The Impeachment Path: Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon

In the annals of U.S. political history, the decisions of both Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon have left a lasting impact on the American political system. If Spiro Agnew had not resigned in 1973, he would have faced impeachment and conviction for his alleged obstruction of justice. This decision to resign, and the eventual impeachment of Nixon, marked a significant shift in the political climate and the power dynamics of the Republican Party.

Impeachment Prospects for Spiro Agnew

If Spiro Agnew had not resigned in 1973, he would have faced the possibility of impeachment. Agnew faced serious allegations of tax fraud, conflicts of interest, and accepting bribes, which could have led to his removal from office. The House would have impeached him on multiple articles, likely relating to obstruction of justice, and the Senate would have followed, leading to his conviction and removal from office.

Richard Nixon's Impeachment Scenarios

The scenario with Richard Nixon is more complex. The Watergate scandal and subsequent evidence of obstruction of justice placed Nixon under intense pressure. If he had not resigned, the prospects for his impeachment and conviction were very high. The 'Smoking Gun' tape, released on August 5, 1974, provided irrefutable evidence that Nixon had attempted to obstruct justice by pressuring the CIA to interfere with the FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in. This led to a rapid collapse of support in Congress.

The House would have impeached him on three articles, which likely included obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The Senate would have convicted him, making Nixon the first and only U.S. President to be impeached and removed from office. Nixon's decision to resign was a pragmatic one, aimed at minimizing further damage to the country and ensuring that he could retain some degree of dignity and legal protection.

The Impact on the Republican Party

The political atmosphere in the 1970s was much different from today. The Republican Party of that era had more principled members who believed in standing firm on principles. Figures like John Rhodes, Hugh Scott, and Barry Goldwater—all key Republicans—believed strongly in the rule of law and the Constitution. Their stance against Nixon was a reflection of this principle. However, today's Republican Party has largely deviated from this tradition, with many members now more focused on consolidating power and maintaining the status quo.

The collapse of Nixon's support in Congress, especially among Republicans, was dramatic and quick. On August 7, 1974, key Republicans met with Nixon in the Oval Office and told him that his political career was over. If impeached and removed, Nixon would have lost his pension and all his perks as an ex-President. This decision would have had significant implications for the Republican Party, as it would have left the party in a weakened position heading into the midterm elections, which were expected to be extremely challenging for the GOP.

Nixon's resignation, which he announced the next evening, marked a turning point in American history. Despite his numerous political and personal flaws, Nixon recognized that his best course of action was to resign. His decision to step down was a recognition of the overwhelming evidence against him and the political reality that continued resistance was futile.

Conclusion

The scenarios of Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon provide a fascinating glimpse into the political and legal processes that can lead to the impeachment of a U.S. President. Agnew's resignation and Nixon's eventual impeachment highlight the importance of political will and the rule of law in maintaining the integrity of the executive branch. The lessons learned from these events continue to shape the modern political landscape, especially in the realm of impeachment and the role of the legislative branch in holding the executive accountable.