It was ridiculously political (shocker) and a lot more complicated, but the simple explanation is that the case against Nixon was so solid that he preemptively resigned to save face and get a pardon.
So not a true impeachment but effectively the only successful one.
It still didn’t result in a conviction and removal from office whereas there have been dozens of successful no confidence votes that forced new elections
Other countries exist with that mechanism and have had successful impeachments.
It’s more that one side of the fence has so many more times that’s it’s been able to happen. How many leaders in impeachable countries have their been vs countries with a non-confidence vote instead?
It was ridiculously political (shocker) and a lot more complicated, but the simple explanation is that the case against Nixon was so solid that he preemptively resigned to save face and get a pardon.
So not a true impeachment but effectively the only successful one.
It still didn’t result in a conviction and removal from office whereas there have been dozens of successful no confidence votes that forced new elections
*in the USA
Other countries exist with that mechanism and have had successful impeachments.
It’s more that one side of the fence has so many more times that’s it’s been able to happen. How many leaders in impeachable countries have their been vs countries with a non-confidence vote instead?
Could just be different scales here.
It was legal (adjacent) action that resulted in removing a criminal from office.
The rest is just nitpicking.