As you have often done before, your ignorance is proving my point. Nixon resigned rather than face an impeachment vote by the House.  He likely would have been impeached but he left before the vote was taken.  He was not indicted nor could he have been indicted for obstruction of justice because he could have / would have fired all the prosecutors involved.

Hmm... ignorance you say?  Did you read my comment?  I said he resigned for LESS... duh!

With the full and uncontested  Powers of Pardon available to the Presidency, it is impossible to convict the president of obstruction which is why we have impeachment clauses. The president is the chief law-enforcement officer. He can direct the actions of anyone subordinate to him which, by definition, is everyone in the Justice Department.

Yeah, but too bad for your boy that Article II doesn't protect criminal behavior...  No worries web - one way or another, we're all going to see the filthy underside of tweety...

But you can't have a President running around breaking laws and doing whatever he wishes.  The founding fathers gave the Presidency King-like powers but only up to a certain point. This was a major dividing line between what had been done in the past and what this Republic was supposed to stand for. It's one of the reasons why George Washington is one of the greatest Presidents because he refused the Kingship powers some offered him after his terms.

Honestly, am I the only one whose heard of The Federalist Papers, had a constitutional law class or read history? Are all you leftist educated on MTV, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert?