What Trump learned from Watergate

donsuber.blogspot.com ^ | 12/21/2019 | don suber

[bitt]

Geoff Shepard graduated from Harvard Law School and spent five years on Nixon’s White House staff, including being deputy counsel on his Watergate defense team. He went on to become a successful Philadelphia lawyer. In retirement, he has gone back to research Watergate. The archives have revealed that Nixon was railroaded.

In American Spectator, Shepard wrote, "There is documented proof of a series of secret meetings between Chief Judge John Sirica and Watergate prosecutors. I don’t know which is the bigger surprise: that they were secretly meeting to resolve issues in advance of trial or that they were documenting their agreements in memos to their files. The mother lode of these documents, improperly removed in 1974 when Jaworski left office, first came to light in 2013 in response to my FOIA requests.

"At one point, Cox became so worried about the sustainability of Judge Sirica’s one-sided rulings in favor of the prosecutors that he feared their conviction verdicts would be overturned on appeal. He secretly approached Chief Appellate Judge David Bazelon to explain how the judicial panels could be stacked to maintain Bazelon’s slim one-vote liberal majority. Sure enough, each of the 12 appeals from Sirica’s criminal trials was heard by the full nine-judge appellate court, sitting en banc — a circumstance unprecedented in any federal appellate court anywhere in the country, before or since."

Archibald Cox in retrospect made Jimmy the Weasel Comey look honest.

The deep state won.

Shepard wrote, "It should have come as no surprise that Cox delegated the Watergate Special Prosecution Force recruiting to James Vorenberg, a fellow law professor who had taught criminal law. Vorenberg hired only people whom he knew or who were recommended by people he knew, and he assembled a specially selected team of some 70 lawyers, virtually all Ivy League graduates, the top 17 of whom had worked together in the Kennedy/Johnson Department of Justice. Readers should note the constitutional inversion here: these were the very people voted out of office with Nixon’s 1968 election, now in control of the government’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. Vorenberg announced at their first press conference in June 1973 their intent to investigate each and every allegation of wrongdoing by the Nixon administration since it had assumed office some five years prior."

Sound familiar?

MORE..

[bitt]

p

[bitt]

sorry, the date of the article is actually 12/17/2019

[marktwain]

Yes.

I have been saying for years that Watergate was a Media coup. They got away with that one, and every politician has been afraid of the Liberal/Progressive Media since.

Nice to see there was the same sort of stacking of the deck in Nixon's case, as we see today. All covered up by the Deep State and the Media working together.

[tiki]

I always thought Nixon was railroaded and so did many others but through the years most have come to believe that he was guilty.

[PGR88]

Jeff Sessions was Trump’s Elliot Richardson, and Archibald Cox was his Robert Mueller. Trump bungled badly by choosing Sessions as AG. I think it put him in a very precarious position. Trump’s advantage was that he was completely innocent, and yes - he DID fight.

Who Trump should have learned from is Obama. Obama made sure he had true fellow-travelers as his AGs. He even made sure they were black and “down for the struggle.” Of course, they were political and biased as hell, but with Holder-Lynch, Obama was absolutely safe from any attacks from within the DOJ/FBI establishment.

[Jim Noble]

The similarities between this coup and Watergate are striking (as the similarities with Dallas, thank God, are not - yet).

I wrote quite a bit about this here in October, a lot of FReepers are too young to remember the details or have thoroughly absorbed the narrative.

The one base that Trump hasn’t covered, a mistake Nixon also made, is “never deny what can be proven - remember, you don’t know who the traitors are”.

Trump has acted since August like there would be something wrong with a quid-pro-quo transaction between himself and the President of Ukraine, so he has repeatedly and emphatically denied it.

But, all diplomacy is based on quid-pro-quo, and also, of course, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, Trump was completely within his rights to offer Ukraine something, or to threaten them if need be, to get cooperation with his envoy, Rudy Giuliani in the search for proof of bribery, money laundering, and other crimes perpetrated by US citizens with Ukrainian persons.

Why did Schumer go right to “We must hear Bolton”?

It’s because if Trump, stupidly in my opinion, keeps up “The call was perfect, there was no quid-pro-quo”, and the two sides on the Senate floor keep arguing “yes there was” vs. “No there wasn’t”, Bolton’s testimony at the last minute, on nationwide TV, that Trump told him “I’m going to get Biden by talking to Ukraine” (true or false) could be just the thing to collapse the will of 20 already-weak Republicans.

[Grampa Dave]

That baleful presence of Hillary Clinton in the last two impeachments

American Thinker ^ | 21 Dec, 2019 | Monica Showalter
Posted on 12/21/2019, 8:56:38 AM by MtnClimber

...Which is a brilliant connection no one’s noticed before. Hillary Clinton was a factor in both impeachments of U.S. presidents, something that never happened much in U.S. politics before she showed up.

Clinton was ambitious as heck in her desire to cling to power, participating in covering up Clinton’s long string of thumbings of his nose at the law even in personal matters and certainly seemed to be a proponent of open marriage, given her hubby Bill’s indiscretions which have since extended to Jeffrey Epstein at this late date. That was the root of his Monica Lewinsky-linked impeachment.

Her ambition only extended after that, with her amazing lunges toward power and the presidency after that. It was her fury at losing the election to President Trump that led to the phony Russia collusion narrative, debunked by the Mueller report, and then its sequel, the phony Ukraine quid-pro-quo, which of course was rooted in the climate of corruption that festered at the State Department, the U.S. diplomatic corps, and the rest of the Obama administration foreign policy establishment, ending with Hunter Biden turning foreign aid into his own personal money trough. That’s the basis of the impeachment of President Trump now, who rightly wanted to get to the bottom of it.

What a baleful presence this woman has been in American politics.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

[PGR88]

I have been saying for years that Watergate was a Media coup. They got away with that one, and every politician has been afraid of the Liberal/Progressive Media since.

Remember too the FBI (Mark Felt) was at the center of leaking to his corrupt media contacts to manipulate the narrative. Sound familiar? ala, Comey, Strzok, McCabe, and Page?

The same Federal bureaucratic-media coup playbook was run by the Dems against Trump. It worked against Nixon because it was new, and naive Americans trusted the Federal Government and the media. That trust is forever destroyed.

[mewzilla]

I wonder if it worked against JFK, too...

[mad_as_he$$]

Well said. Some people “think” we should just give taxpayer money to other countries out of the goodness of our heart. My teenagers only got allowances when they behaved in a certain manner.

[Jim Noble]

Remember too the FBI (Mark Felt) was at the center of leaking to his corrupt media contacts to manipulate the narrative

Yes, and Woodward was, at a minimum, CIA-adjacent if not an operator himself.

[Chainmail]

Same dang Leftist traitors that got Nixon torpedoed our efforts in Vietnam.

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, if they thought Trump would quit in a huff like Nixon, they have badly misjudged their opponent.

[Boardwalk]

Lock her up! Lock out the shadow gov in dc too!

[Vaduz]

There is documented proof of a series of secret meetings between Chief Judge John Sirica and Watergate prosecutors.

Democrats had to make a win to cover up the money laundering coming out of Cuba for their party,now cover up act 2 is on progress and as expected media obeys.

[JoSixChip]

I think you are exactly right and I think many in the house and the senate expect it to play out as you have described. I have been saying as much for months. I don’t believe that Trump overtly was demanding a quid-pro-quo and I don’t believe he was targeting biden for political reasons. But It would have malpractice to not have at least explore ways of how to uncover the corruption going on in the Ukraine on our dime. bolton is obviously butt hurt and would damage Trump if given the chance. I would not be surprised if bolton has already told many in congress that he is willing to say what they need to convict Trump. But as many here on FR keep telling me, I’m just a troll.

[nathanbedford]

… if Trump, stupidly in my opinion, keeps up “The call was perfect, there was no quid-pro-quo”…

I agree completely and I have been posting since the beginning of this affair that it was foolish to base the defense on absence of quid pro quo because the Democrats whole exercise was to find collateral evidence of a quid pro quo. It matters not whether the evidence was by hearsay, the whole point of the exercise is to damage the president not to actually remove him from office which was always understood by the Democrats not to be a realistic goal.

Even conservative observers on Fox have concluded that there was in fact a quid pro quo but simply observe that it is not important enough to impeach, using the oft repeated line, "does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

Not only does it fail to rise to that level but it is not an offense at all. The president is fully authorized by his constitutional role as chief executive, as chief law enforcement officer of the nation, under statute governing distribution of funds to foreign powers and under a statute governing distribution of funds to Ukraine to investigate corruption. His article to constitutional power cannot be diminished by statute and certainly not by Congress simply saying that it is-which is what they have done in this article of impeachment.

Joe Biden's own words as well as the dubious position of his son together with evidence unearthed by Rudy Giuliani, are all plausible reasons to investigate. If a president undertakes to investigate a potential political foe, he does not commit an impeachable offense simply because it might advance his political prospects. This remains true even if the president in so doing entertained a desire to advance his own election prospects. To do so would be to handcuff every president and shield corruption everywhere.

As long as the president has a plausible collateral reason to investigate his political enemies or rivals, he has committed no crime, no action against the national interest, no impeachable offense even if he is also motivated to advance his election.

The Senate should immediately move to dismiss the articles of impeachment because they failed to state a constitutionally identifiable offense justifying removal from office. To leave the matter hanging is to leave a pistol pointed at the temple of Donald Trump held in the hand of Nancy Pelosi who will no doubt pull the trigger at the most opportunistic occasion.

[rbg81]

I always thought Nixon was railroaded and so did many others but through the years most have come to believe that he was guilty.

---

Nixon’s biggest mistake was not burning the WH tapes when he could have. It as the transcript of those tapes that made him look like a conspiratorial, raving lunatic. In all fairness though, if ANYONE was followed around with a tape recorder, you would hear all kinds of stuff that would make you look bad. Unless you’re Mr. Rogers, its inevitable.

[nikos1121]

Rudy or the Fat Guy would have been better choices for AG.