[mullingitover]

> No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal"

I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were this far out there. There's not much point in debating you if we're not on the same page about the realities of his actions.

[hga]

One thing I should add is that Nixon wasn't "a criminal" by the standards to which Presidents were held to going back to at least FDR.

If you can't see the danger of changing the rules of the game and throwing people into jail based on that....

[mullingitover]

I guess I can't really feel sympathy for anyone involved if the government's default operating mode was 'naked corruption' and then suddenly efforts were made to clean it up. If the upper branches of the government are just known by insiders to be wholly criminal, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing under the weight of its own criminality is collusion, then so be it. Let the whole thing come crashing down, let both sides get the knives out on each other, and let the public witness this and hopefully learn that they must scrutinize their elected officials far more carefully.

Also, I don't care what standards Presidents were held to. Presidents are human beings, which are all equal before the law. He was just as criminal as anyone else who engages in conspiracy to obstruct justice. If other Presidents successfully evaded prosecution for their crimes, that's too bad. However, it's no excuse to let another one slide.

[hga]

But, you see, it wasn't a case that "suddenly efforts were made to clean it up". A very large number of Democrats considered Nixon to be fundamentally illegitimate---in fact, as far as I can tell that's true for all modern era Republican Presidents except for Ike, who was an obvious special case, not even declaring himself and his family to be Republicans before 1951---and they wanted to get him at any cost.

We can also see that this goes only one way, although that's hindered by the big discontinuity of Ford and Carter being believed to be "clean" (although maybe I'm not remembering efforts to criminalize his short Administration, but a quick skim of Wikipedia didn't bring up anything) and Republicans then holding the office for 12 years.

"Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic. The idea that the public will have an opportunity to elect officials after this is very questionable. Some people claim a desire to pursue justice no matter what the cost is idealistic, I'm with those who consider it idiotic. There is a reason our Founders created an unquestionable right for a President to pardon people, and this is one of the examples.

[mullingitover]

> "Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic.

No, I'm referring to the collusion between the two extant political parties. Political parties receive no charter in the constitution and the founders of the country generally held them in low regard, and yet they've established a stranglehold on the country. Their reign is what I'm referring to when I say "Let the whole thing come crashing down."

Edit: George Washington said it better than I can in his farewell address[1].

[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Addres...

[hga]

Especially given that the two political parties include 2/3rds of the population, there's no way your preferred conflict would be limited. That's not even counting what hostile countries and non-state actors would do to us while we're tearing apart the nation. What do you see as the end state after the two parties "get the knives out on each other"?

Given that this is how people always organize themselves in the post-monarchical period (significant counter examples welcome, but of course one party states don't count), it's fatuous to imagine that we'd see anything in the vague direction of the Founder's idealism (well, I'm sure some realized they'd develop, as they did rather quickly, especially after Washington left the national stage (heh, which I drafted before seeing your addition)). After those knives spill enough blood, it's doubtful there'd even be a reconciliation.

[mullingitover]

> Especially given that the two political parties include 2/3rds of the population, there's no way your preferred conflict would be limited.

I think you wildly overestimate how passionately partisan the citizenry of this country really is. The majority of the population isn't even invested enough in their chosen party to make their way into a voting booth every couple of years to fill out a few checkboxes. Do you actually believe that these resigned, apathetic people are going to take up arms against each other simply because their leaders were revealed to be criminals?