Would Richard Nixon be a 'Crook' by Today's Standards?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Really the guy that used the secret service to spy on the guy he wAs runnng againts for re election was a good guy, another fail thread by mr M.

You seem to be a very angry person and I am sorry all of my threads are 'fails' to you. You could stop reading them to save yourself aggravation or maybe contribute to them in a more positive way than simply calling my thread a 'fail'. Either way I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Let's look at the facts:

The Watergate scandal began with an actual crime. A group of people were caught breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Complex. On their persons were found White House phone numbers. And several of the burglars were ex-CIA.

Later tapes revealed that Nixon offered hush money to the buglers. (A crime.) And asked the FBI to lay off, which is obstruction of justice. (Another crime.)

There are more crimes. But that was the smoking gun.

That's Watergate as concise as one can make it. And it would be just as big a scandal today. And Nixon would be just as much a crook.

It's pretty cut and dried. Though without the tapes, Nixon probably would have served out his term.

Bush and Obama may have committed greater crimes. But it has never been so cut and dried. And additionally the public and congress has bought the standard "national security" argument.

When Ehrlichman attempted to use this to defend the break-in to Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office, Sen. Ervin belittled the position, leading to laughter and derision.

The video of this testimony used to be very easy to find on the Internet. And it's easy to see why. It's a very effective argument against what has become accepted US policy. And you'll be shocked to see Ehrlichman using language that is identical to what you have heard in recent years from the Bush and Obama administrations almost verbatim.

So I think people get away with more today. And the public is more willing to accept behavior that was seen as criminal in the Watergate era. But this is more at the periphery.

In other words, I think people today would think some of the activities of the plumbers was justified. They would still find the obstruction of justice and hush money to be beyond the pale. And if there was taped evidence today, the president would be just as vilified.

a reply to: Metallicus

Not angry, cause we need more threads with fake outrage from you, nixon used the secret service to spy on the guy who had no chance to beat him for re election, but yea obama is a nazy did i get it right lol.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you serious? You DO know that Nixon had a personal hitlist that he used AND acted on throughout his Presidency right?

The current guy in the oval office has one of those too.

Hell between his gestapo agencies at the ,EPA,DOJ,IRS targeting journalists, and everyone who isn't on board with his agenda.

Prove it.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I still think what he did in office pales in comparison to the Clintons and Obama, but you always offer a unique perspective to thing for which I am grateful.

Comparing him to the Clintons or Obama doesn't alleviate him of his wrong doings. We can PROVE that Nixon did these things. As for Obama and the Clintons, most of those allegations are just conspiracy theories with not much tangible evidence supporting the wrong doing. I can't say for sure if they actually did or didn't do those things, but we CAN say that Nixon did these things because we have evidence of it.

In fact, Nixon's activities should make any conspiracy theorist drool. He did everything that CTers are always scared of the government doing.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Really the guy that used the secret service to spy on the guy he wAs runnng againts for re election was a good guy, another fail thread by mr M.

It's a fair enough question. With balance huh, using the "conservative side" as an example-since the site is so hell bent on being partisan politics. Imagine if Kennedy was used as an example instead.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

DOJ Calls Fox News Reporter James Rosen 'Co-Conspirator' In Leak Case; Journalists Outraged


Irs Scandal


The Real Reason Obama's EPA Targets Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas

The current administration makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They do make conspiracy theorists drool.

Also the climate created by Watergate led to the Church Committee which gave us the most reliable information about the massive overreaches and illegal activities engaged in by the intelligence community.

Between that committee and Snowden the amount of reliable, credible information of this type has been spotty at best.

Not at all. Nixon was the first "modern" president.

Nixon viewed the press as part of 'the enemy'. The press hated Nixon and that's back when newspapers had some real power and there were 3 national broadcast TV networks.

Nixon hated the press, the press hated Nixon.

The press (short of Fox) has never been able to elbow each other out of the way fast or hard enough to get to osculate the posteriors of the Clintons and Obama.

The relationship between the press and Nixon vs Clintons & Obama is the big difference.

IMO.

a reply to: neo96

How many of these things is Obama DIRECTLY responsible for? One of your links names a Fox News reporter as a co-conspirator, not Obama. Just because these controversies exist doesn't automatically mean that Obama is responsible for it. He MAY be indirectly responsible for it in that it happened under his watch, but you still have to prove he DIRECTLY authorized these things.

Nixon looks like little Beaver compared to the Clintons....I mean compared to them Nixon is an Ivory Snow baby.

originally posted by: yeahright
Nixon viewed the press as part of 'the enemy'. The press hated Nixon and that's back when newspapers had some real power and there were 3 national broadcast TV networks.

Nixon hated the press, the press hated Nixon.

The press (short of Fox) has never been able to elbow each other out of the way fast or hard enough to get to osculate the posteriors of the Clintons and Obama.

The relationship between the press and Nixon vs Clintons & Obama is the big difference.

IMO.

Let's not rewrite history. Nixon did see parts of the press as an enemy. But the vast majority of the press did not cover the Watergate scandal. Woodward and Bernstein were investigating it. The FBI was investigating it. And slowly, very slowly other news outlets became involved.

Remember, the break-in occurred before the election. And yet Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. For a long time the vast majority of the press echoed the White House in thinking of Watergate as just a "third rate burglary attempt".

a reply to: Moresby

I don't have to rewrite history, I lived it. You couldn't pick up a magazine or newspaper or turn on a television without seeing Nixon being raked over the coals by the press and all forms of popular culture. It had nothing specific to do with Watergate up to that point. There was an animosity between Nixon and the press going back to his VP years under Eisenhower.

If either the Clintons or Obama had a similar relationship with the press, you'd be seeing much different coverage.

Of course the press as it existed then and as it exists today are two very different things.

Bush to a lesser degree, experienced the same thing. Is it a secret to anyone that the mainstream press skews left?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How many of these things is Obama DIRECTLY responsible for?

ALL of it when they go straight to the WHITE House for their meetings.

Those are not just some 'misguided' fellows as some WANT to think.

That IS the party politic.

a reply to: yeahright

Yeah, that's why he won 49 states. Nixon had mixed coverage. It only became universally bad after the tapes and the Saturday Night Massacre.

Obama has had very good coverage. Bill Clinton's has been mixed. Hillary Clinton's has been more to the bad side. Especially this cycle. And the NYT never liked her.

Trump isn't taken seriously by the press. And, as a result, his coverage has been fairly soft. He's never asked tough questions. He's never questioned substantively about his business career.

The crimes, scandals, conspiracies to conceal information from the public (speaking of now avowed, documented conspiracies mind you, not conspiracy theories as yet unconfirmed) and ethical lapses (by my standards at least) of presidents from both sides of the isle - or at minimum, appointed members of their administrations - have been so replete with wrongdoing, for so long, that any attempt at comparing them to determine relative "badness" is, for me at least, splitting hairs and an exercise in futility.

But that's just my personal opinion.

Peace.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Metallicus

Not angry, cause we need more threads with fake outrage from you, nixon used the secret service to spy on the guy who had no chance to beat him for re election, but yea obama is a nazy did i get it right lol.

Where in this thread have I acted 'outraged'? Holy smokes...wasn't the Nixon Presidency far enough in the past we can ask to revisit his legacy using today's standards without getting all bent out of shape?

a reply to: Metallicus
I think he was a crook du jour...

I guess the real question is would todays scumbags be getting away with all their shenanigans if things were like they were back in the 1970`s?
heck no they wouldn`t, it seems that congress and the American people had morals and the balls to impeach a president back then.
today it seems that nobody ever commits a crime, they just exercise poor judgement,or they mis-spoke, or they simple "forgot", they say they are sorry and all is forgiven,they never see the inside of a courtroom to answer for their crimes.