web analytics

What a difference 45 years makes

By Patrick Van Roy On August 8th, 2019

On this day August 8th 1974 Richard Milhous Nixon resigned as President of the United States.  Brought to disgrace through a screw up by G Gordon Liddy trying to bug the offices of the Democrat National Committee.

Nixon was the greatest Cold War President and the sharpest political mind of the last century. That is how he would have been remembered had the Plumbers not screwed up.

69 Responses to “What a difference 45 years makes”

  1. Yet another Republican criminal.

  2. What was his crime?

  3. Well lets start with the Articles of Impeachment that he almost certainly would have been convicted on:

    1: Obstruction of justice
    2: Malfeasance in office
    3: Contempt of Congress

    Also consider United States v Wilson and Burdick v United States. The first states that a person must accept a pardon. The second says that accepting a pardon gives an implication of guilt. So Nixon could have refused a pardon, and by accepting one he accepts he is guilty. Thus Richard Nixon’s acceptance of a pardon from Gerald Ford is a legal agreement where Nixon accepts he is guilty.

  4. *my paragraph wasn’t clear.

    The first (United States v Wilson) states that a person must accept a pardon for it to be valid ie. he can reject the pardon.

  5. //What was his crime?//

    His crime?

    His very many crimes, you mean.

    Obstruction of justice.

    Perjury.

    Illegal misuse of campaign funds.

    Very likely the ordering of the Watergate break-in, as attested by some of his former mates.

    In a broader sense, he also ordered massive bombing of areas of Cambodia known to have dense civilian populations. This led to the killing of around 100,000 or 200,000 people.

  6. Seamus again gets in before me 🙁

  7. I don’t see a single conviction on his record…. so he had no crimes.

    There were multiple accusations of crimes but none that were ever proven. Could he have beat the charges will never know. He did the right thing the honorable thing rather than put the country through the nightmare of an ugly impeachment trial he resigned.

  8. //I don’t see a single conviction on his record…. so he had no crimes. //

    Hitler had no convictions either. No crimes.

  9. So Nixon is Hitler….. ?

  10. //There were multiple accusations of crimes but none that were ever proven.//

    Patrick, you don’t know American history.

    Nixon’s crimes were never proven in a court of law because he made damn sure he got an official pardon from the guy he gave the top job to.

    You believe that means he committed no crimes just because you support a Republican.

  11. The Clintons have no convictions Patrick yet you have repeatedly called them criminals.

  12. //So Nixon is Hitler//

    He’s like Hitler in that both told endless lies, both were prone to wild bouts of self-pity, both looked for an easy way out and left their mates to be convicted, both were fond of the mass bombing of civilians, both disliked Jews.

    After their ignoble departures, evidence came out that proved to even their biggest fans (but not their groupies) that that had been guilty all along.

  13. “I don’t see a single conviction on his record…. so he had no crimes.”

    Neither have Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or pretty much any of the people you have accused of being criminals.

    “So Nixon is Hitler….. ?”

    By your logic yes. Neither were ever convicted of a crime. If Nixon wasn’t a criminal due to a lack of convictions then Hitler wasn’t a criminal either. That is the logic, or lack thereof, of your comments.

  14. so you all point out my contradiction where I call the Clintons Felons even though they’ve never been convicted….

    Yet you’re too dense Noel to realize my comment was a direct dig at all of you….

    You call Nixon a criminal, but say the Clinton’s aren’t….. hypocrite it works both ways, if the Clinton’s aren’t crooks neither is Nixon.

  15. “You call Nixon a criminal, but say the Clinton’s aren’t….. hypocrite it works both ways, if the Clinton’s aren’t crooks neither is Nixon.”

    There is plenty of evidence of Nixon’s guilt. There is little evidence of either Clinton’s.

  16. There is plenty of evidence of Nixon’s guilt. There is little evidence of either Clinton’s.

    That is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made Seamus.

  17. Most of the ” evidence ” against Clinton is inneuendo and hogwash about Uranium One and Clinton Foundation.

    There’s never been anything real shown about any of that

  18. //Yet you’re too dense Noel to realize my comment was a direct dig at all of you….
    You call Nixon a criminal, but say the Clinton’s aren’t….. hypocrite it works both ways,//

    Aah, so many errors, and I have but little time.

    First, it was me who first mentioned criminal in the context of Nixon. Not you, you dummie.

    You responded with a question, not a comment.

    Last, I never said HC wasn’t a criminal.

    Now go look for someone else to educate you; I have to work.

  19. The strongest criticism that can be made against Hillary is that she is an interventionist who is a little to quick to get involved in military conflict overseas.

    Patrick should totally love her for this.

    Trump despite his monstrous depravity has had anti interventionist tendencies, in his occasional lucid moments.

  20. Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act, The Federal Records Act, and Obstruction of justice by deleting 30,000 emails that were under subpoena.

    These crimes are undeniable and there is irrefutable evidence including several admissions of guilt.

  21. Phantom I have never been an interventionist. I believe in scorched earth response to threats, nothing more nothing less.

  22. Then you were always opposed to the Iraq war, since under Saddam Iraq was no threat to the US.

    They were enemies of Iran Kuwait and Israel etc, but that’s another matter.

  23. “Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act, The Federal Records Act, and Obstruction of justice by deleting 30,000 emails that were under subpoena.”

    No she didn’t. The emails were deleted before they were subpoenaed. And where scheduled for deletion some months before they were subpoenaed. The evidence would suggest that the emails were deleted in February 2015. The server was switched to 60 day retention in December 2014, suggesting the February 2015 date. The subpoena was issued in March 2015, suggesting there were deleted before any subpoena was issued.

  24. Phantom, on August 8th, 2019 at 8:31 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Then you were always opposed to the Iraq war, since under Saddam Iraq was no threat to the US.

    They were enemies of Iran Kuwait and Israel etc, but that’s another matter.

    Nonsense Iraq was a terror supporting nation as are most in that region of the world they all need a treated exactly the same. As a threat.

    The only exception being Israel.

  25. I think that she probably violated the records act.

    She intentionally kept bad files, keeping official correspondence outside of government files and in her own files, where they couldn’t be overseen by anyone.

    This was never OK. This was morally wrong. This was deeply intentional.

    No one should defend her actions here, or minimize them, ever.

    It is shameful that nearly all Dems or Dem symps do minimize what happened here, for tactical reasons.

  26. “I think that she probably violated the records act.”

    Most likely. Though also most likely did Colin Powell, and the staff of Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

  27. poor poor Seamus

    2014
    2014 — The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state “submit any records in their possession for proper preservation.”
    Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be “personal.”
    December 1, 2014 — President Barack Obama signs an update to the Federal Records Act that clarified how private emails are allowed to be used. According to the National Archives and Records Administration, this update prohibits “the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days.”

    even if they weren’t subpoenaed that makes her in violation of federal Law…. BUT

    The FBI’s summary of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contradicted some of her past statements about her use of a private email system for government business:

    The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.

  28. No has asked if I thought Nixon had committed crimes.

    My answer would be yes.

  29. Hillary did it in a vastly more sneaky and systematic way, even to the point of never getting a government email account.

    I used to have a government security clearance. I couldn’t believe when that idiot Sanders said that he didn’t care about ” her emails ”

    There was nothing remotely unintentional about what she did.

  30. “The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.”

    By a member of staff at Platte River Networks who had failed to properly delete them when instructed in December 2014. Not by a member of Clinton’s staff, or Clinton personally. There is no evidence to suggest she deleted emails to avoid subpoena.

  31. no it was intentional…. a very rare thing a real conspiracy. One to designed to hide her activities from oversight.

    Intentional and Criminal.

  32. “Hillary did it in a vastly more sneaky and systematic way, even to the point of never getting a government email account.”

    Absolutely, and what she did was wrong. And in a proper system she should be held to account for it. It has become too political and partisan. If Hillary Clinton was a Republican then she wouldn’t have faced the calls from the Republicans on this issue. Or the support of the Democrats on it.

    It also still pales into insignificance to the real obstructions of justice of either the Nixon White House or the current one.

  33. “no it was intentional…. a very rare thing a real conspiracy. One to designed to hide her activities from oversight.”

    And you have evidence of that?

  34. yeah they do Seamus and all those FBI/DOJ agents that covered up her crimes are going to be barbecued for it.

    There are 3 investigations going on right now that all tie to Hillary. The investigation into the covering up of her crimes, the investigation into the fisa abuses, and the framing of Donald Trump.

    The Clintons are primary or secondary principals in all of these investigations.

    The Mueller investigation backfired and instead of finding any crimes it shined a light that couldn’t be turned off on to all the Government officials who broke the Law covering up her crimes or aiding in her campaign by sabotaging her opponent.

    The shit is about to hit the fan.

  35. It is incredible to me that she was not prosecuted.

    And I’ve never met a Dem who thinks that she did anything significantly bad here.

    She was on their team, so who cares what she did they may as well have said.

  36. “yeah they do Seamus and all those FBI/DOJ agents that covered up her crimes are going to be barbecued for it.”

    The evidence that has been presented so far (and so doesn’t rely on your conspiracy theories) is that the deletion of the emails was planned by Clinton in December 2014, long before she received subpoena. They were scheduled for deletion in February 2015. A staff member in Platte River Networks failed to do this and then panicked and deleted them himself in the end of March 2015. Have you any evidence (not conspiracy theory bollocks) that is contrary to that?

    “There are 3 investigations going on right now that all tie to Hillary. The investigation into the covering up of her crimes, the investigation into the fisa abuses, and the framing of Donald Trump.”

    What crimes? What FISA abuses? What framing? These are all conspiracy theories.

  37. like I said if they found crimes on Trump I’d say prosecute.

    The Law has to come first. Without equal justice we are nothing.

  38. What crimes? What FISA abuses? What framing? These are all conspiracy theories.

    come back when you’re sober

  39. “like I said if they found crimes on Trump I’d say prosecute.”

    If they found crimes on Trump, which they kind of have, you turn into an ambulance chaser looking for any and all technicalities you can.

    “come back when you’re sober”

    That’s a no then. You have no evidence of crimes, FISA abuses or framings of Trump.

  40. “It is incredible to me that she was not prosecuted.”

    Its quite possible that she should have been. The FBI’s legal opinion at the time, and this is one that was shared by a lot of legal scholars at the time, that in order for charges to be brought the FBI and the prosecutors would have had to prove that her actions constituted “gross negligence”. There is no suggestion that she shared the information with unauthorised people. So the only charges would be that she allowed them to be stolen via gross negligence.

    In order for that to be true they would need to prove gross negligence (possible given the steps she took and didn’t take to secure her server). They would also have to prove that they were stolen. While the FBI have concluded that it was “reasonably likely” (which was subsequently changed to possible) that Clinton’s server was accessed by hostile actors they had no proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was.

    In order to convict her they would need to prove gross negligence (which they likely could) and theft by an unauthorised person (which they likely couldn’t). So most likely the decision to prosecute was legally, if maybe not morally, correct. It also highlights that the law should be stricter to prevent such a thing happening in the future. What Clinton did may not have been illegal (or provably illegal) but it should have been.

  41. No Seamus I understand I really do… you’ve been fed a fairytale for the past 5 years. People like me saying laws were being broken were labelled conspiracy theorists and when she wasn’t prosecuted that wrapped the fairytale up in a nice pink bow.

    Except she lost the race for President a complication no one saw and they were all in jeopardy of being exposed. A frantic effort was to made to find anything on Trump not only did they fail they caused that light to be shined on them.

    For 5 years that we know of Obama had his Justice Dept committing crimes to cover for Hillary.

    Now they will pay, not as much as they should. Several will be prosecuted a lot of careers destroyed and history will remember Obama and Clinton as two of the most corrupt disgraced politicians in History.

  42. “For 5 years that we know of Obama had his Justice Dept committing crimes to cover for Hillary.”

    You may know. But anyone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist and relies on things like evidence doesn’t know. Because there is no evidence.

  43. It was gross negligence.

    She was supposed to be this big genius, only that she didn’t know what email was, only that she allowed for a private server that diverted electronic state department from the proper government files.

    I never took one sheet of confidential paper from the office when I was in the military, and I would have been in significant trouble if I did.

    Yet she pulls this stunt and all Dems say ” so what “

  44. You may know. But anyone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist and relies on things like evidence doesn’t know. Because there is no evidence.

    The Indictments should start rolling in this fall.

  45. “It was gross negligence.”

    Absolutely. But the crime is gross negligence leading to the theft of classified material. And in order to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt they would need to prove that material was stolen. And they can’t do that.

  46. “The Indictments should start rolling in this fall.”

    You’ve been saying that for a while now.

  47. The material was diverted from where it belonged.

    Diversion/theft almost seems like a distinction without a difference here.

  48. Like I said if what Clinton did wasn’t illegal then it should have been (and the law should be updated accordingly). Most likely however the decision not to prosecute her was following the law as it is.

  49. eamus, on August 8th, 2019 at 9:58 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “It was gross negligence.”

    Absolutely. But the crime is gross negligence leading to the theft of classified material. And in order to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt they would need to prove that material was stolen. And they can’t do that.

    That’s not how the espionage act works just placing the info at risk even unintentionally is a felony.

    Plus

    A new memo exchanged between two Republican-led House Committees and the FBI revealed Thursday that “foreign actors” had gained access to Hillary Clinton’s emails; raising new questions over her use of a private server during her tenure at the State Department.

    FBI Sources: Clinton Server Hacked By ‘At Least Five …
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/03/former-federal-prosecutor-why-did
    FBI Sources: Clinton Server Hacked By ‘At Least Five’ Foreign Intel Agencies, Two Major Federal Probes Ongoing. (5) FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

    Author: Guy Benson

  50. When as Secretary of State she wrote to a foreign official in an official capacity, that corro belonged to the US government and no other US entity.

    Yet that corro was in her house, and not on any US government server.

    Sounds like theft to me.

  51. “That’s not how the espionage act works just placing the info at risk even unintentionally is a felony.”

    Not according to the legal experts, which suggest that it requires evidence of actual theft for it to happen.

    “Sounds like theft to me.”

    Not really, certainly not in the context of what is meant by theft of classified material. And also in the context of the previous Secretaries of State who have had questionable email practices. If what Clinton did was theft then what Powell did was also theft.

  52. “Plus”

    So an (unnamed) source told Fox News that they were 99% sure that foreign actors had gained access to Clinton’s server. That is a little different than proving in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt, subject to cross examination, that it did.

  53. And in fact Fox News and Bret Baier retracted the story a few days later:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/2016/11/04/8fd56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

  54. No.

    Powell is a horrible example.

    He didn’t put all correspondence off the grid, he had a government e-mail account, there was not the slightest comparison as respects intent.

    The difference here is as that between someone who ” steals ” a mini bottle of shampoo from a hotel bathroom and someone who robs a bank.

  55. “The difference here is as that between someone who ” steals ” a mini bottle of shampoo from a hotel bathroom and someone who robs a bank.”

    There is. And generally they would be treated differently under the law (and in fact by different laws). The reason why the Powell comparison is apt is that they are both violations of the same law. And in the manner you described. Colin Powell emailed foreign leaders with a private, non-State department email account. Was Clinton’s actions more serious? Yes. But if, using your language above, it is tantamount to theft then so is Powell’s actions.

  56. Powell gets a letter of reprimand, Hillary gets six months in the slammer.

    Next case.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxkjFYbVT34

  57. //“The difference here is as that between someone who ” steals ” a mini bottle of shampoo from a hotel bathroom //

    Don’t want to divert your discussion, but taking away hotel toiletries, like all those mini bottles, as well as bathroom slippers, stationery, pens, notepaper, envelopes etc. is not theft. Those items are put there for the particular guest and can be taken by him/her on departure.

  58. Powell violated the Law. His response was to turn over the correspondence. Hillary’s response was to take a hammer to her cellphone and blackberry and acid wash her hard drives.

  59. Mr. Powell did not have a private server controlled by him.

    The government would have been able to get that data even if he had not cooperated.

  60. He will be remembered for what he was, a painfully insecure man, a dishonest politician, a person who clung to power. He had immense political skills with significant achievements. His immorality in prolonging the Vietnam War defined him. He tried to use deception, bribery and government agents to cover up crime. It is a tribute to the correct workings of our government and a free press that he didn’t win at the end.

  61. Nixon deserves criticism over Vietnam – all presidents from Truman to Nixon deserve criticism – but

    Nixon inherited that war

    the north Vietnamese were exceptionally hard to negotiate with, and they didn’t keep their word on whatever agreements were made.

  62. It is certainly true that others deserve criticism.

  63. //Nixon inherited that war//

    He didn’t only inherit it – he greatly expanded it in terms of geography and intensity.

    “Decasualising” the war, I think. was the phrase he used. He increased the mass bombing of Hanoi beyond all proportion, then, as I mentioned above, carried out the most massive bombing campaign in history against the heavily populated and defenceless SE of Cambodia and beyond.

    There was probably no other US president who caused so much human suffering, and it was all needless and led to nothing except even more killings and tyranny for years.

    In that sense, he must be the most evil man that came out of the western world in a very long time, and the terror and death and general misery he caused is by no means expiated by some meeting with, an even bigger murderer, Mao.

  64. It was North Vietnam and the Viet Cong who expanded the war geographically by using Laos and Cambodia for major logistics operations

  65. //It was North Vietnam and the Viet Cong who expanded the war geographically//

    What do you think was the proportion of Cambodian civilians killed by US bombing against the number of NV soliders killed?

    Was it 30 to 1 or only 10 to 1?

  66. Nixon left White House one night at 4:30am to go talk with protestors at the Lincoln Memorial

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-nixon-tapes-reveal-details-of-meeting-with-anti-war-activists

    And I said I was sorry they had missed it because I had tried to explain in the press conference that my goals in Vietnam were the same as theirs — to stop the killing, to end the war, to bring peace. Our goal was not to get into Cambodia by what we were doing, but to get out of Vietnam.

    There seemed to be no — they did not respond. I hoped that their hatred of the war, which I could well understand, would not turn into a bitter hatred of our whole system, our country and everything that it stood for.

    I said, I know you, that probably most of you think I’m an SOB. But I want you to know that I understand just how you feel.

    RAY SUAREZ:

    This seems like a very revealing statement from an American president during a very tense time. Do we have any confirmation of these conversations from the other side of the exchange?

    MELVIN SMALL:

    Well, here’s the problem.

    The media the next day, the newspapers, went and talked to some of the students. And most of the comments they got, almost all of them said that the president was speaking flippantly, irrelevantly. And, in fact, he did. He tried to engage them on Vietnam, evidently. They didn’t listen very much to what he had to say. He said he sympathized with their interest in peace.

    And then, when that didn’t work, he said, where do you go to college? And if it was Syracuse, oh, you have got a good football team. Or if it was California, he would talk about surfing to them. He talked about foreign travel.

    And the next day, the media only had those kinds of comments, which is kind of the reason why Nixon a couple of days later decided to put down his memories of the visit for the historical record.

    RAY SUAREZ:

    At some point, he decides to end the conversations. He sees that daybreak is beginning and takes his leave of the Lincoln Memorial.

    Let’s listen to the president’s description of that moment.

    RICHARD NIXON:

  67. I don’t justify the US presence in Vietnam at all.

    I just say that it was N Vietnam that expanded that war geographically

  68. //I don’t justify the US presence in Vietnam at all.//

    Phantom, we weren’t talking about the US presence in Vietnam but about US bombing in Cambodia.

    I’d say the Americans under Nixon killed far more civilians there than the Vietnamese did.

  69. If they found crimes on Trump, which they kind of have….

    Seamus wrote that, so what does it mean?