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.
I have spoken of Watergate in other postings, if one wishes to read my memories of that time.
I will note that Mr. Nixon was an able attorney, and that he had some able attorney's on his side. Much of Watergate involved the courts. For instance, Mr. Nixon vigorously claimed in the courts that he, as President, had a wide scope of 'executive privilege'* and so could not be forced to turn over the tapes and other correspondence in his possession. Many legal scholars back then thought that he could win on this issue.
Alas, in the case United States v. Nixon, the President lost. The Court rule 8-0 (one justice, that had worked for Nixon's administration in the attorney generals office, recused himself). The Court's decision was rendered on July 24, 1974, the tapes were turned over on August 5th (including the 'smoking gun' tape) and Nixon resigned on the 7th.
That decision, of course, still stands. One may well hear of Mr. Trump claiming executive privilege in the coming months (for instance, if he has recordings). He will lose on that issue.
Watergate unfolded slowly (the break-in was in June 1972), and was already news by the time of the election (but Nixon won re-election handily). The investigation heated up in 1973, after Nixon appointed a special investigator (or prosecutor) whom, of course, he subsequently fired when he realized that said special investigator was intent on investigating HIM.
One BIG difference between now and then: in our present culture it appears that everyone has a smart phone that is capable of recording audio. Look at the news story about Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ryan. They thought they were speaking (and joking, as I believe) in private. Yet, someone had their phone on, seemingly.
Mr. Trump may well be busy erasing tapes (if he has them) as we speak. But I bet that every single person that works in the White House has those smart phones, and that at least some of them regularly, and perhaps secretly, record conversations (either as a keepsake, or to defend themselves down the line).
In Watergate times, no such device existed. Mr. Nixon had a tape system in his office, of course, that automatically turned on anytime anyone spoke. The tapes revealed that, at times, Mr. Nixon would realize that his conversation with some person may have been too revealing (speculating on some illegal course of action), and he would then walk over to where the microphone was located, and say, distinctly and loudly, "But, that would be wrong".
It became quite a catchphrase for comedians and such. "I would like to kill my ex-wife..........But That Would be Wrong!", or such would be said to great laughter.
Recall that one of the Nixon tapes had a suspicious 18-minute gap, which Mr. Nixon's secretary, Ms. Woods, claimed was accidentally erased by her, as she was listening and transcribing the tapes. She even gave a demonstration to the press of how it was 'accidently' done: the way she was stretching her limbs and torso would have impressed a contortionist (the machine was on one table, she at another, and it was funny to see). She was loyal to Mr. Nixon.
Like Watergate, this investigation will proceed slowly and deliberately. Mr. Mueller will not be rushed. The Watergate proceedings (in front of the committees) were long and often deadly dull, with the occasional nugget (like when one of Nixon's aides noted, really incidentally, that the President recorded all conversations).
Such will be the case here.
*Nixon claimed, according to the pleadings: "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances".
How verbose. You are right----any "investigations" will take as long as Democrats want them to.
Outcome not as important as damage done to President Trump
For those who were around during Watergate, how does this Russia probe compare?
This is much, much worse.
Nixon was, in essence, a crook. Both chambers of Congress had Democratic majorities, and Congressional Republicans had not yet lost their collective minds. Compared to today, it was much easier for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work together against a common foe - Nixon.
Trump is, in essence, a traitor. Both chambers of Congress have Republican majorities, and some of the more influential Republicans are just now regaining their senses. There are some very good Republican Senators and Representatives, but in both chambers, the me-first, party-second, country-last GOPers outweigh the good public servants. Fortunately, there is a sufficient number of Republicans in Congress who will ultimately put country ahead of personal ambition, and do the right thing when it comes to Trump.
I never thought I'd seen anything that would be close to Watergate. To see something worse than Watergate -- both in the deeds committed and the very slow reaction of Congress -- is really disheartening.
While I agree with most of what you say, I don't think we have enough information at this point to say this is worse. If the allegations turn out to be true, then, yes, it will be FAR worse.
Nixon was smart enough to know resigning was the best option for him. I think Trump's ego just might cause him to challenge the Justice Department to try to remove him, and that would be a serious mistake. If Trump worked with the Russians to skew the election, if he told Comey to back off the Flynn investigation, if he's sharing classified information with the Russians, then Trump could our first president to be imprisoned.
Watergate not involve collusion with a Foreign Government for personal gain (Presidency). Yes, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy (multiple people involved), but it did not rise to the level of Treason which Russian involvement would entail.
Whether this is an accurate assessment remains to be seen.
Trump's M.O. is to bluster about how he's not going to bail, how he is going to fight to the bitter end.
Then he bails.
However, this situation is different as the investigations won't end when he resigns.
Which means that not only will his operations lose the business that depends on Trump being president with favors to bestow, but knowing that the financials will be examined closely rules out a fair number of investors.
More B.S.
So far Trump has not acted outside of the Constitution on anything. Can you name one thing he has done that is illegal or outside of his authority as President? Go ...
Nixon had been in office for years before anyone took the Watergate break-in seriously.
As I recall, there was more concern about the Vietnam war, Mai Lai massacre, Kent State murders... than about whether the Republicans burgled the Democrats for campaign secrets.
More similarities here between Watergate and what the Democrats have done by their illegal surveillance of the Trump Campaign.
Donald Trump hasn't broken any laws, and has not acted in any manner that could be even closely compared to Watergate.
I admire your faith. I don't know if Trump broke any laws yet...we shall see
BUT
I agree if Trump did break laws -- he doesn't know that he did because he has no clue to the laws that govern his position, how the government is run, etc.
He truly believed you just walk in and set the rules. That's what his frustration with previous administrations stems from.
He truly believed you don't have to be accountable to the system, to laws.
He truly thought it was going to be another CEO position where he sits at the head of the table and just barks out orders and everyone jumps at his command.
More similarities here between Watergate and what the Democrats have done by their illegal surveillance of the Trump Campaign.
Since Flynn new he was under investigation and the transistion team knew enough to tell Flynn he was acting stupidly in his actions maybe your so-called "illegal" surveillance was actually legally done.
Back then we expected the press to be fair and get multiple sources before publishing. Today they all have a side and will go with the first source that supports their side in the attempted coup by press release.
Seriously? That's Democrat 'spin.' You make it sound as though Congress is doing nothing. If that's true, it's YOUR PARTY's obstruction that is the problem.
As to your title question, there is no comparison between this and Watergate. This isn't Watergate!
Umm, Susan Collins is a Republican.
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.
Pure garbage!
