevent nuclear war.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P... that he understood God's intentions"&f=false

At the same time, Reagan talked a lot of shit, famously calling the Soviets an “evil empire,” and believed in peace through strength. For example, the dangerous 1983 may have been unnecessary.

So, I think there’s a tension with Reagan. By that, I mean there’s aspects on both sides.
 
As I grew up in that era, Reagan was terribly popular in my state and it was thought he could do no wrong. I could imagine his most loyal fans would have coronaries and even riot had he been impeached!
 
I would not recommend impeachment in that case.

While I would be an opponent of Reagan, my constituents would likely be in the main, Reagan Democrats. Furthermore, I would only vote for impeachment if we could get Reagan to testify before the House on Iran-Contra.
 
Top