Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that is a blanket statement which does not hold up when one examines the actual details. President Nixon was trying to rig the 1972 election with his Plumber's sabotage and spying. In order to keep those crimes from coming to light, he then headed up a cover up scheme which included paying bribe money in exchange for silence.
President Clinton, by contrast, owed all of his troubles to trying to conceal an extra marital affair from the public so that his wife would not find out. You are unable to detect a difference between some guy trying to lie to his wife about his sexual fidelity, and attempting to rig an election? Why exactly was Clinton's marriage any of our business in the first place? Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinsky had zero impact on the citizens of the US, it was a private matter. The same cannot be said of Nixon and Watergate which involved breaking into a pyschiatrist's office to steal private records and use them to smear a political opponent. You are unable to detect a difference between breaking & entering & theft....and some guy trying to lie his way out of trouble with his wife?
If you claim that you cannot find a difference, then I would suggest that you are wearing blinders, that your devotion to Nixon has forced you to try and white wash everything nasty that he did and pretend that it was not serious.
how do you "rig" the 1972 Presidential election of 50 states by breaking in the Watergate office of the DNC? lol......Mcgovern lost the 1972 election by a landslide because he was a bad candidate and it had NOTHING to do with the Watergate break-in.
You actually think Hillary Clinton didn't know about Bill's affairs? you think Bill committed perjury and obstruction of justice in which he lost his license to practice law to conceal from his wife his affair? LMAO!Hillary Clinton knew about his affairs since they were dating in college and didn't care. For the Clintons, it's about power. You have to be naive to think Bill Clinton committed crimes that to conceal his affairs from Hillary.
There you go again with your selective morality. JFK, RFK and LBJ authorizing the FBI to wiretapped MLK and civil rights leaders to find dirt and use that against them is not criminal? using the FBI and IRS to go after political opponents and protesters have been done by Presidents.
you really should look really deep at the history of the FBI under Hoover and the CIA with the authorization of Presidents and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that Nixon's crimes were unique and exclusive to his Presidency.
how do you "rig" the 1972 Presidential election of 50 states by breaking in the Watergate office of the DNC? lol......Mcgovern lost the 1972 election by a landslide because he was a bad candidate and it had NOTHING to do with the Watergate break-in.
That Senator McGovern lost is hardly proof that the election was on the level. The people trying to rig it should have recognized that it was not necessary. And of course breaking into the Watergate was just one among multiple crimes committed in President Nixon's name or on his behalf. It is not surprising that you prefer pretending that the Watergate break in was the entire thing. If Nixon was clean, why was he so desperate to sustain the cover-up? Because he knew that all sorts of criminal acts would come tumbling into the public spotlight if any aspect of the cover-up failed. It did fail, and the crimes were exposed. I guess you weren't reading the newspapers.
Quote:
You actually think Hillary Clinton didn't know about Bill's affairs?
She apparently did not know about Monica Lewinsky until it became public knowledge. You have some evidence which suggests otherwise? Please present it....and that's evidence, not your ungrounded speculation or some "lol..everyone knows it" blunderbuss assertion.
Quote:
There you go again with your selective morality.
You apparently were not reading my earlier response to you when I explained that all morality is selective, it is us who decide what constitutes moral behavior and what does not. Could you please provide us with an example of any morality which exists apart from human beings? Which hasn't been selected by humans as moral or immoral? And when you can't, then perhaps you will have learned to stop using that phrase. It isn't going to win you any arguments because it doesn't actually mean anything.
Quote:
you really should look really deep at the history of the FBI under Hoover and the CIA with the authorization of Presidents and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that Nixon's crimes were unique and exclusive to his Presidency.
This attempt to defend Nixon with relativity arguments is another misfire on your part. If I stole your car, would you then find my saying "Lot and lots of people have stolen cars and gotten away with it", as any sort of factor which lessens my guilt...or your anger about having your car stolen?
This thread is about Nixon, it isn't about what other presidents did or failed to do. It is understandable that when it comes to discussing Nixon's crimes, you rapidly try and change the subject to another president.
talk directly to me when you talk about me. I'm not upset or ranting. Just making a point just like everybody does here.
"Historians" have determined that Watergate is a greater scandal? LOL. You don't have a mind of your own? you go with the flow and what the elites decide what is a greater scandal? again, I stand by my original post that Nixon's "crimes" were no different than other Presidents. This is not politics or conspiracy. That's just a fact.
First, within the rules set by CDF, I'll post to whom I want and what I want. If that works for you, great. Otherwise, cry me a river.
Second, of course I have a mind of my own. Its why I think your attempts to compare a bunch of things in the past with the Watergate Scandal don't fly. Nor, is what Bill Clinton was charged with on par with what Nixon was charged with.
Clinton had an affair with a younger woman and than lied about it during a deposition in a private civil case brought by Paula Jones. Its not the equivalent of conspiring and authorizing your aides to pay money to someone to lie to a federal grand jury investigating a criminal case. The one action concerns private parties. A criminal case filed by the government concerns the entire public. Lastly, no one ever claimed Clinton paid anyone money to silence them.
Again, you ignore one of the most basic facts. Watergate is not speculation. Crimes by JFK or LBJ have not been proven through wiretapping and eyewitness testimony. Watergate was proven through Nixon's own recordings and through the trials and guilty pleas of his subordinates.
If you want to have an opinion that "Nixon's crimes were no different than any other President" than have at it. Just understand that the majority of historians reject that view.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-09-2019 at 02:21 PM..
how do you "rig" the 1972 Presidential election of 50 states by breaking in the Watergate office of the DNC? lol......Mcgovern lost the 1972 election by a landslide because he was a bad candidate and it had NOTHING to do with the Watergate break-in.
You actually think Hillary Clinton didn't know about Bill's affairs? you think Bill committed perjury and obstruction of justice in which he lost his license to practice law to conceal from his wife his affair? LMAO!Hillary Clinton knew about his affairs since they were dating in college and didn't care. For the Clintons, it's about power. You have to be naive to think Bill Clinton committed crimes that to conceal his affairs from Hillary.
There you go again with your selective morality. JFK, RFK and LBJ authorizing the FBI to wiretapped MLK and civil rights leaders to find dirt and use that against them is not criminal? using the FBI and IRS to go after political opponents and protesters have been done by Presidents.
you really should look really deep at the history of the FBI under Hoover and the CIA with the authorization of Presidents and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that Nixon's crimes were unique and exclusive to his Presidency.
The break-in at the Watergate took place in June. At that time, the party conventions had not even happened. Therefore, McGovern wasn't even the Democratic nominee yet. The reason the burglars broke into the DNC headquarters was to steal information that could be used to the advantage of CREEP. Indictments didn't come out until after both parties held their conventions. It is impossible to tell what affects the break-ins had on the election.
Moderator Note: This thread is about a book. A book about Nixon.
That Senator McGovern lost is hardly proof that the election was on the level. The people trying to rig it should have recognized that it was not necessary. And of course breaking into the Watergate was just one among multiple crimes committed in President Nixon's name or on his behalf. It is not surprising that you prefer pretending that the Watergate break in was the entire thing. If Nixon was clean, why was he so desperate to sustain the cover-up? Because he knew that all sorts of criminal acts would come tumbling into the public spotlight if any aspect of the cover-up failed. It did fail, and the crimes were exposed. I guess you weren't reading the newspapers
She apparently did not know about Monica Lewinsky until it became public knowledge. You have some evidence which suggests otherwise? Please present it....and that's evidence, not your ungrounded speculation or some "lol..everyone knows it" blunderbuss assertion.
You apparently were not reading my earlier response to you when I explained that all morality is selective, it is us who decide what constitutes moral behavior and what does not. Could you please provide us with an example of any morality which exists apart from human beings? Which hasn't been selected by humans as moral or immoral? And when you can't, then perhaps you will have learned to stop using that phrase. It isn't going to win you any arguments because it doesn't actually mean anything.
This attempt to defend Nixon with relativity arguments is another misfire on your part. If I stole your car, would you then find my saying "Lot and lots of people have stolen cars and gotten away with it", as any sort of factor which lessens my guilt...or your anger about having your car stolen?
This thread is about Nixon, it isn't about what other presidents did or failed to do. It is understandable that when it comes to discussing Nixon's crimes, you rapidly try and change the subject to another president.
Nixon was only accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in after the fact and lying to the American public (which is not a crime although many at the time tried to portray it has one). Several of his aides were convicted of lying under oath and obstruction of justice. G. Gordon was not apart of the Nixon White House. Nixon never gave any testimony under oath. There was never any evidence uncovered that Nixon had any knowledge of or hand in the planning or authorizing any aspect of the break-in. Nixon resigned because his aids convinced him that he would be impeached and the Senate would try him. The impeachment and extremely likely Senate trial were the possible in large part due to of a majority of Republican support for both.
Whatever you want to think of Nixon and Watergate it is important to keep things in perspective especially in light of the conduct of some Presidents since. The break-in of the Democratic National campaign HQ falls squarely in the category of campaign dirty tricks. Something that was extremely common in all campaigns. Considering that Nixon had almost zero chance of losing that election there was little benefit to Nixon. The primary reason for the break-in was to get info. On Daniel Ellsberg and his criminal act of leaking the Pentagon Papers.
No national secrets were passed to our enemies, no one was killed, people around the President lied under oath and committed obstruction of justice, namely by paying off members of the break-in team.
Nixon was only accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in after the fact and lying to the American public (which is not a crime although many at the time tried to portray it has one). Several of his aides were convicted of lying under oath and obstruction of justice. G. Gordon was not apart of the Nixon White House. Nixon never gave any testimony under oath. There was never any evidence uncovered that Nixon had any knowledge of or hand in the planning or authorizing any aspect of the break-in. Nixon resigned because his aids convinced him that he would be impeached and the Senate would try him. The impeachment and extremely likely Senate trial were the possible in large part due to of a majority of Republican support for both.
Whatever you want to think of Nixon and Watergate it is important to keep things in perspective especially in light of the conduct of some Presidents since. The break-in of the Democratic National campaign HQ falls squarely in the category of campaign dirty tricks. Something that was extremely common in all campaigns. Considering that Nixon had almost zero chance of losing that election there was little benefit to Nixon. The primary reason for the break-in was to get info. On Daniel Ellsberg and his criminal act of leaking the Pentagon Papers.
No national secrets were passed to our enemies, no one was killed, people around the President lied under oath and committed obstruction of justice, namely by paying off members of the break-in team.
Your Bill Clinton spin is laughable.
Huh? The primary reason for the Watergate break in was to get information on Daniel Ellsberg? Where did you get this bit of nonsense from? You don't burglarize and plant bugs in the DNC to get information about Daniel Ellsburg. That was the purpose of the separate and unrelated burglary of Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office. The planting of bugs in the DNC offices was to gather information about the democratic presidential campaign that would assist Nixon in winning reelection.
At the time the burglary was authorized, McGovern was not the party's nominee. A little trip down memory lane might be helpful. Hubert Humphrey had come within 7/10's of a percentage point of winning the popular vote in the previous election in 1968. That was the type of election that CREEP (committee to reelect the President) was preparing for. They were pulling out all stops to win. Donald Segretti and others put together a series of dirty tricks to try and sway the election towards the republicans.
FTR, Segretti served about five months in prison for forging campaign literature. One of his tactics that CREEP authorized was preparing forged campaign literature. He would prepare documents that appeared to come from friends or associates of democrat candidates that made some malicious accusation against a major democrat candidate. You should look up some of this. Segretti falsely alleged that Henry "Scoop" Jackson had an illegitimate child and that Hubert Humphrey was a sexual deviant. And than there was the famous "Canuck Letter' which was falsely attributed to Ed Muskie.
Really....you can do better than to make a baseless allegation that the DNC Headquarters were bugged to get information about Daniel Ellsburg. Your comments about Nixon and Watergate don't fit very well with the facts.
Nixon was only accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in after the fact and lying to the American public
Gosh, do you think he was innocent? Was he framed?
The man was at the head of a criminal enterprise, all that was done was done in his name. It is exactly the sort of thing one might expect from a man who kept a private "enemies list."
We can go on and on like this with you trying to make a turd into a rose no matter how stinky. If Nixon had been convicted of raping a woman you would be writing that it was simply "assault with a friendly weapon."
Huh? The primary reason for the Watergate break in was to get information on Daniel Ellsberg? Where did you get this bit of nonsense from? You don't burglarize and plant bugs in the DNC to get information about Daniel Ellsburg. That was the purpose of the separate and unrelated burglary of Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office. The planting of bugs in the DNC offices was to gather information about the democratic presidential campaign that would assist Nixon in winning reelection.
At the time the burglary was authorized, McGovern was not the party's nominee. A little trip down memory lane might be helpful. Hubert Humphrey had come within 7/10's of a percentage point of winning the popular vote in the previous election in 1968. That was the type of election that CREEP (committee to reelect the President) was preparing for. They were pulling out all stops to win. Donald Segretti and others put together a series of dirty tricks to try and sway the election towards the republicans.
Really....you can do better than this.
yes, it's call campaign dirty tricks......one more time, Nixon was only accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in after the fact and lying to the American public (which is not a crime although many at the time tried to portray it has one). Several of his aides were convicted of lying under oath and obstruction of justice. G. Gordon was not apart of the Nixon White House. Nixon never gave any testimony under oath. There was never any evidence uncovered that Nixon had any knowledge of or hand in the planning or authorizing any aspect of the break-in.
No national secrets were passed to our enemies, no one was killed, people around the President lied under oath and committed obstruction of justice, namely by paying off members of the break-in team.
What does the election of 1968 have to do with 1972? Nixon had good approval numbers in 1972 and all the polls match with Mcgovern dating back in May 1972 had Nixon beating him by double digits (20 points plus) , it stayed that way all the way until November.
Gosh, do you think he was innocent? Was he framed?
The man was at the head of a criminal enterprise, all that was done was done in his name. It is exactly the sort of thing one might expect from a man who kept a private "enemies list."
We can go on and on like this with you trying to make a turd into a rose no matter how stinky. If Nixon had been convicted of raping a woman you would be writing that it was simply "assault with a friendly weapon."
yes, the President is the head of a criminal enterprise call the USA. You just discovered this now? you act like you discovered this under Nixon.
I didn't know you make your enemies list public..... lol
I get what Hellion is trying to say, but to be clear, there were 3 different break ins, Ellsberg's shrink office was the first one in Sept 3, 1971, and there were 2 more at the Watergate DNC, the first one on May 26 1972 while Nixon was in Russia signing Salt1 treaty, and the second one on June 17. The first one yielded no information because they tapped the secretary's phone, instead of Larry O'brien, the intended target. It has been said by Hunt they were after any possible connection between the democrats and North Vietnam, concerning campaign contribution or any possible ties the dems may have had with the communists. Really, I think they were just fishing for any good tidbit they might find.
One of the biggest problems with Watergate was the very short window Nixon had to react to it. After the burglars were nabbed on Friday night, they only had a couple days that weekend to decide what to do, and Nixon was returning from China that weekend and not there right away after it happened. They didn't have much time to think it over. Liddy wanted AG Richard Kleindienst to immediately spring the burglars from jail, but Kleindienst knew this would mainline back to the president and cause him a great amount of bad publicity. Nixon met with his counsel, John Dean, and the coverup plans had begun. Once they started down that road, they couldn't go back. I think Chuck Colson should have been in charge of Liddy and Hunt from the beginning, because he wasn't as much of a pushover as John Dean, Magruder or Erlichman. Concerning Colson, he was a tough guy and probably would be far less likely to give them any leeway or circum to any intimidation, and Liddy was a very intimidating guy. That was the problem, pressure from the bottom, pressure from the top, and the guys in the middle having to sort it out.
Hellion, I think you should watch Danial Schorr's 1994 Watergate special, it has 5 parts and will help familiarize you with all the players, and has interviews of just about everyone involved thru the whole process. Schorr was on Nixon's enemy list, so keep that in mind about some of the conclusions drawn and his narration pieces, but the timeline and interviews make it valuable. Most of those guys are dead now, to have such candid interviews of them makes this kinda special. However, Daniel Schorr was kind of a wiesel, he used to work for CBS and while there, he did lots of Dan Rather trouble maker type stuff and they eventually fired him. I believe I read something about him stealing a story from Leslie Stahl that CBS had disapproved of and put a hold on, and he stole it from her files and aired it on another network or something. He was a turd but this is a pretty good documentary and probably the only quality work this guy ever did.
Discovery Channel Watergate Special 1994 Part 1 (there are 5 parts condensed into these 3 videos)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
