Trump is not Nixon there is 0 comparisons

www.cnbc.com...

During Watergate, many Republicans contributed to the investigation of President Richard Nixon and impartially judged his misdeeds. The results were good for the country and good for the Republican Party. Today's Republicans would be well advised to follow their example.

1st Paragraph right off the bat and CNBC is trying to guilt trip them into "Impeaching Trump" lol.

It was a Republican Senator, Howard Baker of Tennessee, who asked the critical question that guided the work of the Senate Watergate Committee: "What did the president know, and when did he know it." Senator Baker began his Committee service as an ally of President Nixon who was skeptical of the allegations against him. But he became one of the most relentless members in questioning the Nixon team and getting to the bottom of the Watergate scandal.

And yet Lindsay Graham and multiple others have asked Obama Admin people was there any Collusion between The Trump team and GOP multiple while those people were under Oath. And all said no evidence exists.

The investigation began more than five months before the release of the "smoking gun" tape that showed the president obstructing justice.

Except in Trumps case the Obama Administration issued at least 2 FEMA requests before Trump took office and since he has took office the Democrats as well as Republicans have 3 Simultaneous Investigations going for the past 9 months+ and the only Smoking Gun on Trumps part is that HE WAS NEVER UNDER INVESTIGATION PERSONALLY and the OTHER "Smoking Gun" was Comey revealing he Leaked Government documents threw a 2nd party to the media in order to get his good buddy Mueller appointed Special Counsel. Who has massive conflicts of interests. Just by being friends.

"The work of the special counsel is not a substitute for an impeachment inquiry. The special counsel investigates criminal acts. The House, which has the sole constitutional authority for impeachment, would consider more broadly any abuses of presidential power that constitute impeachable offense, explicitly criminal or not."

And yet "I Hope" is not Obstruction of Justice. Collusion has been debunked, so now they moved on to finances.

Of course, political calculation also figured into the Republicans response to the Watergate scandal. The Republicans lost 4 of 5 special U.S. House elections in 1974. They lost the seat in Grand Rapids Michigan that appointed vice president Gerald Ford had held for decades.

And yet Democrats lost all 5 this time around.

In April 1974, after the GOP lost another Michigan House seat that the party had controlled since the 1930s, reporters asked respected Republican Senator Charles H. "Chuck" Percy of Illinois whether President Nixon should resign. "Probably so," Percy replied. "It probably would be somewhat advantageous to the Republican Party and the country." Nixon resigned some three and a half months later, on August 8, 1974.

There is no excuses for the Democrats blaming the loss in Georgia to well "It has historically been a Republican seat".

Nixon's resignation was good for the nation. It removed a president who threatened American democracy and the integrity of its governmental institutions. It was also good for the Republican Party. The GOP lost 49 House and four Senate seats in the midterm election of 1974. But their losses were not much greater than the norm for the party of the president in a midterm election. The Republicans came roaring back with big victories in the midterm election of 1978 and with Ronald Reagan's landslide defeat of President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

In Eight Years Barack Obama Has Obliterated the Democrat Party in Record Numbers

In 2009 Democrats held 60 seats in the US Senate. (111th Congress)
In 2009 Democrats held 235 seats in the US House of Representatives. (111th Congress)
Eight years later, under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic Party has been decimated.
In elections last night Democrats are now down to 48 senators, a minority.
Democrats are down to 192 members of Congress.

And Democrats lost the White House.

Republicans today would be well advised to follow the Watergate precedent and vote to authorize an impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump by the House Judiciary Committee. It is in the interest of the nation and the Republican Party to conduct a thorough assessment of the allegations against President Trump no matter where the facts may lead.

Ya sorry but the guilt trip aint working Fake News.

As in 1974, this year's special elections hold a warning for the Republican Party. The Republicans barely held on to overwhelmingly Republican U. S. House seats in in Kansas and Montana. They could well lose the June 20 special election for a Georgia House seat that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price won by 23 percentage points in 2016 and was formerly held by Newt Gingrich. Republicans hold scores of other U.S. House seats in which they are more vulnerable to defeat than in this Georgia district.

Keep dreaming.

As in Watergate, Republicans need to rise to the historical moment and put patriotism above party. If what Trump says is true, that he did nothing wrong as candidate or president, then he and every fellow Republican should welcome an impeachment investigation as the only sure way to dispel the clouds of controversy hanging over the Trump presidency.

Or Democrats could except that they have no message and should stop threatening Democracy and let Trump do the job he was elected for . Trump is not Nixon. Nixon was under investigation Trump was never investigation despite Fake News telling us otherwise. Republicans have won every Special Election since Trump took office. Collusion has been debunked. It should be the Democrats looking into the illegal Wiretapping by Obama and who unmasked General Flynn's name.

To see both of those names in the same title makes me cringe.

a reply to: Xianb

Whatever it takes to make people forget that the left got caught tampering with how our democracy was carried out.

Say Russia enough, and by the time it blows over no one will talk about how Bernie could have beat Trump, but got cheated by his own party.

At what point can the victims of attacks start to sue news outlets for influencing weak minded people into acting?

I mean, they charged the suicide girl.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Xianb

Whatever it takes to make people forget that the left got caught tampering with how our democracy was carried out.

Say Russia enough, and by the time it blows over no one will talk about how Bernie could have beat Trump, but got cheated by his own party.

Agreed. I think its fair to say the 2016 election was not a mainstream race. If Dems realized that Bernie might be President.

a reply to: Xianb


Trump has been lying to Americans about the elections being hacked and its "fake news" Well no, Comey says its true, and so does The ex DHS Chief. It is NOT fake news. So you are okay with trump lying about OUR democratic process being hacked by Russia, and trump telling us it was not. Oh okay. Yeah your right. He is just a great president. (eye roll)

Maybe the even MORE important question is WHY dosent he want us to know. Think about that!!!

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Xianb


Trump has been lying to Americans about the elections being hacked and its "fake news" Well no, Comey says its true, and so does The ex DHS Chief. It is NOT fake news. So you are okay with trump lying about OUR democratic process being hacked by Russia, and trump telling us it was not. Oh okay. Yeah your right. He is just a great president. (eye roll)

Care to source an article where it says the Russians hacked the election and had an effect on the results??

I could care less if Russia hacked the DNC....private organizations get hacked all the time. It's not anyone's fault but the DNC that they didn't listen to DHS and FBI when they were told about the hacking.

a reply to: Xianb

And yet "I Hope" is not Obstruction of Justice.

I think that depends on whether or not the special counsel can find evidence of his intent when he said "I hope" Comey would let it go and if he fired Comey because he did not stop the investigation.

This is an excerpt from Nixon's articles of impeachment.

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

If they can prove Trump's intent, there would be a similarity between the two in that they endeavored to interfere with the conduct of official investigations.

a reply to: Xianb

You're right. He's way worse.

I've even caught myself fantasizing about how good of a president Ronald Reagan was.

You know things are going bad when that happens.

I remember the bumper stickers after the famous "Saturday Night Massacre" where he (Nixon) fired the Special Prosecutor et al:

NIXON IS a COX SACKER

Let's just leave it at that.

ganjoa

ps. There was also a poem: "I am an American, I proud to sam I'm free, I just wish I were a little dog...
and Nixon was a tree.

originally posted by: carewemust
To see both of those names in the same title makes me cringe.

Truth does hurt.

a reply to: Xianb

Translation: The Democrats lack the ability and the evidence to impeach Trump, so they're trying to cajole a Republican into being the one left with egg all over their face when the impeachment proceedings yield the exact same fruit as the various committee investigations have: zero pieces of fruit.

This is getting pretty sad now.

a reply to: Xianb

The only comparison to be made is that both Trump and Nixon had issues with the MSM.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xianb

And yet "I Hope" is not Obstruction of Justice.

I think that depends on whether or not the special counsel can find evidence of his intent when he said "I hope" Comey would let it go and if he fired Comey because he did not stop the investigation.

This is an excerpt from Nixon's articles of impeachment.

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

If they can prove Trump's intent, there would be a similarity between the two in that they endeavored to interfere with the conduct of official investigations.

Theres that word again "intent". I guess they need to find a Reasonable Prosecutor am I right?

Nixon had no chance. Both House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Democrats were out for blood. Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned. Big difference.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
At what point can the victims of attacks start to sue news outlets for influencing weak minded people into acting?

I mean, they charged the suicide girl.

There using the Jedi Mind Trick.

a reply to: GuidedKill


YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, why is the president telling us it was NOT hacked. It was, it does not matter if it changed the election results. You don't think there is a reason trump tells you its FAKE NEWS when indeed it was not??????

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: GuidedKill


YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, why is the president telling us it was NOT hacked. It was, it does not matter if it changed the election results. You don't think there is a reason trump tells you its FAKE NEWS when indeed it was not??????

Please cite which polling districts were hacked by Russia, and in which States. Also, please cite (using sources) the methodology used against each specific district in each state. As each State and district would not be identical it's important to note which methodologies worked against which systems ; And which ones did not.