Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:26 PM Jun 2017

Nixon's Downfall Didn't Seem Inevitable Either

Nixon’s Downfall Didn’t Seem Inevitable Either

June 26, 2017 at 7:45 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

Frank Rich: “For all the months of sensational revelations and criminal indictments (including of his campaign manager and former attorney general, John Mitchell), a Harris poll found that only 22 percent thought Nixon should leave office. Gallup put the president’s approval rating in the upper 30s, roughly where our current president stands now — lousy, but not apocalyptic. There had yet to be an impeachment resolution filed in Congress by even Nixon’s most partisan adversaries.”

“He had defied his political obituaries before, staging comebacks after a slush-fund scandal nearly cost him his vice-presidential perch on the GOP ticket in 1952 and again after his 1962 defeat in the California governor’s race prompted the angry ‘last press conference’ at which he vowed that ‘you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.’ Might Tricky Dick pull off another Houdini? He was capable of it, and, as it happened, it would take another full year of bombshells and firestorms after the televised Senate hearings before a clear majority of Americans (57 percent) finally told pollsters they wanted the president to go home. Only then did he oblige them, in August 1974.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2017/06/26/nixons-downfall-didnt-seem-inevitable-either/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nixon's Downfall Didn't Seem Inevitable Either (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2017 OP
Yes that's true marylandblue Jun 2017 #1
It started with an actual crime zipplewrath Jun 2017 #2
There IS a crime, and there IS Obstruction of investigating it already. dixiegrrrrl Jun 2017 #3
+1 AgadorSparticus Jun 2017 #6
I know that zipplewrath Jun 2017 #7
Maybe just my suspicious nature marylandblue Jun 2017 #4
Not exactly zipplewrath Jun 2017 #8
I remember watergate Gothmog Jun 2017 #5
The problem this time is that Congress is all-GOP BumRushDaShow Jun 2017 #9

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
1. Yes that's true
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:34 PM
Jun 2017

And I remember him hanging on long after it was clear to any objective observer that he was guilty as sin. Impeachment is long and slow, and a large percentage of the population needs to be hit with a ton of gricks before they wake up.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
2. It started with an actual crime
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:51 PM
Jun 2017

People were in jail when that all started. We're going to have to first find a crime, then we can move on to things like obstruction. It's hard to get an obstruction charge when there is no related crime. Mind you, I suspect someone did something stupid, and may get convicted. It will be at that point that we can start the whole "What did Trump know and when did he know it" process.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
3. There IS a crime, and there IS Obstruction of investigating it already.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 02:56 PM
Jun 2017

Been in the news and discussed here for months now.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
7. I know that
Tue Jun 27, 2017, 08:34 AM
Jun 2017

but just about any prosecutor will tell you that you can't get an obstruction of justice conviction without the crime that was being obstructed. Mind you, as I said, I suspect they will ultimately find one. But as a basis of comparison to Watergate, that situation started out with people in jail. We have yet to get anyone in jail. Not that we won't, we just aren't there yet.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
4. Maybe just my suspicious nature
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:08 PM
Jun 2017

But I remember thinking in the Fall of 1972 that Nixon must have been in on it. I think there 7 indictments, and just didn't think you could have 7 people decide to do a burglary without orders from the top. Just like I don't think Manafort, Page, Kushner, Flynn, Sessions etc. all just happened to talk to the Russians without Trump knowing about it.

Of course I am preaching to the choir here. But I am sure I was not the only one to catch on early back then.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
8. Not exactly
Tue Jun 27, 2017, 08:43 AM
Jun 2017

I suspect Nixon's knowledge (and I think the tapes back this up) was all after the fact, in terms of the specific activities that night. He knew they were doing opposition research (as we call it today) and that the info wasn't exactly coming out of the public domain. But I'm not convinced Nixon knew about the break in at the Watergate until after it happened.

As for this current mess, never ascribe to cunning what can be explained by incompetence. In my mind the most likely scenario is that someone in opposition research (someone Trump wouldn't have even known) got approached by someone offering to help, and offering information. As the information got better, it started to drift up the leadership latter. Somewhere along the line it got to the Manafort/Flynn/Lewdowski level before what they realized was that they were mixed up with some Russian based hackers. It was probably about that time they thought they should disconnect from that, mostly because they thought that the Russians didn't need their help and that the info shouldn't appear to becoming from their campaign.

What they may not have realized until well after the campaign, was that it wasn't just "Russian hackers", but in fact Russian secret service. That would be a classic time to panic and start covering up. Instead of just admitting that they got taken by the Russian secret service and come clean, the started lying. In the end we'll probably find out that the most damaging thing they did was to pay for information that ultimately came from the Russian secret service. Embarassing but not exactly "collusion". The worst is that it was probably a violation of sanctions, even if it was payments to people they thought were just independent researchers.

Now Flynn on the other hand..... I'd bet ya the campaign didn't know HALF of what he was up to.

BumRushDaShow

(129,081 posts)
9. The problem this time is that Congress is all-GOP
Tue Jun 27, 2017, 08:52 AM
Jun 2017

where in the '70s, Democrats controlled both chambers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nixon's Downfall Didn't S...