Do you think Nixon was innocent of wrong doing?

[LetterRip]

For those of you who feel that the current investigation is a 'witch hunt' and that Trump did 'nothing wrong' - do you also believe that Nixon did nothing wrong?

[Crunch]

For those of you who feel that the current investigation is a 'witch hunt' and that Trump did 'nothing wrong' - do you also believe that Hitler did nothing wrong?

[TheDeamon]

For those of you who feel that the current investigation is a 'witch hunt' and that Trump did 'nothing wrong' - do you also believe that Nixon did nothing wrong?

Nixon obviously did many things wrong, some of them were illegal even then, they have him on tape to support that position.

Now directly comparing Trump with Tricky Dick is another matter entirely. Trump is in the Keystone Cops League compared to Nixon.

[TheDeamon]

Now on the broader picture in regards to Trump: I'm pretty sure that if enough digging happens, they're going to find any number of "ethically questionable" issues surrounding Trump. Those discoveries are already numerous, and there is no reason to expect there won't be more found. I'm sure even more digging may manage to turn up legal violations which are entirely in the realm of "technical violations" and subject to significant interpretation when it comes to his past business dealings. But that has little bearing on the Presidency itself.

In this case, it reeks of the Democrats doing to Trump what the Republicans did to the Clintons in the 1990's(Whitewater). If the Democrats really want to go down that road, that's their prerogative, but I doubt the outcome is going to be different for them today vs what the Republicans had 20 years ago.

What I'm really expecting to happen, as the Democrats seem poised to get their hands on most the material the Mueller investigation acquired, is for the "embarrassing leaks" to start happening as people get "outed" as having had business dealings with Trump in the past. The Democrats have made it quite clear in the past they have no mercy for ANY Trump associate. They're going to out these people, so that they can be properly scorned, much like the CA Proposition 8 backers being leaked during the Obama years.

I am going to enjoy the blowback that happens to the Democrats when their operatives get their chance to follow through on those plans.

[Crunch]

Unlike Nixon, Trump has a high degree of certainty he won’t ever be convicted in the senate. While anything can happen, the odds of the senate going along with this sham are very, very low.

But, does everyone know what the rules are in a senate impeachment trial? They’re whatever McConnell says they are. He can work with Trump, get a plan. As you guys like to point out, this is a political procedure, not a legal one. Trump will get to launch his own investigations, complete with subpoena power and grand jury referrals.

Cocaine Mitch can unleash the kraken and all the dirty little secrets can come out. Trump won’t hesitate to do it, he’ll go scorched earth. It’ll be epic.

[TheDrake]

I remember my Mother defending Nixon.

It wasn't that bad.
Everyone does what he did.
Think of all the good things he did in office.

She was trumpian four decades before it got trendy.

[rightleft22]

Unlike Nixon, Trump has a high degree of certainty he won’t ever be convicted in the senate. While anything can happen, the odds of the senate going along with this sham are very, very low.

But, does everyone know what the rules are in a senate impeachment trial? They’re whatever McConnell says they are. He can work with Trump, get a plan. As you guys like to point out, this is a political procedure, not a legal one. Trump will get to launch his own investigations, complete with subpoena power and grand jury referrals.

Cocaine Mitch can unleash the kraken and all the dirty little secrets can come out. Trump won’t hesitate to do it, he’ll go scorched earth. It’ll be epic.

Is a high degree of certainty that he won't ever be convicted mean he's never guilty.

By today's 'rules' Nixon would not have resigned. I wonder if were seeing the end of the beginning of the neutering of the House and Senate as being branch's of the Government. Which I wonder is what some are working for. Would definitely make government smaller. (or bigger depending on perspective)

[Crunch]

Guilty of what? What law was violated?

[Seriati]

For those of you who feel that the current investigation is a 'witch hunt' and that Trump did 'nothing wrong' - do you also believe that Nixon did nothing wrong?

Nixon was wrong.  But the better analogy to Nixon spying on a campaign is Obama.  Obama's spying on Trump made Nixon's look like amateur hour. 

[Seriati]

By today's 'rules' Nixon would not have resigned. I wonder if were seeing the end of the beginning of the neutering of the House and Senate as being branch's of the Government. Which I wonder is what some are working for. Would definitely make government smaller. (or bigger depending on perspective)

By today's rules, if Nixon were a Democrat, the media would be declaring that the break in was a proper exercise of the inspection powers of a fire marshal and that any problems with the process are "nothing to see" or the result of illegal misuse by Republican's the powers of the FBI.

If Nixon were a Republican, he'd not only be guilty, he'd be the second coming of Lord Voldemort, and nothing in his administration would have been considered a success (or if it was favorable it would be characterized as in spite of his efforts).

[TheDrake]

It was never proven that Nixon had anything to do with spying. He was guilty of covering it up and obstructing justice. He was driven out of office, in part, by an anonymous whistleblower whose identity remained secret for decades.

The Obama spying trope is tiresome. Carter Page wasn't even a part of the Trump campaign when he was surveilled. People who worked on the campaign had their conversations with foreign nationals monitored. By definition, that wouldn't be spying on 'the campaign', since they couldn't get contributions from the Russians, right? I'm not sure how people can claim that Trump had nothing worth investigating, but that the weak sauce supporting spygate is supposed to be a smoking gun.

It is a far cry from breaking into DNC headquarters.

[NobleHunter]

By today's rules, if Nixon were a Democrat, the media would be declaring that the break in was a proper exercise of the inspection powers of a fire marshal and that any problems with the process are "nothing to see" or the result of illegal misuse by Republican's the powers of the FBI.

If Nixon were a Republican, he'd not only be guilty, he'd be the second coming of Lord Voldemort, and nothing in his administration would have been considered a success (or if it was favorable it would be characterized as in spite of his efforts).

I enjoy the complete lack of awareness that this sounds exactly like Trump supporters except with the parties reversed.

[Wayward Son]

Guilty of what? What law was violated?

Doesn't need to be a "law," Crunch.  High crimes and misdemeanors, remember?  Using a public office for personal gain (even re-election) would be considered a "high crime."

There may also be obstructing justice (which is a crime).  We'll have to see what the other charges are.

[rightleft22]

Guilty of what? What law was violated?

Didn't say he was Guilty or any laws were violated.

You stated: Is a high degree of certainty that he (Trump) won't ever be convicted.
which was not a statement that referenced guilt only that Trump would never be convicted, which to me begged the question.

Are you implying that if Trump were guilty of something, that he wouldn't be guilty because he won't be convicted?
Or is this just another form of the question. Is there anything Trump could do that would cause you stop supporting him. The answer being NO

Nixon was wrong.  But the better analogy to Nixon spying on a campaign is Obama.  Obama's spying on Trump made Nixon's look like amateur hour.

Interesting: My understanding is that Obama was made aware of possible Russian interference and was investigating. With in that investigation Trumps campaign came up. Obama made the call to keep any information out of the public because he didn't want such a investigation to influence the election.



 

[Crunch]

So “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever you need it to mean. That’s gonna be another standard you likely come to regret.

[Wayward Son]

Why don't you look up what it means before making disparaging remarks, Crunch?  You're just showing your ignorance with stuff like that. 

[TheDrake]

Funny, Crunch, I figured you were an original intent kind of guy. This is where it comes from:

When the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the English-speaking world was riveted by the commencement of impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings, governor general of Bengal, on just such grounds. Few if any of the charges against Hastings were indictable crimes, but that was immaterial to Edmund Burke, the principal parliamentary prosecutor of Hastings. He said the charges “were crimes, not against forms, but against those eternal laws of justice, which are our rule and our birthright: his offenses are not in formal, technical language, but in reality, in substance and effect, High Crimes and High Misdemeanors.”

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’[/quote]

Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

[TheDeamon]

"Violation of a public trust" does not mean now what it meant back then. You know, in the era of Ben Franklin being the Postmaster General for the USPS and using post offices to setup printing presses owned by Ben Franklin which he used to publish newspapers in those towns to further his own business interests, not the public interest.

[Crunch]

Yeah, it means anything you want. That’s what you’re going for, it’s what I said.

[rightleft22]

The car go where the eyes go and were all creating what we fear.

Hell of alot of shadow projection going on in these "debates"

[TheDrake]

I guess it was naive for me to think that crunch could ever acknowledge being wrong in the slightest.

[LetterRip]

I guess it was naive for me to think that crunch could ever acknowledge being wrong in the slightest.

Is Crunch really Trump?  Makes so much sense

[TheDrake]

"Violation of a public trust" does not mean now what it meant back then. You know, in the era of Ben Franklin being the Postmaster General for the USPS and using post offices to setup printing presses owned by Ben Franklin which he used to publish newspapers in those towns to further his own business interests, not the public interest.

Everything I can find suggests that Ben Franklin left the printing business in 1749.

[TheDeamon]

"Violation of a public trust" does not mean now what it meant back then. You know, in the era of Ben Franklin being the Postmaster General for the USPS and using post offices to setup printing presses owned by Ben Franklin which he used to publish newspapers in those towns to further his own business interests, not the public interest.

Everything I can find suggests that Ben Franklin left the printing business in 1749.

From what I'm reading, it probably happened, if it did, during his time as Postmaster General for the Brits. All I remember is a historian making the claim on a program about the Founding Fathers put together but The History Channel before they went whole hog on unsubstantiated speculative nonsense like Ancient Aliens.

[Wayward Son]

Yeah, it means anything you want. That’s what you’re going for, it’s what I said.

Regardless of how squishy the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, it is certainly not limited only to actual, chargeable crimes, as you seemed to imply.

[Crunch]

Nope, it’s not. Means anything you want it to mean. Let’s keep that in mind next time republicans take the house with a Democrat president in office. Like the “nuclear option”, it’s gonna be awesome.

[NobleHunter]

How well did that work out for Republicans last time?

[Crunch]

How well did that work out for Republicans last time?

6 weeks ago, NYT:

This week, the Senate passed a milestone in confirming the 150th Federal Judge of Mr. Trump’s Administration to a lifetime appointment, far outstripping Barack Obama’s pace and fulfilling pledges by Mr. Trump and Mr. O’Connell to remake the Federal Judiciary....

And , of course, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. So I’d say it’s working fantastically. Truly surpassing all expectations and beyond even what I dared to dream. If Trump gets another term, it will work out even better.

Harry Reid and the Democrats gave Republicans and all of America a gift that will last for generations.

Now that we can confirm that impeachment for winning the election is acceptable, we’re really gonna remake America.