Richard Nixon's Impeachment: What Charges Were Heedless?

While Richard Nixon was never actually impeached and resigned before a vote could be taken, the charges against him were serious and potentially devastating. His departure, marked by the infamous 18-minute gap, left the American public and political system shaken and in the immediate aftermath of one of the most significant political scandals in U.S. history. The question of what charges Nixon faced and the implications of this historical event are crucial to understanding the complexities of American politics and the law.

Impeachment and the House of Representatives

The process of impeachment against Richard Nixon never came to fruition in the House, as he resigned before a vote could be held. However, the Articles of Impeachment were prepared and approved by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives, listing several charges including obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were drawn up to formally charge him with crimes and misdemeanors believed to have been committed during his presidency. These charges touched on a variety of allegations ranging from illegal activities during the Watergate scandal to breaches of constitutional and legal obligations.

Resignation and Controversial Leave

Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974, came as a result of a Senate Select Committee's recommendation. When Nixon was told by Howard Baker, a member of the committee, that he would be convicted of obstruction of justice if he stood for the impeachment trial, he decided to resign. This decision was influenced by events like the Supreme Court's order to surrender the Oval Office tapes, which revealed the 18-minute gap, an erased segment that forensic examination suggested was meticulously altered by the president.

The contents of these tapes, when released, were heavily peppered with "expletive deleted," indicating a cover-up of incriminating details. The judge in the case, John Sirica, rejected a plea deal that would have allowed the burglars involved in the Watergate scandal to receive minimal punishment, insisting on more severe penalties if they did not cooperate fully.

Cover-Up and Legal Consequences

The obstruction of justice charge was one of the most significant in the arsenal of allegations against Nixon. Transcripts of the tapes revealed Nixon authorizing payments to the burglars to keep them silent, a move that further delegitimized his presidency. This undermines the trust in the executive branch and the administration's integrity, reflecting a severe breach of the democratic norms and legal standards.

Nixon was not the only one facing legal consequences. The cover-up started to unravel, and the tapes provided damning evidence. The judge rejected a plea deal that would have minimized the sentencing for the burglars, indicating that the integrity of the American legal system was at stake.

Key Source Documents and Personal Accounts

For a detailed account of the events, one reliable source is the book by Judge John Sirica titled 'To Set the Record Straight,' published in April 1980. This book provides an inside look into the legal and political battles that marked the Nixon administration and offers a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the process.

Judge Sirica's account is invaluable, as it provides insights into the legal and political processes of the time. His firsthand experience and knowledge shed light on the complexities and the human elements involved in such a historical event. The book offers a critical perspective on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and offers reflections on the constitutional and ethical principles at stake.

Conclusion

The charges against Richard Nixon, while not resulting in his impeachment, were serious and far-reaching. The events of the Watergate scandal and the subsequent cover-up left a lasting impact on American politics and the American public's trust in the government. The legal and moral implications of these charges continue to inform discussions about rule of law, transparency in government, and the responsibilities of those in high office.