Has Clinton topped Nixon?

They all took for granted that Washington functioned on a quid-pro-quo and pay-for-play basis.

Umm, Washington DOES function on a quid-pro-quo and pay-for-play basis.

Hence the rise of one Donald Trump.

She topped Nixon hundreds of scandals ago.

Satan’s daughter is a lying murdering traitor!

What’s to compare?

And she has created an international pay for play syndicate that’s old her Secretary of State office for money.

Correction: "...pay for play syndicate that SOLD HER Secretary of State office for money."

Hillary Clinton should be tried under the Espionage Act for setting up that illegal email server and also be tried under RICO statutes for the way the Clinton Foundation is run. She's WAY worse than Nixon.

This article is shockingly brazen in it’s attempt to lower Nixon to Clinton’s level.

Nixon’s major fault in all this was to stand by his men, whether he knew of their activity in advance or not.

Hillary Clinton has sold out every person she ever came into contact with.

I will come back to this later, because Nixon isn’t here to defend himself and this offering is just plain pathetic.

Nixon’s mistake was that he had a Justice Department with integrity.

Nixon? He was chump change. She’s surpassed Capone.

No comparison.

Nixon told some lies.

Clinton treason.

This "historian" Hanson is fabricating history.

She topped Nixon when the first person died because of her perfidy.

She topped Nixon by March 1993. Left him in the dust.

It’s not even close.

Nixon was a little paranoid, but not a self-dealing, secret selling, influence peddling criminal. He was not a crook.

The Clintons are worse than Nixon overall. The Dems have always been more involved in the criminal and unethical side of politics. J. Edgar Hoover kept in contact with Nixon after his 1960 loss and let him know a lot of what Kennedy and Johnson were up to. Nixon also spent years subject to Dick Tuck’s dirty tricks and Bobby Kennedy inspired audits. Part of the reason why Nixon and his boys were caught was because they were amateurs at dirty tricks and cover-ups compared to the Democrats. The Clintons have turned that sort of activity into an art.

Nixon didn’t put a cent into his pockets from his scandals. Nixon didn’t get anyone killed with his incompetence or cover-ups.

I don’t think there’s any comparison at all except that Nixon was targeted by everybody and she is targeted by nobody of means.

I will say this. When she loses and after the court battles and the backbiting and blame and proof of her corruption, she won’t do a damn thing to rehabilitate herself. She’ll try to preserve her scams and her wealth and still try to manipulate behind the scenes.

I can at least say this one thing for Richard Nixon. He spent his post-resignation days working hard at diplomacy and some say he was one of the lead instruments of opening up China at the time. The only thing Hillary will ever open up is somebody’s wallet.

He also tried to ship a bunch of German based reserve tanks to Israel out of Bremerhaven. The Germans embargoed the ships. Too scared of the Russians.

Oh please, Nixon doesn’t come close to her, or Bill or Obama or Johnson for that matter.

You can say that again. They are each 400% worse than Nixon was.

“At this point, Clinton has trumped former President Richard Nixon’s skullduggery...”

In other news Mt. Everest is above sea level.

..it took the left years to get even with Nixon-- and the coverup of Watergate was the opportunity.

IMO it was all about payback for Alger Hiss...

I have respect for Hanson, but this was a bit much. I felt compelled to address his comments. Part of the reason for my response is the miscarriage of justice, I feel was heaped on Nixon unfairly by a media that hated his guts. The education system bought into this, embellished it, and today the name Nixon ranks right above Lucifer. Okay, perhaps a little below. This then, is more than Hanson that I am addressing here.

Has Clinton topped Nixon?
Victor Davis Hanson
Posted: Nov 03, 2016 12:00 AM

Another day, another Hillary Clinton bombshell disclosure.

We agree.

This time the scandal comes from disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop computer, bringing more suggestions of Clinton's sloppy attitude about U.S. intelligence law. Meanwhile, seemingly every day WikiLeaks produces more evidence of the Clinton Foundation leveraging the Clinton State Department for pay-for-play profiteering.

Once again, we agree, however... These leaks touch on far more than a lapse in U. S. Intelligence law. You should know that. That is only one high crime or misdemeanor..

At this point, Clinton has trumped former President Richard Nixon's skullduggery -- but without the offset of Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments.

Once again, we agree, but only to a point.

I would like to expand on this. This is okay as far as it goes, but what is left unsaid is Clinton's terrible foreign policy calamities.

1. The arming of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
2. The arming of al Qaeda in Syria.
3. The funding of each of these entities.
4. The loss of our ambassadorial staff in Libya. Ambassador Stevens and three others were massacred on her watch.
5. The toppling of a friendly Egyptian government.
6. She refused to accept the need for increased security at our Benghazi compound after Ambassador Stevens sending her over 600 communications requesting it.
7. She helped design policy in Libya that was terribly flawed.
8. She unwittingly helped jump start ISIS through her reckless arms and financial support provisions.
9. She helped create a situation where we are on the brink of open warfare with a nuclear super-power.
10. She helped draft the open borders policies of the last eight years.
11. She helped draft the movement of mass bodies of people into our nation knowing damn well there was a high presence of terrorists mixed in. She brought terrorism to our shores
12. She backed Obama on every negative thing he did against Israel.

All this ignores her constant anti-U. S. stances in public, and what her behind the scenes negotiations must have been like with foreign dignitaries around the world.

To compare her to Nixon by simply stating, "...but without the offset of Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments", is totally unacceptable. Nixon had nothing like any of this hanging over his head, and it's an insult to him to leave this out when comparing the two of them. Nixon also had some excellent foreign policy achievements. Clinton has none.

Even before the most recent scandals, Clinton's campaign had an eerie resemblance to the Nixon play book.

This is a complete misrepresentation. Nixon's campaign shenanigans were pretty much what took place during every campaign. Some of it was over the top, but by no means the sort of things taking place today.

Nixon didn't take hands on to order people to go out and start fights at McGovern's events. He didn't encourage lawless behavior by his supporters. He didn't encourage his supporters to beat McGovern's supporters. Clinton and her proxies are doing this now. There is also known voting irregularities being employed by the Democrats, and Hillary was up to her elbows in it. Nixon didn't engage in that. Nixon was so pro-U. S. that he actually allowed Kennedy to take the presidency rather than risk a Constitutional crisis, by challenging known voting irregularities. His thoughts were for the nation first. Can anyone say that about Hillary Clinton? It is an extreme disservice to state that Clinton's campaign has an eerie resemblance to the Nixon play book. IT DOES NOT!

And for the record, Nixon's didn't resemble anything like Clinton's.

Compare the election of 2016 to the election of 1972. The favored Nixon re-election juggernaut (dubbed CREEP, or the "The Committee for the Re-election of the President") squeezed corporations and wealthy individuals for millions in donations, in much the same way that Clinton's multimillion-dollar cash machine has vastly outspent her opponent, Donald Trump.

So Nixon was the only presidential candidate who tried to get corporations and wealthy individuals to donate millions? Hanson, you're better than this. You're buying into the media's contrivances to derail Nixon's re-election. You use them as if you really knew what was behind them, and you obviously don't.

This takes place every election time. Nixon didn't get corporations to give him $250k fees for less than an hour's verbal presentation. Clinton has done this nearly 100 times. She has shaken down corporations for donations, employments, board appointments... Nixon did nothing like this. Where are you coming from here? This is total fabrication.

The Watergate tapes later revealed an entirely cynical Nixon campaign team and a hard-nosed White House cadre led by H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman -- plus a host of lesser toadies, such as the conniving John Dean. They all took for granted that Washington functioned on a quid-pro-quo and pay-for-play basis.

Oh brother! What Hanson terms "entirely cynical", is by another person's definition "dedication to the job at hand." Tossing out the "quid-pro-quo" and "pay for play" terms here, is ridiculous. Campaign teams always seek to raise funds. Just because you don't like Nixon, it doesn't mean that his efforts to raise funds entirely cynical and evil, while others are just normally going about it.

This is a great example of what has been done to Nixon over the years. Every normal thing a candidate does, is taken to be evil when Nixon or his campaign team did it.

In instances where they did go over the top, I think they should be called on it. They didn't go over the top in any way shape or form like Clinton and company.

This is embarrassing.

In that regard, the Clinton campaign under chairman John Podesta (the new Haldeman) has become Nixonian to the core, thanks to Podesta's ruthlessness.

What we know now about Podesta, Clinton, Huma, Mills, Comey... Hanson thinks Haldeman did all this? Really? Wow!

The WikiLeaks/Podesta email trove reveals that Hillary's consultants have no moral compass. They lampoon Latinos as "needy." Catholics are written off as being stuck in medieval times. Aides bartered with plutocrats for Secretary of State Clinton's face time on the basis of cash donations. A primary debate question was tipped off by CNN contributor and Democratic operative Donna Brazile.

Her consultants? What? Hillary was communicating with these people and signing off on criminal activity in real time. There's no evidence of Nixon doing that. As for Brazile, Nixon certainly didn't have anything like that going on. The media hated his guts. He wasn't gifted with debate questions in advance. He wasn't denigrating minorities, or religious groups either.

The nickname "Tricky Dick" referred to Nixon's perceived anything-goes campaign style and his "flexibility" on issues. CREEP's "plumbers" staged break-ins to look for leaked information. Petty activists supposedly tried to disrupt rallies for Nixon's 1972 opponent, George McGovern. Clinton is using similar tactics. In the ambush tapes of Project Veritas, Clinton's for-hire thugs bragged on film of provoking violence at Trump rallies and bringing in voters by bus to cast illegal ballots.

The nicknames "Tricky Dick" and others were coined by the media of the day. It wasn't coined because of his actions. It was coined as a campaign tactic, to sway public opinion. Then as now, there was a full court press to get McGovern (Clinton) elected. The media had it in for Nixon for years. They blamed him for a war that Johnson got us into. While they praised Daniel Elsberg releasing the Pentagon Papers, they harped on Nixon for being a terrible president. Then as now, national security meant nothing to the media and the Democrats. They applauded airing classified information then. They do not now because they back Hillary. National security secrets released? Great job. Hillary's secrets released? Why it's national scandal. It's a crime if you even read the eMails provided on line. Pure double standards all the way.

Nixon's Plumbers executed one break-in. It is still contested to this day what they were actually looking for. In a climate where Daniel Elsberg had revealed deeply classified information, they may have been looking to see what else the Democrats might be getting ready to reveal. We just don't know. The supposition that we do is flawed. To compare it to things going on today, is also flawed. We don't really know.

Similar campaign tactics? Beating elderly people at rallies. Stealing yard signs? Burning yard signs? Doing heavy damage to vehicles displaying McGovern signs? Firebombing campaign headquarters? Burning down a church attended by Blacks? Would these be the tactics Campaign Clinton adopted from the Nixon campaign? Hanson, Hanson, Hanson, get a grip.

Yes Hanson, Clinton's henchmen did exactly what you say there. Nixon didn't. His campaign didn't. Nixon never tried to rig an election.

The anti-communist and free-marketer Nixon turned out to be a wheeler-dealer who had no problem wooing communist China or imposing socialist wage and price controls. From hacked emails, it is clear that Hillary's positions on fracking, trade deals, the Keystone XL pipeline, immigration and foreign policy hinged on whatever best served her political self-interest.

This recitation is so sophomoric it's painful to read. Hanson, pull you head out and study up on what the global dynamics were when Nixon made overtures to China. We were in the depths of the Cold War and Russia was a major global player. It was also our sworn enemy. China was a developing nuclear capable nation. We didn't know much more about it, because China was a closed society. Most of the time we had to guess what China was doing. We wouldn't learn about things that took place with it's government for months or years. Nixon decided to ease tensions between us by making an overture to China. And by so doing, he also gave Russia something to think about. All of a sudden the U. S. had a blooming relationship with a nuclear power on Russian's doorstep. Reducing all this to "...no problem wooing China..." is just plain juvenile. What has this to do with corruption? Nixon was doing his job here. There was nothing evil about it at all.

Yes Nixon did impose wage controls. You left out that he started the EPA. Both of these are idiotic things to do, but they are not evidence of crimes. These were political moves, that I happen to think were unconstitutional and highly inappropriate. You take care of that at election time. What Hillary and her campaign have done, is of a criminal nature. That's something you take care of by indicting, convicting, and sending people to prison.

In nothing Nixon did, do we see him lining his own coffers. We don't see him doing things just for himself. While I disagree with some of the things he did, and ultimately do agree he deserved to go, where is Hanson's damnation of Bill Clinton? Everything Bill and Hillary have ever done, has been to serve their self-interest. Nixon was an imperfect man, but Bill and Hillary are both exponentially worse.

Most loyal aides who served Nixon ended up disgraced, jailed or humiliated. Does anyone think that Podesta, Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin -- the fixers so prominent in the WikiLeaks scandal -- will have a political future, given their aiding and abetting of Clinton knavery and profiteering?

And why is that? Is it truly because of Nixon, or is it because of the press who deionized anyone Nixon ever met? How many people died in Nixon's inner circle? How many were found in parks, shot dead gangland style on roads, executed in their homes or even cemeteries? Some of what Nixon did was wrong. What Hillary and Bill have been involved in is exponentially worse.

If you want to compare political choices in office, compare Wage Controls with giving Iran nuclear weapons and a $1 billion in cash. If you wish to trash Nixon on the EPA, compare it to arming terrorists sworn to destroy the United States. One is simply wrong headed and the other verges on treason. So has Hillary reached the level of Nixon yet? Do ya think? Good grief!.

We know that Nixon lied about what he had known about the cover-up of the Watergate break-in. And now we know from the WikiLeaks email dumps and the FBI investigation that Clinton likewise has never told the truth about her email server, the Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play schemes or the catalysts for the Benghazi killings. Nixon always attacked the messenger in hopes of discrediting the message -- and now Clinton is going after FBI Director James Comey.

Yes, Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in. Think about that for a minute. Do you think Hillary would lie to save her staff? She's just cut off a twenty year intimate employee because they may become a political and criminal liability. Nixon stood behind his men when he could have thought of self first. How many of those plumbers wound up dead? How many people around Hillary have wound up dead? So please, spare me. As for Nixon going after the press that slung everything they could at the wall hoping some of it would stick, who wouldn't have gone after the press. This same press looked the other way on everything that Bill Clinton did. Giving our top missile technology to China, gifting them with MIRV tech, gyro tech, and enabling them to vastly improve both launch integrity and targeting to within 50 feet technology. That wasn't a problem, but a simple break-in was.

No, Nixon should never have gone after the press? Give me a freaking break. He was supposedly a dirty bastard for having tapes in the first place. It wasn't until after he was ousted that we found out Kennedy and Johnson had used recording devices in the Oval Office. The media's holier than thou attitude with Nixon was disgusting. If Nixon had been Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, he would never have been challenged on any of what he did.

That fact needs to taken into account when Nixon is skewered once again. Oh, has Hillary Topped Nixon yet? Nixon was a lawyer, but I don't recall him getting a known rapist off, then laughing gleefully about it at the victims expense, know he did it. So tell me, has she topped Nixon's yet?

Nixon professed that he never knew the sordid details of his campaign's dirty tricks. Clinton has resorted to the same defense with regard to the shady activities of the now-disgraced subordinates who resigned after being caught trying to disrupt Trump rallies. Stonewalling was a Nixon specialty. Clinton told FBI investigators 27 times that she could not remember key details about the email scandal.

Well, I claim I didn't go to the movies last night. I didn't. So what are you going to say about that smart guy? Are you going to say I was lying too?

We have Hillary Clinton's eMails where she discusses here activities. For crying out loud Hanson, you could at least read today's news before you write this tripe.

A Democratic operative from a political action committee bragged on tape that Clinton herself liked the operative's idea of having protestors decked out in Donald Duck costumes provoke Trump supporters at his rallies. ("In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," the operative said on tape.)

If you had paid attention when listening to those tapes, you'd know that Hillary Clinton didn't agree to the ducks on the ground until after the conversation was over. She got back in contact and told him specifically to institute the plan. He had already planned to scrap the idea. She liked the idea of specifically using ducks to tie into the idea Trump was ducking releasing his tax returns. Her operative had planned to use another character whose costume would be easier to obtain. She nixed that and instructed him to use ducks. How can you compare that to what may or may not have happened under Nixon? You can guess about Nixon and slander him without proof, or you can simply accept that Hillary is guilty and Nixon isn't until proven so.

Abedin wrote in an email to Podesta and Clinton aide Robby Mook that the idea of accepting $12 million to speak at an event held by a Moroccan-government-owned mining company (which had received a $92 million loan guarantee from the U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank) was Clinton's: "This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request."

You can't point to a single thing like this with Nixon. He didn't not amass wealth for himself during his time in office. Clinton, shall we count the ways...

1. Direct donations to her foundation she expropriated
2. Speaking engagement fees
3. Jobs for Bill at a fat salary
4. Board appointments

A Clinton family advisor described shakedown efforts to reap millions of dollars for former President Bill Clinton as being the work of "Bill Clinton Inc."

Once again, nothing in Nixon's actions compare to this.

There remains, however, one disconnect.

Nixon covered up misdeeds long enough to be re-elected in a 1972 landslide -- only later to resign before his looming impeachment, when even his administration flunkies could no longer mask his past misdeeds.

The absurdity of Hanson's comparison becomes crystal clear. As pointed out, Nixon wouldn't have even faced one charge if he were Bill, Hillary, and for that matter a host of other Democrat presidents.

Whose staff had to cover up their misdeeds, other than Nixon's? Did the media go full court press on Clinton, or did they do as much or more explaining away as condemning? You know the answer to that Hanson.

Look at what Bill and Hillary have gotten away with over the years, and try to tell me again with a straight face a simple break-in was equal to any of it? I could list above twenty crimes committed by the Clintons that were worse, without having to slow down to think. And yet Nixon is the go to guy, when it comes to trashing the Clintons. Really? Good freaking grief!

Would an elected President Hillary Clinton eventually meet the same fate?

Why even pose that question? The same press who let Bill Clinton get away with what he did, let Hillary get away with what she has, won't cover a number of her worst infractions here, would go after her after being elected?

LMAO

This time around, there is not the same sort of investigative reporting that there was in 1973-1974. Much of the media is backing, rather than investigating, Clinton.

Yep, that's right. Same type? Try none at all... And that's only part of the reason why comparing Clinton to Nixon, which is actually comparing him to her as well, is just plain absurd, and you should know it.

Does the death of independent journalism ensure that Clinton's hubris will never earn a Nixonian comeuppance -- or at least not until after the election?

This further comment is why I left in my comment before the last one. You still cling to the idea Hillary would have to answer to anything after being elected. We saw how that worked under Bill's administration. You have some inkling they would try less hard now to defend another Clinton? Absurd!

Nixon was an imperfect man, but Bill and Hillary are both exponentially worse. A better topic here would be, "Bill or Hillary Clinton, Which One Will History Remember as the Bigger Criminal?

Nixon was a saint compared to these two. In his actual life he wasn't all that he was made out to be. He was a decent president tasked with winding down Vietnam and dealing with the Left in our nation that verged on anarchy even then.

Hillary Clinton isn't qualified to be compared to him. She's an unaccomplished flop and beast of a human being.

You owe Richard Nixon an apology for even mentioning him in relation to Hillary or Bill.

He would have been executed for what they have been involved in.