Against Nixon a case _had_ been initiated; the House of Representatives had voted a bill of impeachment, listing specific charges, which is legally equivalent to the filing of an indictment with a court by a district attorney or special prosecutor.
Nixon resigned before the Senate could exercise its Constitutionally prescribed duty to sit as a court to try the charges.
Correction: The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The House itself didn't vote on the articles. Hence, no impeachment. Hence, no indictment.
So, the prosecutor had typed it up and, unlike a regular indictment, published it...but had not yet filed it with the court. Mike Mansfield said the Senate was preparing to try it. So, the court had acknowledged the existence of the indictment everybody in the US knew was coming down, and its intent to try it.
So, formally, not yet a case, but still, the whole nation knew it was about to go forward.
Congress couldn't have been too aggressive in its proceedings against Nixon. That was the practical reality of the time. A significant fraction of the electorate had elected Nixon in a landslide and still supported him. And, though J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972, the FBI was still a formidable blackmail machine, with a lot of dirt on key Congressmen.
Not so different from today.
But with one critical difference: if Obama preemptively pardons Hillary, Trump could simply name
an Obama critic, maybe Joe Arpaio, to a post which gives him national security authority to compel the State of Hawaii to hand over the birth certificate. At that point Obama faces firing-squad espionage charges.
So, nope, there will be no preemptive pardon for Hillary.
Here's another fascinating fact which may influence Obama's thinking: if the Democrats lose just one more state legislature, they will lose the power to block the Republicans from passing any ol' Constitutional amendment they please.
Edited by
carefulwisher
on Wed 11/23/16 09:52 PM
Meanwhile, back in this universe . . .
