Unfortunately Nixon had to resign. He did not have the votes in the senate to avoid conviction. His big mistake in my opinion was throwing his underlings under the bus. He should have come clean right after the break-in in June 1972. He still would have been re-elected. No way was McGovern going to win.
He [Nixon] should have come clean right after the break-in in June 1972. He still would have been re-elected.
Coughpoppybushcoughcough
Perhaps, but the whole “history” of Watergate - including the part about Nixon “throwing his underlings under the bus” - is tainted by the full court press of lies that have been repeated ad nauseum for 45 years.
The Watergate story is what I call “fake history” - it’s what you get when fake news goes unrebutted for too long.
You may or may not be correct about the limited choices that Nixon faced. However, I simply don’t trust any of the “facts” surrounding that story.
To put it in a modern day perspective, just imagine what history would say about this afternoon’s events if the Democrats and leftist media were able to succeed in framing Comey’s termination as a Saturday Massacre? What if the Senate impanels a grand jury and a special prosecutor and “proves” that Trump fired him to derail an investigation against him? What if Trump was unable to deter efforts to impeach him and succumbs, finally resigning as Nixon did?
If that were to happen, history would be written by his enemies and would be record his “guilt”, regardless of his innocence.
Politics is like war: “to the victors go the spoils”. In this case, the spoils are that you get to write the history.
This is my my pet peeve; everyone concedes that much of the consensus news regarding current events is politically motivated “fake news”, but hardly anyone questions the consensus history of past events. Why would so-called history be any less fake than so-called news?