Nixon, notcom and ben: the why and how behind political impeachments

Political impeachments are some of the most exciting and entertaining events for the politically engaged public, and this is no different behind the scenes. In this article, we will discuss why impeachments happen, how they start, what kinds of impeachments (informally) take place, and how the accused can either end up with the likes o fNixon and Notcom, or with Judge Ben.

First, let's talk about why impeachments happen. No matter the position, there are two possible causes of impeachment: political impeachments, and impeachments of conduct. Impeachments based on conduct are fairly simple; impeachments of conduct are when someone is impeached due to their conduct in the position they are getting impeached from, usually citing wrongdoing or inactivity. This is the type of impeachment that Judge Ben has faced several times. So, let's talk about how he survived. It is important to keep in mind one major flaw in impeachments of conduct: they need to actually be right. Although not immune from political games, grandstanding, and showmanship, impeachments of conduct are larglet decided on wether or not the accused's actions in their position warrant impeachment. These impeachments tend to be launch as a result of small rumblings, which catch the attention of one or more senators, who then call a hearing and launch impeachment proceedings. During this initial process, we see our first opportunity to quash impeachment via organized complaint. If, with the aid of a loud and angry general public, the accused can bombard the senators who called for impeachment and/or lobby the senator successfully, then an impeachment can officially end before procedings begin. This almost never happens due to the severe amount of pressure required. Then, the impeachment hearing will begin, where the accused is recognized, and any prior investigations and initial complaints will be voiced. At this point, it is wise to retain political representation. This political representative will essentially act as an attorney, but more aggressive and with less rules governing them. The goal, at this stage, should be to get a senator to file a motion to table the impeachment proceedings. If no senators motion to table the hearing, or if the motion to table the hearing fails, then you are officially in trouble, and it is time to start counting. Wether or not the accused is a political figure, or even enjoys politics at all, it is necessary for either the accusesed or their political representative to start counting votes. Impeachment of conduct counting should generally be based on the expertise of each senator, and those senators' sway over their caucus. Let's say a judge is getting impeached, and there is a senator who was a former AG in the majority caucus. The accused should endeavor to sway that senator so that when the majority caucus seeks guidance on how to interpret the content of the impeachment proceedings, said interpretations will lean in your favor. Although not necessarily political in nature, impeachments of conduct are still governed by the same political alliances and coalitions, so it is best to keep an accurate count of who votes with who (see: Controversy without contention: How counting saved a nomination).

Political impeachments are often an entirely different animal (it should be noted that political impeachents can be caused by genuienly poor conduct if it is severe or pervasive enough). These impeachments do not happen quietly. For political impeachments, it is often known well beforehand that an impeachment is going to take place, and it is often a simple endeavor to determine who lies where. While all official procedures remain the same, the poltical rules do not. While governed by political alliances and coalitions, political impeachments have the power to break these bonds in the preservation of self interest. It is not unlikely that party members will abandon their ally if they are put under impeachment proceedings as a result of consistent or severe scandal, especially when the public is in favor of impeachment. As opposed to impeachments of conduct, political impeachments are rarely a question of wether or not the accused deserves to be impeached, or rather which caucus can whip a supermajority through public mobbing and political pressure. For the accused, it is absolutely necessary that their base supporters in the senate (members of their party or a party coalitions/caucusing with them) remain confident that they will not suffer political repurcussions for voting in the favor of the accused. It is necessary, therefor, for the prosecutor of the impeachment (the senator(s) who caused the proceedings to take place) to show the opposite: that any senators who vote in favor of the accused will politically suffer for doing so. In short, political impeachments revolve around how to maximize and minimize political suffering. In the case of Richard Nixon, the Watergate Scandal was the catalyst to his impeachment, specifically the cover-up (it's always the cover-up). Using this scandal, and the rampant media attention it attracted, House Democrats immediately took their first swing, dragging anyone and everyone they could into congressional hearings. As time went on, and more people testified with more information coming out, it became clear to the GOP that the public had already decided their verdict: guilty on all counts. It was at this point that Nixon decided to save himself and the nation from the bloodbath that is an official political impeachment, and resigned from office.  This story is almost line for line to that of the NotCom impeachment. As a result of repeated scandals and alleged misconduct, initially fringe and reactionary Senator Lucas called for impeachment. Subsequently, the prosecution gained the anti-NotCom bloc, which then provided the numbers needed to sway the opinion of the general population and even some swing votes in the senate. At the final count, the NotCom impeachment sat at 4-4 in favor and against (this is based off the counting of Bill 'Rocky' Moor); the senators in favor of impeachment would likely have been Pigeon, WhiteThommy, Senator Lucas, and Senator Joey. Senator Pigeon would likely have supported impeachment due to his recent experience in the SDIOA, placing his framing of the proceedings squarely into compliance with the law and ethical conduct, which was the main argument of the impeachment's prosecution. Senator WhiteThommy was likely to support impeachment due to their recent conflict over foreign affairs, which often resulted in heated an personal conflict on general conduct and demeanor, and Senator WhiteThommy was a staunch member of the anti-NotCom bloc, which was seen throughout proceedings. Senator Lucas would have supported impeachment since he was the main opposition to the NotCom administration, said opposition was taking his public approval higher and higher by the day, and simply due to the fact that he was the impeachment's prosecutor. Finally, Senator Joey was likely a swing vote before impeachment proceedings began. However, as a freshman senator looking for a name and popularity, and as a politician who was "anti-establishment" a populist in their campaign ads, was bound to support the impeachment of any controversial figure due to the heir of "crusading for the people" that it would provide them. In opposition to the impeachment would likely have been Senator Tech, Senator Zepz, Senator Kelvin, and Senator Name. All four of these senators are members of the LDP/SPQR caucus, and all stood to benefit from a defeat of the anti-NotCom bloc. NotCom's presidency brought a lot of victories not only to the administration, but to its caucus. There was no reason for NotCom's bloc in the senator to support impeachment, unless senators with the weakest bonds to the bloc were personally whipped and faced public outcry. The most likely to flip would likely have either been Tech, due to his pragmatism, or Name, due to him relative youth in the bloc, placing ther firmly on the outer ring of the caucusleadership. In the end, to save both herself and the nation from impeachment, NotCom followed in the footsteps of Nixon and resigned the presidency, avoiding a crippled administration that a tied impeachment vote (at best) would bring.