Watergate: If it happened today...
- Thread starter Goergs
- Start date
Yes, it would be the scandal today that it was in the 70s. Unlike all the phony scandals drummed up by the Republicans these days, Watergate featured real crimes at the highest levels of a presidential administration.
Phony scandals? Spoken like a true partisan hack.
I wouldn't even compare Watergate to Arms for Hostages or Iran/Contra.
Watergate was as criminal as it gets and let's not forget Ford pardoned Nixon. Here is some history:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0908.html
Without that pardon, Nixon could well have, likely would have been, the first President in our History to face prison. Compare that to the biggest scandal we've had since, Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinski during a hearing regarding Jennifer Flowers. They aren't even on the same scale.
And a reminder, the Lewinski stuff included clear wrong doings on each side. Linda Tripp had visited Kenneth Starr's office, not Jennifer Flower's lawyers. Somehow that info was illegally leaked to those attorney's and without prior warning of information given to Clinton's counsel, Clinton was essentially entrapped.
That's how I recall it, I invite credible information if I've missed something.
But, so, no Watergate would not have been less than a blip on the radar. Although in today's ridiculously stupid partisan atmosphere I suppose one side would pretend it was, and the other would scream so loud no President would have dared to grant a pardon.
A pardon which was probably for the best considering our relationship then with the rest of the world.
Watergate was as criminal as it gets and let's not forget Ford pardoned Nixon. Here is some history:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0908.html
Without that pardon, Nixon could well have, likely would have been, the first President in our History to face prison. Compare that to the biggest scandal we've had since, Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinski during a hearing regarding Jennifer Flowers. They aren't even on the same scale.
And a reminder, the Lewinski stuff included clear wrong doings on each side. Linda Tripp had visited Kenneth Starr's office, not Jennifer Flower's lawyers. Somehow that info was illegally leaked to those attorney's and without prior warning of information given to Clinton's counsel, Clinton was essentially entrapped.
That's how I recall it, I invite credible information if I've missed something.
But, so, no Watergate would not have been less than a blip on the radar. Although in today's ridiculously stupid partisan atmosphere I suppose one side would pretend it was, and the other would scream so loud no President would have dared to grant a pardon.
A pardon which was probably for the best considering our relationship then with the rest of the world.
When someone sees all the crap going on and calls them phony you know that person has an inability to see the truth through a non partisan lens
Dems would rally around Obama or Clinton and protect them for their crimes. There would be no Howard Baker from the Dems
Those aren't lenses, they are blinders and many on the right and left are wearing them.
It was only a "blip" when it first broke...it got "juicy" once a path to the Oval Office was uncovered...and it got criminal when Nixon obstructed justice.
Last night I had a thought...Hilary better be careful with how she deals with her "e-mail" thingy...If she starts to cover-up (a greatly OVER USED phrase in American politics since Watergate), then may the Lord have mercy on her soul. No one is above the law....if it is ever determined she actually broke the law.
It would not surprise me, if it appears needed. Perhaps we will get a list of pardons as long as some of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_President_of_the_United_States#Gerald_Ford
Last edited:
First hooper, it has to be determined IF there has been a crime. Then, it has to be determined if she is guilty. This whole "secret" and "top secret" hoopla may just be nothing more than that. Then a gain, she might have done something illegal. However, at this point in time her accusers have no more to support them than Hilary and her backers do.
There is no way Nixon would have served prison time. Zero chance of that happening.
If it were Nixon, or some Republican who was disliked as widely and intensely as he was by the media, yes, it would happen again. Ironically, he decided against destroying the tapes....THAT certainly would be different today.
What Obama has done is worse than what Nixon did in terms of his oath of office and potential harm to the country, and -- as he said -- he could probably win a third term.
She's gotten away with it before. No reason to think she won't get away with it again.
Considering your head is in the sand 24/7 what type of shampoo do you use?
Sigh. Please list the things Obama, both real and perceived, that are worse then Watergate.
Good grief. Entraped? His case was clear sexual harassment against an impressionable, disturbed, young woman who he was in a position of power over. He also lied under oath which is why he lost his law license. Not to mention the sexual assaults he committed against several other women, including women who were Dem supporters of his.
Watergate was a 2 bit burglary of a campaign office. This crap when on all the time in presidential campaigns. Nixon didn't authorize or know about the burglary until after the fact. He was an idiot to try and coverup as no one would have cared about this stupid break-in.
Watergate wouldn't have been a big deal today. How do we know? Look at what's going on with Hillary. She's not even trying to hide the coverup, she's flaunting it by wiping the server clean and the media's response is mute. Why aren't the Woodward and Bernstein's of today demanding answers, demanding a special prosecutor, demanding transparency. They would be if Hillary was a Republican, but couldn't give a d*mn since she's a liberal Dem. The same is true of Watergate. If Nixon was a Dem it would never have been as big of a story. No way the NY Times invest all those resources to take down a sitting Dem president, but they hated Nixon.
If you are serious, I really don't know why I should waste the time.
Nixon wanted to use the IRS against political enemies. Obama actually has done it (and continues to do it, as far as we know). That, by itself, puts this administration in a worse position than the Nixon administration was.
If you deny that, there's no point naming anything else.
He might try to pardon her, but she would still have to drop out of the race.
As did every POTUS since the IRS was founded......Watergate isn't about political retribution via the tax code......There is a lot more to Watergate than that. Conspiracy to obstruct, and obstruction of justice by the POTUS were the two biggies......The biggest lie Watergate uncovered was Nixon's "I am not a crook" statement. Nixon was a crook.
What Hillary learned from Nixon was that he sould have destroyed the Tape
That is why she tried to destroy her Server
Nixon = Hillary
That is why she tried to destroy her Server
Nixon = Hillary
The more I read on this subject, not opinions but digging into news articles, I would suggest that Hillary is probably going to be replaced by Bernie Sanders as the Democratic frontrunner. And that is OK by me, I don't care for Hillary Clinton. But the reasons, as information comes out, are not as crystal clear as many think. It's more a feeding frenzy over something that isn't as big as it seems.
What I would like, is a sworn oath from all persons calling for Clinton's head to never ever complain if Sanders get's elected that, "Hillary would have been better."
What I would like, is a sworn oath from all persons calling for Clinton's head to never ever complain if Sanders get's elected that, "Hillary would have been better."
Exactly!
......................................................................................
I think the chance of a pardon from Obama is hovering around zero in any case.
Lois Lerner might luck out though ... since her picture was posted up there somewhere.
Sanders isn't going to win the nomination, even if Hillary drops out of the race tomorrow. The DNC isn't going to let Bernie win. If Hillary is out they will tab Biden to secure the nomination. Bernie has no chance.The more I read on this subject, not opinions but digging into news articles, I would suggest that Hillary is probably going to be replaced by Bernie Sanders as the Democratic frontrunner. And that is OK by me, I don't care for Hillary Clinton. But the reasons, as information comes out, are not as crystal clear as many think. It's more a feeding frenzy over something that isn't as big as it seems.
What I would like, is a sworn oath from all persons calling for Clinton's head to never ever complain if Sanders get's elected that, "Hillary would have been better."
BTW, if you think what she's done is no big deal, then it's obvious you've never dealt with classified material before. It's a very big deal.
Watching the Democrats tear her apart on MSNBC says it all. It's over for her and she knows it deep down. He response to questions yesterday was pathetic.
You are incorrect about the use of the IRS. And we do not yet know the extent of the obstruction this administration has committed, and continues to commit.
Watergate was about one major crime: the coverup.
Nixon's real downfall was his extreme paranoia. It dominated good judgment and ethics/morality in his life.
If it happened today, the break-in would have been all over the Internet and Nixon never would have had the chance to try and cover things up, which means he never would have been put into the position of resigning.
She did break the law. She signed a NDA saying she wouldn't mishandle classified information. She did. She had Top Secret information on an unclassified server. That's a crime. No two ways about it, she committed a crime.
When Bob Woodward says Hillary reminds him of Nixon, then you should all start worrying. After all, he should know.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bob-woodward-hillary-email-richard-nixon/2015/08/17/id/670429/
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server, let alone deleting at least half of the communications on it, was "extraordinary," Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward said Monday, and the omissions remind him of the decisions made by President Richard Nixon back in the 1970s.
"You've got a massive amount of data," Woodward, the veteran "All the President's Men" journalist told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program. "It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes; thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bo...ard-nixon/2015/08/17/id/670429/#ixzz3jGsTCHji
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bob-woodward-hillary-email-richard-nixon/2015/08/17/id/670429/
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server, let alone deleting at least half of the communications on it, was "extraordinary," Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward said Monday, and the omissions remind him of the decisions made by President Richard Nixon back in the 1970s.
"You've got a massive amount of data," Woodward, the veteran "All the President's Men" journalist told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program. "It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes; thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bo...ard-nixon/2015/08/17/id/670429/#ixzz3jGsTCHji
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
