Trump2020: A Response to One Objection

 

One objection to re-electing President Trump in 2020 is that, because he exhibits so many of the personal traits which conservatives have traditionally condemned, his election by Republicans casts the latter as hypocrites and removes character as a dimension on which future Republicans can differentiate their candidates from those of the Democrats.

While I made this argument during the primaries leading up to the 2016 election, I think it is no longer relevant. Republicans have already elected Trump; failing to re-elect him will not in any way redeem Republicans. We live in a hostile, left-leaning media environment, and there is no voice on the left that will speak well of Republicans for rejecting President Trump in 2020. That would require a degree of charity the left is completely unwilling to extend.

Whatever damage to the moral standing of Republicans that the election of President Trump can do has been done, and nothing will reverse it or make it significantly worse. Those who think otherwise are crediting the left with more grace than there is any reason to believe it possesses.

I continue to believe that, on balance, the arguments in favor of re-electing President Trump remain compelling.

 

Published in Elections
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 125 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mim526 Inactive
    Mim526
    @Mim526

    After two years of reading (Congressional testimony transcripts, articles from the few sane journalists I find worth reading) and listening (news and podcast interviews like Byron York’s excellent sessions with John Dowd) — and yes, reading the Mueller report — there’s one thing I know:  I may not have voted for Donald Trump in 2016, but by God I will be in 2020.

    If lawyers like Weissmann and Mueller are what’s been considered DOJ poster boys of excellence, it’s no wonder Comey & Co. (and likely some upper echelon intelligence) crossed several lines in their pursuit of a crime serious enough to take out a POTUS.  

    According to my reading, charging obstruction of justice was a section 1512 pipe dream Weissmann had used before, succeeded and been overturned by higher court.  Barr’s June 2018 letter to Rosenstein discussing collusion/obstruction by a POTUS was spot on.

    I also don’t believe wanting to relieve Mueller is obstruction of justice, particularly given there was no basis for special counsel under DOJ guidelines and Mueller had obviously already concluded no collusion.  (The one strong criticism of Mueller given by John Dowd was that Mueller did not keep his word to expedite things in response to the extraordinary access Trump admin gave him.)  Unwise to remove him, IMO, but not obstructing justice.  

    To my knowledge and memory there has never been a modern day POTUS who allowed this level of access to the inner workings of his administration, and definitely not one who waived executive privilege to the extent Trump has.  I notice writers like David French who claim Trump to be a morally bankrupt character don’t elaborate on this if they make mention at all; it doesn’t fit easily in the “Trump is a liar” frame.

    • #31
  2. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    This could have been an interesting thread. Instead we got Obstructing Assertions from a Zealot. Oh well….

    • #32
  3. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    David French read the Mueller Report and instantly gravitated toward Bob Dole, who in his flailing presidential campaign against Bill Clinton in 1996 asked, “Where’s the outrage?”

    The truth is, of course, that there has never been any evidence that the voting public has ever rewarded Republicans for fragging their own in a pique of moral indignation. And it has always been abundantly clear that such actions have always been unilateral. Even with the full knowledge of history the Kennedy boys and their offspring are treated like American royalty. The Harry Reids come to Congress poor and leave multimillionaires. They can have gun-running AGs and nobody bats an eye.

    And so French, Kristol, Williamson & Company continue to rail against the voters who dare question the strategic nature of knee-jerk capitulation. They hate the fact that large swaths of the population looked them in the eye, asked “Just whose side are you on?” and came to the conclusion it ain’t them.

    I am on the side of the Rule of Law, and after reading about Trump’s Obstruction of Justice, Trump has forfeited his claim to renomination.

    There is your issue Gary, you want Rule of Law to drag down those you do not like. The rest of us sort of like Justice, where people do not get drug down for resisting being convicted of crimes they do not commit.

    If a lawyer lies and obstructs justice, he or she will be disbarred.  

    If a President repeatedly lies and obstructs Justice, he should be removed from office.  I would prefer removal by being rejected by his or her party.  If not, the party should be removed by the voters.

    Read the Mueller Report.

    • #33
  4. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Franco (View Comment): This could have been an interesting thread…

    Now so common around here that some adaptation of  it ought to be adopted as the new site slogan.

    • #34
  5. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Henry Racette: Whatever damage to the moral standing of Republicans that the election of President Trump can do has been done, and nothing will reverse it or make it significantly worse.

    Interesting.  I believe the Republicans (I assume you mean elected Republicans) did more damage to their moral standing by not fighting the Democrats with every fiber of their being.  As for the moral standing of Republican voters, there’s no damage whatsoever.  In fact, I’d argue voting for Trump was the right thing to do, because to vote for Hillary or not even vote at all would have allowed evil to triumph.

    And yes, I think the left in this country has reached the level where they can be considered evil.  I believe a lot of Democrat voters don’t realize what they have voted into office . . .

    • #35
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    WI Con (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: I am on the side of the Rule of Law, and after reading about Trump’s Obstruction of Justice, Trump has forfeited his claim to renomination.

    First of all, if you cheer the release of the Mueller Report you are definitely not on the side of the Rule of Law. When you fail to indict, when you don’t have the evidence, it is incumbent for the prosecution to keep one’s mouth shut. Because the presumption of innocence is as important to the Rule of Law as anything. This is not a legal document, it is a political one. It it a former Federal Prosecutor doing the bidding of the President’s opponents.

    Mueller was charged with determining the extent of Russian interference and unlawful actions in relation to that interference. He indicted a bunch of Russian military officers to that end with the full knowledge that extradition and trial were fantasies. Everything else was totally unrelated or “process crimes.” It’s been a two-year sham and you know it.

    ADDENDUM: Let me add something here. First, prosecutors do not indict. Grand Juries do. There is a reason Grand Jury proceedings are sealed. Prosecutors under the American ideal of the Rule of Law do not try their cases in the press. If you do not have the evidence and you bypass the Grand Jury system and release accusations to the press that is prosecutorial malfeasance.

    Bingo! – this wasn’t even a “Ham Sandwich”. Why didn’t Mueller take this weak sauce to that same grand jury that indicted Flynn and Manafort and those Russians. Mr. Integrity knew he’d lose.

    The remedy for a sitting President is not prosecution, but removal from office.

    Read the Mueller Report.

     

    • #36
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Gary, you know I’m no Trump advocate. But if Rule of Law matters, that has to include that dusty old piece of vellum in the National Archives, and its guarantees are paramount.

    I had never heard that the Constitution was written on vellum. I always thought it was parchment — high quality paper with a high rag content.  

    But the National Archives web site says parchment and vellum were originally terms for the same thing – animal skins scraped thin and smooth. Learn something new every third day, I guess.  

    • #37
  8. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Policy-wise, Trump has been no worse than any Republican in living memory. I would still vote for Ted Cruz again in the primary, if he ran. I can’t think of anything Trump would do that Cruz wouldn’t.

    • #38
  9. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    I am even more convinced that I need to run away from two labels, conservative and Republican, not because of Trump but to separate myself from some who claim them.  Two years of NTs have moved me into the Schlicter Militant Normals group. I am not likely to move back.

    • #39
  10. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    EHerring (View Comment):

    I am even more convinced that I need to run away from two labels, conservative and Republican, not because of Trump but to separate myself from some who claim them. Two years of NTs have moved me into the Schlicter Militant Normals group. I am not likely to move back.

    I hadn’t heard “Militant Normals” before.  I like it but am still partial to “Rational Anarchists.”

    • #40
  11. Mim526 Inactive
    Mim526
    @Mim526

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    David French read the Mueller Report and instantly gravitated toward Bob Dole, who in his flailing presidential campaign against Bill Clinton in 1996 asked, “Where’s the outrage?”

    The truth is, of course, that there has never been any evidence that the voting public has ever rewarded Republicans for fragging their own in a pique of moral indignation. And it has always been abundantly clear that such actions have always been unilateral. Even with the full knowledge of history the Kennedy boys and their offspring are treated like American royalty. The Harry Reids come to Congress poor and leave multimillionaires. They can have gun-running AGs and nobody bats an eye.

    And so French, Kristol, Williamson & Company continue to rail against the voters who dare question the strategic nature of knee-jerk capitulation. They hate the fact that large swaths of the population looked them in the eye, asked “Just whose side are you on?” and came to the conclusion it ain’t them.

    I am on the side of the Rule of Law, and after reading about Trump’s Obstruction of Justice, Trump has forfeited his claim to renomination.

    There is your issue Gary, you want Rule of Law to drag down those you do not like. The rest of us sort of like Justice, where people do not get drug down for resisting being convicted of crimes they do not commit.

    Well put, @fakejohnjanegault.  What really concerns me that seems to be getting lost in so much of the reporting/discussion is the a) abuse of power by federal agencies in “investigating” Trump, including the Mueller team’s out of line prosecutorial actions, and b) relentless drumbeat of most press and anti-Trump efforts to remove him from office.  How is he able to get up in the morning, let alone get anything done in office?

    In my view point a) should be a primary focus of the AG and Congress in its oversight role, and point b) should be a strongly mitigating factor in any consideration of the Mueller report assertions regarding Trump’s words/actions.

    • #41
  12. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    I haven’t seen any laws cited that Trump broke. All I have seen is a man justifiably angry about being excoriated every minute 24/7 for something he knew he didn’t do. And, as it turns out, he didn’t. So during these past two years or more he had moments of frustration  which he apparently openly expressed to his closest associates, who wisely convinced him to cool down–which he did. He didn’t fire anyone but Comey. He handed over millions of documents–everything Muller asked for, except an interview. He allowed Muller access to all associates without citing executive privilege. Trump even allowed the entire final report to be published–an unprecedented amount of Presidential transparency. Nothing is ever good enough. Gary and all the other Lucys out there will always pull the football back. So at this point Trump should send all overflow of illegals he is forced to release to “sanctuary” places whilel he takes money from anywhere he can to build the wall. He should keep building the wall no matter what individual judge in Seattle or anywhere says. Only if and when SCOTUS says stop, should he stop. What does PDJT have to lose? When all this is over and he is no longer POTUS, he will still be a billionaire with a loving family. And he will have tried as hard as he could to get this country squared away again. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll succeed.

    • #42
  13. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Policy-wise, Trump has been no worse than any Republican in living memory. I would still vote for Ted Cruz again in the primary, if he ran. I can’t think of anything Trump would do that Cruz wouldn’t.

    How about win, for starters? I like Cruz too @aaronmiller. I believe he has been stalwart in his behavior and support for Trump, even though he has as good a reason as anyone not to. For that alone I tip my hat.  

    • #43
  14. JamesSalerno Inactive
    JamesSalerno
    @JamesSalerno

    I don’t understand the “poor character” arguments. I do not care about the morals of my politicians as long as said morals do not affect my freedom. Give me good policies. Setting your moral compass based on the views of politicians, or musicians or actors should strictly be a left thing. That’s why whenever someone like Kanye West talks about supporting Republicans, the left goes completely insane. Celebrities are their Jesus Christ.

    I don’t care if Trump committed adultery. That does not in any way affect my chances of committing adultery. I don’t care about his Twitter or Twitter in general. The overemphasis we place on the “morality” of our candidates borders on deification. Furthermore, the most “moral” politicians seem to always find a way to impose what they think is moral on me. No thank you. Barring something insane happening, voting Trump in 2020 will be one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever made.

    • #44
  15. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    After two years of reading (Congressional testimony transcripts, articles from the few sane journalists I find worth reading) and listening (news and podcast interviews like Byron York’s excellent sessions with John Dowd) — and yes, reading the Mueller report — there’s one thing I know: I may not have voted for Donald Trump in 2016, but by God I will be in 2020.

    If lawyers like Weissmann and Mueller are what’s been considered DOJ poster boys of excellence, it’s no wonder Comey & Co. (and likely some upper echelon intelligence) crossed several lines in their pursuit of a crime serious enough to take out a POTUS.

    According to my reading, charging obstruction of justice was a section 1512 pipe dream Weissmann had used before, succeeded and been overturned by higher court. Barr’s June 2018 letter to Rosenstein discussing collusion/obstruction by a POTUS was spot on.

    I also don’t believe wanting to relieve Mueller is obstruction of justice, particularly given there was no basis for special counsel under DOJ guidelines and Mueller had obviously already concluded no collusion. (The one strong criticism of Mueller given by John Dowd was that Mueller did not keep his word to expedite things in response to the extraordinary access Trump admin gave him.) Unwise to remove him, IMO, but not obstructing justice.

    To my knowledge and memory there has never been a modern day POTUS who allowed this level of access to the inner workings of his administration, and definitely not one who waived executive privilege to the extent Trump has. I notice writers like David French who claim Trump to be a morally bankrupt character don’t elaborate on this if they make mention at all; it doesn’t fit easily in the “Trump is a liar” frame.

    • #45
  16. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    So a constant refrain of “read the report,” and not a single detail of how a crime was committed. Just telling people to read a 400-page document.

    Sounds like someone with no specifics to point to.

    • #46
  17. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Policy-wise, Trump has been no worse than any Republican in living memory. I would still vote for Ted Cruz again in the primary, if he ran. I can’t think of anything Trump would do that Cruz wouldn’t.

    No worse? How about as good or better than Reagan, and certainly better than the Bushels, Ford, and Nixon.

    Anyway, it just might depend on your policy preferences and idea of what a President “should be”.

    However, I doubt Cruz could maneuver as well as Trump has through the media fog. I think he’d be somewhat paralyzed by his ideology, and the left knows well how to attack on that front. They can’t quite get a bead on Trump, so they go for his character and random tweets. Meanwhile, all kinds of things are getting done. Trump is allowing his persona to be martyred for the sake of winning and getting things done.

    Imagine if the left went after Trumps policies-as they would versus Cruz. 

    But politically, if Cruz chose to primary Trump ( not likely) Cruz would lose. If Cruz won, he’d almost certainly lose to the Democrat.

    So in my view, you are stuck with Trump.

    • #47
  18. Locke On Member
    Locke On
    @LockeOn

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: The overwhelming evidence of Obstruction of Justice makes denying the renomination of Trump morally imperative.

    So overwhelming Mueller failed to indict. I believe James Comey calls that “prosecutorial discretion.”

    Presidents cannot be indicted while they are in office. But they must be held accountable. Censure? Denial of renomination? What is your solution?

    Reelection.

     

    • #48
  19. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Franco (View Comment):
    No worse? How about as good or better than Reagan, and certainly better than the Bushels, Ford, and Nixon.

    What has he done that will not easily be undone by the next Democrat?

    He nominated judges, which is a crapshoot for anyone. We would expect any Republican in office to nominate similar judges. 

    Most of his accomplishments have been executive orders that can be undone by the same. 

    His one great accomplishment has been to push legislators to reduce the corporate income tax (double taxation) by a significant amount. That will take legislation to undo (which probably will happen). 

    He’s a lame duck. Republican legislators gave him nothing. 

    If his legal team successfully breaks Obamacare via SCOTUS, that would be huge. Otherwise, his presidency — like that of any Republican — has been a blip in the long march toward totalitarian government. Any mildly conservative Republican would have done as much. 

    The most historically significant aspects of his first term as President are useless legislators and the continuing degradation of elections (the Mueller-media strategy). Perhaps disintegration of the GOP and conservative alliances will also prove a lasting consequence, but there were cracks long before Trump.

    • #49
  20. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    He nominated judges, which is a crapshoot for anyone. We would expect any Republican in office to nominate similar judges.

    I would expect Cruz to nominate similar judges, but I frankly would not expect most of the Republicans in office to do so. 

     

    • #50
  21. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Richard Nixon who resigned before being impeached by the entire House and being convicted by the Senate.

    Do we know for certain that he would have been impeached and convicted? That’s a sincere question. I was only 6 or so when Watergate happened and definitely wasn’t paying any attention to politics then. Nor have I done a lot of research on the subject since then.

    So the question is an honest one: how certain was it that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted had he chosen to ride the situation out? Did he resign because he was certain Congress would remove him from office, or did he resign simply because he felt it would be best for the country if he did – that fighting to stay would cause severe damage to the public trust and he didn’t want to do that?

    • #51
  22. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Stad (View Comment):
    I believe a lot of Democrat voters don’t realize what they have voted into office . . .

    Definitely.

    • #52
  23. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    No worse? How about as good or better than Reagan, and certainly better than the Bushels, Ford, and Nixon.

    What has he done that will not easily be undone by the next Democrat?

    He nominated judges, which is a crapshoot for anyone. We would expect any Republican in office to nominate similar judges.

    Most of his accomplishments have been executive orders that can be undone by the same.

    His one great accomplishment has been to push legislators to reduce the corporate income tax (double taxation) by a significant amount. That will take legislation to undo (which probably will happen).

    He’s a lame duck. Republican legislators gave him nothing.

    If his legal team successfully breaks Obamacare via SCOTUS, that would be huge. Otherwise, his presidency — like that of any Republican — has been a blip in the long march toward totalitarian government. Any mildly conservative Republican would have done as much.

    The most historically significant aspects of his first term as President are useless legislators and the continuing degradation of elections (the Mueller-media strategy). Perhaps disintegration of the GOP and conservative alliances will also prove a lasting consequence, but there were cracks long before Trump.

    He brought 5 million new jobs and presided over historic employment levels. Wages have gone up for middle and low income earners for the first time in decades. He renegotiated trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and Korea, with important negotiations with China underway, the only result possible is improvement. He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem-something promised by every Presidential candidate since Reagan, but somehow, not delivered. Defeated ISIS by allowing our military to use different rules of engagement.

    Ended the Iran deal. Is making NATO countries pay their promised amounts. Withdrew for the ridiculous Paris climate change accords. Stopped Norma from threatening neighbors and facilities a detente between N and S Koreas. 

    Forced the media out of their closet. Forced phony conservatives and phony Republicans to chose their true sides and show their true colors. Highlighted the ongoing border crisis which will ultimately have positive effects no matter what. Has and will bring more Blacks and Hispanics into the fold – more than any previous Republican. Has passed much needed prison reform.

    Given people who voted Republican tangible things so they can once again trust their vote means something.

    And there’s things he didn’t do or hasn’t done, like engage us in more foreign adventures.

    There’s even more…

    All this in an extremely hostile media and legal/intelligence environment. 

    Imagine what could be done with allies in the House and Senate.

    • #53
  24. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Franco (View Comment):
    Imagine what could be done with allies in the House and Senate.

    That’s what saddens me. The GOP so often seems to squander any advantage.

    • #54
  25. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Richard Nixon who resigned before being impeached by the entire House and being convicted by the Senate.

    Do we know for certain that he would have been impeached and convicted? That’s a sincere question. I was only 6 or so when Watergate happened and definitely wasn’t paying any attention to politics then. Nor have I done a lot of research on the subject since then.

    So the question is an honest one: how certain was it that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted had he chosen to ride the situation out? Did he resign because he was certain Congress would remove him from office, or did he resign simply because he felt it would be best for the country if he did – that fighting to stay would cause severe damage to the public trust and he didn’t want to do that?

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ll also pull the citation):

    Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon soon after. Rhodes told Nixon that he faced certain impeachment in the House. Scott and Goldwater told the president that he had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate, far fewer than the 34 needed to avoid removal from office.

    (Citation: Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1. p. 978)

    • #55
  26. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Franco (View Comment):
    He brought 5 million new jobs and presided over historic employment levels. Wages have gone up for middle and low income earners for the first time in decades. He renegotiated trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and Korea, with important negotiations with China underway, the only result possible is improvement.

    Deregulation by fiat and trade deals are significant. They are also temporary. The next president can undo his work.

    Franco (View Comment):
    He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem-something promised by every Presidential candidate since Reagan, but somehow, not delivered. Defeated ISIS by allowing our military to use different rules of engagement.

    I almost mentioned the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. It’s a good gesture, but it won’t affect anything. If we elect another Obama, our diplomacy with Israel will suffer all the same. We still suffer the UN. 

    Good point on the rules of engagement. 

    The Iran Deal — good, but Cruz would have done the same. I don’t see any lasting change with North Korea. Sadly, we have reached a point where many Republicans are wishy-washy on climate/green hysteria. Getting NATO members to pay up is good. 

    Again, I’m not saying he’s a bad president. He has been better than most in some ways. But he’s a blip in history. A decade from now, we will still be hearkening back to Reagan more than Trump.

    • #56
  27. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Richard Nixon who resigned before being impeached by the entire House and being convicted by the Senate.

    Do we know for certain that he would have been impeached and convicted? That’s a sincere question. I was only 6 or so when Watergate happened and definitely wasn’t paying any attention to politics then. Nor have I done a lot of research on the subject since then.

    So the question is an honest one: how certain was it that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted had he chosen to ride the situation out? Did he resign because he was certain Congress would remove him from office, or did he resign simply because he felt it would be best for the country if he did – that fighting to stay would cause severe damage to the public trust and he didn’t want to do that?

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ll also pull the citation):

    Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon soon after. Rhodes told Nixon that he faced certain impeachment in the House. Scott and Goldwater told the president that he had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate, far fewer than the 34 needed to avoid removal from office.

    (Citation: Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1. p. 978)

    Because Nixon had some guilt of the underlying crime.

    President Trump does not.

    • #57
  28. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Columbo (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Richard Nixon who resigned before being impeached by the entire House and being convicted by the Senate.

    Do we know for certain that he would have been impeached and convicted? That’s a sincere question. I was only 6 or so when Watergate happened and definitely wasn’t paying any attention to politics then. Nor have I done a lot of research on the subject since then.

    So the question is an honest one: how certain was it that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted had he chosen to ride the situation out? Did he resign because he was certain Congress would remove him from office, or did he resign simply because he felt it would be best for the country if he did – that fighting to stay would cause severe damage to the public trust and he didn’t want to do that?

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ll also pull the citation):

    Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon soon after. Rhodes told Nixon that he faced certain impeachment in the House. Scott and Goldwater told the president that he had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate, far fewer than the 34 needed to avoid removal from office.

    (Citation: Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1. p. 978)

    Because Nixon had some guilt of the underlying crime.

    President Trump does not.

    Agreed. Merely answering @weeping’s question.

    • #58
  29. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Richard Nixon who resigned before being impeached by the entire House and being convicted by the Senate.

    Do we know for certain that he would have been impeached and convicted? That’s a sincere question. I was only 6 or so when Watergate happened and definitely wasn’t paying any attention to politics then. Nor have I done a lot of research on the subject since then.

    So the question is an honest one: how certain was it that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted had he chosen to ride the situation out? Did he resign because he was certain Congress would remove him from office, or did he resign simply because he felt it would be best for the country if he did – that fighting to stay would cause severe damage to the public trust and he didn’t want to do that?

    From Wikipedia (yes, I know, but I’ll also pull the citation):

    Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon soon after. Rhodes told Nixon that he faced certain impeachment in the House. Scott and Goldwater told the president that he had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate, far fewer than the 34 needed to avoid removal from office.

    (Citation: Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1. p. 978)

    Because Nixon had some guilt of the underlying crime.

    President Trump does not.

    Agreed. Merely answering @weeping’s question.

    Agreed as well. Just adding to the point for the overall conversation.

    • #59
  30. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Deleting and placing my thanks with post #61.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.