Nixon also stepped down rather than take the nation through an impeachment trial just as he passed on an investigation into ballot stuffing in the 1960 presidential election to save the nation a long drawn out political fight.
I’m told how wrong it is to pursue impeachment proceedings against Obama because he was popularly re-elected (so was Nixon), it would be devestating for the following election cycle (Republicans were box office poison in 1976).
The impeachment of Bill Clinton brought out truths (that he lied under oath, that he paid others to lie under oath for him, that he intimidated witnesses into silence, etc.) that the low information public rejected right up to the moment that President Clinton admitted them on television.
In the absence of such proceedings, the facts will not be on record in a manner to cause the defenders of Obama to admit some basic truths.
Clinton;s biggest coup (or rather, the media’s) was that to this day BJ Clinton is remembered for those things you mention (that he lied under oath, that he paid others to lie under oath for him, that he intimidated witnesses into silence) while overlooking the whole reason Monica Lewinsky was dragged into the spotlight to begin with (via subpoena): He was being sued by Paula Jones (not a girlfriend) for sexual harassment (pulling out his penis and such - which she described), he settled the suit for $890,000 and was disbarred for five years), and people still think the real story was that he was simply unfaithful.
I agree. I hear ya...