trump and Watergate are not alike

[Craig234]

A big difference between them, is that for Watergate, the country had high standards for the president. It was widely held that the president 'could not be a crook'. Not acceptable.

And so, what Watergate was about, was a battle between those who suspected Nixon, more and more, and those who 'trusted' his denials of crimes.

What happened over time, was that more and more evidence was uncovered, and Nixon denied more and more. As the evidence grew, Nixon took more drastic measures; he fired the investigator, and lost his top officials, trying to say 'ok, they made mistakes, but the president did not'.

He hung on as long as he could, and kept enough support to stay in office, until the tapes finally showed how he had been badly lying all along and most of his support ended - almost all the Congress, though about a quarter of the public still supported him.

A difference is that the trump supporting part of the country today Just. Does. Not. Give. A. Crap about his crimes. The standards are no longer the same. trump can do ten times the crimes of Nixon, and get a response from nearly half the country of 'good, that upsets Democrats'.

Democrats are following the same play of investigate, get evidence, prove crimes, and they're wasting their time with these people - and the Republicans in Congress follow the 90% Republican approval rating, not the facts.

So the situation has simply changed. Speaking of tapes, when the Hollywood Access tape came out, the initial reaction was, 'that ends trump's candidacy, he can't be elected' - and then he was elected.

So Democrats might be 'right' on the issue of trump's crimes, but the politics aren't the same. The country cared about the crimes and turned on the president they had recently re-elected by 49 states and left him with historic low approval under 30%.

Today, nearly half the country does not care. At all. And so, the whole situation, the politics, the rule of law, have changed. Guilt of crimes currently does not mean loss of support, forced resignation, accountability. Why that is is an issue for the country to deal with.

 

[Mycroft]

A big difference between them, is that for Watergate, the country had high standards for the president. It was widely held that the president 'could not be a crook'. Not acceptable.

And so, what Watergate was about, was a battle between those who suspected Nixon, more and more, and those who 'trusted' his denials of crimes.

What happened over time, was that more and more evidence was uncovered, and Nixon denied more and more. As the evidence grew, Nixon took more drastic measures; he fired the investigator, and lost his top officials, trying to say 'ok, they made mistakes, but the president did not'.

He hung on as long as he could, and kept enough support to stay in office, until the tapes finally showed how he had been badly lying all along and most of his support ended - almost all the Congress, though about a quarter of the public still supported him.

A difference is that the trump supporting part of the country today Just. Does. Not. Give. A. Crap about his crimes. The standards are no longer the same. trump can do ten times the crimes of Nixon, and get a response from nearly half the country of 'good, that upsets Democrats'.

Democrats are following the same play of investigate, get evidence, prove crimes, and they're wasting their time with these people - and the Republicans in Congress follow the 90% Republican approval rating, not the facts.

So the situation has simply changed. Speaking of tapes, when the Hollywood Access tape came out, the initial reaction was, 'that ends trump's candidacy, he can't be elected' - and then he was elected.

So Democrats might be 'right' on the issue of trump's crimes, but the politics aren't the same. The country cared about the crimes and turned on the president they had recently re-elected by 49 states and left him with historic low approval under 30%.

Today, nearly half the country does not care. At all. And so, the whole situation, the politics, the rule of law, have changed. Guilt of crimes currently does not mean loss of support, forced resignation, accountability. Why that is is an issue for the country to deal with.

We've already had three years of investigations and guess what...they all say there is no crime.

Time for the Dems and Trump haters to give it a rest, don't you think?

 

[Nickyjo]

We've already had three years of investigations and guess what...they all say there is no crime.

Time for the Dems and Trump haters to give it a rest, don't you think?

As I recall, there were several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report. There are crimes. There are no indictments.

 

[Craig234]

As I recall, there were several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report. There are crimes. There are no indictments.

Sometimes, it's hard to sort out the trumpistas lying to deny the clear evidence of trump's crimes, and the trumpistas who just do not care about them. End result is the same.

It's sort of like a kitten chasing a string.

They'll give you some next thing you need to 'prove' and when you do, they ignore and present the next 'thing to prove'.

There's no end to the string chasing or to the resistance to the truth.

A good bit of history on this, was the leadup to the Iraq War. Many Republicans dramatically said they trusted Bush on WMD but if it turned out to be wrong, they promised to never trust a Republican again. How often do you hear them admitting *they* made a mistake now? It's become a non-issue. At some point, they'll just 'move on' from trump when he's out of office, on to the next lies to defend, who cares about trump. Worst case: "But Democrats are worse."

 

[iguanaman]

We've already had three years of investigations and guess what...they all say there is no crime.

Time for the Dems and Trump haters to give it a rest, don't you think?

Trump saying there is no crime is exactly that same as Nixon saing he isn't a "crook".

Over 1000 prosecutors say that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That is a felony.

 

[Nickyjo]

A big difference between them, is that for Watergate, the country had high standards for the president. It was widely held that the president 'could not be a crook'. Not acceptable.

And so, what Watergate was about, was a battle between those who suspected Nixon, more and more, and those who 'trusted' his denials of crimes.

What happened over time, was that more and more evidence was uncovered, and Nixon denied more and more. As the evidence grew, Nixon took more drastic measures; he fired the investigator, and lost his top officials, trying to say 'ok, they made mistakes, but the president did not'.

He hung on as long as he could, and kept enough support to stay in office, until the tapes finally showed how he had been badly lying all along and most of his support ended - almost all the Congress, though about a quarter of the public still supported him.

A difference is that the trump supporting part of the country today Just. Does. Not. Give. A. Crap about his crimes. The standards are no longer the same. trump can do ten times the crimes of Nixon, and get a response from nearly half the country of 'good, that upsets Democrats'.

Democrats are following the same play of investigate, get evidence, prove crimes, and they're wasting their time with these people - and the Republicans in Congress follow the 90% Republican approval rating, not the facts.

So the situation has simply changed. Speaking of tapes, when the Hollywood Access tape came out, the initial reaction was, 'that ends trump's candidacy, he can't be elected' - and then he was elected.

So Democrats might be 'right' on the issue of trump's crimes, but the politics aren't the same. The country cared about the crimes and turned on the president they had recently re-elected by 49 states and left him with historic low approval under 30%.

Today, nearly half the country does not care. At all. And so, the whole situation, the politics, the rule of law, have changed. Guilt of crimes currently does not mean loss of support, forced resignation, accountability. Why that is is an issue for the country to deal with.

Not sure that is the case. In favor of your argument was a George Romney moment from many years ago. His presidential bit ended when he suggested that he had been “brainwashed” in his tour of Vietnam into thinking things were going well. He couldn’t survive that one comment. Trump stands tall with his supporters despite insulting half the country. On the other hand, I don’t believe Trump support from his base will survive the upcoming investigative hearings if they produce evidence of repeated wrongdoing, with news clips of damaging testimony flashed on TV screens night after night. Swinging back in your direction, however, if Hannity and those like him can whitewash the stuff, it might not have an effect in our media-divided country.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump saying there is no crime is exactly that same as Nixon saing he isn't a "crook".

Over 1000 prosecutors say that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That is a felony.

Really? A thousand people think something...therefore it's true?

Trot out the evidence and take him to court. I'm sure those thousand lawyers will be happy to testify.

 

[Mycroft]

As I recall, there were several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report. There are crimes. There are no indictments.

There were several citations of hearsay in the Weissmann report and none of that was enough to get Weissmann to say a crime had been committed.

 

[iguanaman]

Really? A thousand people think something...therefore it's true?

Trot out the evidence and take him to court. I'm sure those thousand lawyers will be happy to testify.

If only that was possible. Presidents can't be indicted or taken to court otherwise he would be. But you and Trump already know that and that is why it is such a lame defense.

 

[iguanaman]

There were several citations of hearsay in the Weissmann report and none of that was enough to get Weissmann to say a crime had been committed.

How many time does Mueller have to say he did not even attempt to even accuse the President of any crime?

 

[Nickyjo]

There were several citations of hearsay in the Weissmann report and none of that was enough to get Weissmann to say a crime had been committed.

Give us a break, from the Lester Holt interview to the order to fire Mueller, there are several instances of wrongdoing described. Of course, one could argue from Fifth Avenue that no president has been treated worse than Trump.

 

[Craig234]

On the other hand, I don’t believe Trump support from his base will survive the upcoming investigative hearings if they produce evidence of repeated wrongdoing, with news clips of damaging testimony flashed on TV screens night after night. Swinging back in your direction, however, if Hannity and those like him can whitewash the stuff, it might not have an effect in our media-divided country.

I wish you were right, but based on what? You saw how Hollywood Access and many crimes clearly proven by the Mueller report had basically NO effect on Republican voters. Why would investigative hearings with more of the same change that? Are you mistakenly just thinking it would happen because the Watergate hearings had an impact?

 

[Craig234]

How many time does Mueller have to say he did not even attempt to even accuse the President of any crime?

How many times does Mueller have to say he was not allowed to answer whether trump committed a crime, but if the evidence showed he hadn't he would have said so, before he presented overwhelming, clear proof of crimes for Congress and later prosecutors to use? Would a thousand DoJ officials spelling it out for out that the evidence clearly showed trump committed crimes be enough for you? No, I see.

 

[Mycroft]

If only that was possible. Presidents can't be indicted or taken to court otherwise he would be. But you and Trump already know that and that is why it is such a lame defense.

That's what Congress is for. What are they waiting for? Impeach him. After all, a thousand lawyers say he committed a crime.

 

[Mycroft]

How many times does Mueller have to say he was not allowed to answer whether trump committed a crime, but if the evidence showed he hadn't he would have said so, before he presented overwhelming, clear proof of crimes for Congress and later prosecutors to use? Would a thousand DoJ officials spelling it out for out that the evidence clearly showed trump committed crimes be enough for you? No, I see.

The mandate did not forbid him concluding that a crime had been committed and doing so is not a criminal charge or indictment.

So yes...if he had the evidence, he could have accused Trump of committing a crime. Instead, he said he could not accuse Trump.

 

[hanger4]

How many times does Mueller have to say he was not allowed to answer whether trump committed a crime, but if the evidence showed he hadn't he would have said so, before he presented overwhelming, clear proof of crimes for Congress and later prosecutors to use? Would a thousand DoJ officials spelling it out for out that the evidence clearly showed trump committed crimes be enough for you? No, I see.

*How many times does Mueller have to say he was not allowed to answer whether trump committed a crime,*

That's ^^^^ BS, Team Mueller could have made a referral, they did not for purely partsian reasons.

 

[Craig234]

*How many times does Mueller have to say he was not allowed to answer whether trump committed a crime,*

That's ^^^^ BS, Team Mueller could have made a referral, they did not for purely partsian reasons.

Where do you get these lies?

Obviously, you have never read the report, where Mueller clearly says that he is following the guideline that he IS NOT ALLOWED to either charge trump or to evaluate whether he committed a crime.

Barr LATER claimed - to further try to lie about Mueller - that he was free to ignore the guideline. But the report clearly says he followed it.

If there was anything partisan - and you have ZERO evidence there was - it was partisan to benefit trump, by not saying he should be charged with these crimes or charging him. Answer the question above: provide a link or source where you get these lies.

 

[hanger4]

Where do you get these lies?

Obviously, you have never read the report, where Mueller clearly says that he is following the guideline that he IS NOT ALLOWED to either charge trump or to evaluate whether he committed a crime.

Barr LATER claimed - to further try to lie about Mueller - that he was free to ignore the guideline. But the report clearly says he followed it.

If there was anything partisan - and you have ZERO evidence there was - it was partisan to benefit trump, by not saying he should be charged with these crimes or charging him. Answer the question above: provide a link or source where you get these lies.

And yet Team Mueller did evaluate whether he committed a crime concerning conspiracy and coordination. Your argument fails.

 

[Craig234]

(Did not answer question)

Answer the question.

 

[hanger4]

Answer the question.

I don't lie. Mueller clearly evaluated whether the Trump Campaign committed a crime concerning conspiracy and coordination, again, your argument fails.

 

[iguanaman]

That's what Congress is for. What are they waiting for? Impeach him. After all, a thousand lawyers say he committed a crime.

As soon as 25 GOP Senators come to their senses and decide to uphold their oaths, the Constitution and the rule of law that is what will happen. It appears that they have chosen partisanship and weakness over country and courage right now.

 

[iguanaman]

And yet Team Mueller did evaluate whether he committed a crime concerning conspiracy and coordination. Your argument fails.

Because the answer did not conflict with DOJ policy. Mueller has said many times he would not accuse a sitting President of ANY crime under any circumstances. His refusal to exonerate is as close as he could get. If he did not feel the President was guilty of obstruction why did he not exonerate him?

 

[eohrnberger]

This was more wishful thinking than legal pragmatism. Mueller likely was unwilling to claim a crime had been committed because he knew he didn’t have a case. Here are the headwinds he was staring at:

• There was no underlying crime or properly predicated investigation to obstruct.
• There may be no precedent for charging obstruction of a counterintelligence investigation.
• The intertwined political motivations and overtones were an unsavory factor.
• It’s difficult to argue that an innocent person can be culpable for resisting efforts to punish.
• Most allegations were based on uncorroborated single witness statements.
• None of the allegations actually impeded or obstructed the work of the special counsel.

Mueller lost much of our trust — and that's a shame, for him and for us | TheHill

No collusion, so no crime to have obstructed, so no obstruction either.
Further, both Comey and Mueller testified before Congress that neither of the investigations were obstructed nor hindered in any way.

No collusion.
No obstruction.

What exactly are the GOP Senators supposed to be 'coming to their senses' about?

Seems to me that they've had their senses all along.

 

[Athanasius68]

A big difference between them, is that for Watergate, the country had high standards for the president. It was widely held that the president 'could not be a crook'. Not acceptable.

And so, what Watergate was about, was a battle between those who suspected Nixon, more and more, and those who 'trusted' his denials of crimes.

What happened over time, was that more and more evidence was uncovered, and Nixon denied more and more. As the evidence grew, Nixon took more drastic measures; he fired the investigator, and lost his top officials, trying to say 'ok, they made mistakes, but the president did not'.

He hung on as long as he could, and kept enough support to stay in office, until the tapes finally showed how he had been badly lying all along and most of his support ended - almost all the Congress, though about a quarter of the public still supported him.

A difference is that the trump supporting part of the country today Just. Does. Not. Give. A. Crap about his crimes. The standards are no longer the same. trump can do ten times the crimes of Nixon, and get a response from nearly half the country of 'good, that upsets Democrats'.

Democrats are following the same play of investigate, get evidence, prove crimes, and they're wasting their time with these people - and the Republicans in Congress follow the 90% Republican approval rating, not the facts.

So the situation has simply changed. Speaking of tapes, when the Hollywood Access tape came out, the initial reaction was, 'that ends trump's candidacy, he can't be elected' - and then he was elected.

So Democrats might be 'right' on the issue of trump's crimes, but the politics aren't the same. The country cared about the crimes and turned on the president they had recently re-elected by 49 states and left him with historic low approval under 30%.

Today, nearly half the country does not care. At all. And so, the whole situation, the politics, the rule of law, have changed. Guilt of crimes currently does not mean loss of support, forced resignation, accountability. Why that is is an issue for the country to deal with.

The main difference is that there were actual crimes associated with Watergate.

 

[GDViking]

We've already had three years of investigations and guess what...they all say there is no crime.

Time for the Dems and Trump haters to give it a rest, don't you think?

What investigations have you been reading, this is tbe most corrupt administration in American history hands down.

The only reason trump is not in prison is because of the misinterpretation of a dumbass memo...