Watergate-Style Hearings for the Biden Coverup

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 30, 2025 | Kenneth L. Khachigian

[laplata]

I’m going on 75 and I also remember it. Rotten bastards.

[Colinsky]

I was rabidly anti-Nixon during Watergate and cheered when he was ousted. But my opinion changed as I saw what he did with his post-Presidential career. And today I realize the Watergate caper was a scam just as much as the Steele dossier.

[daler]

I suspected at the time (and still do) that Nixon the unapologetic anti-communist winning by a landslide simply wasn’t acceptable to the Democrats and their media, not dissimilar to the Trump scenario fifty years later.

The difference being that Trump, unlike Nixon, refused to let them get away with it.

[BenLurkin]

Who signed Hunter Biden’s pardon?

[datricker]

I think this is the key question to keep coming back to - dementia and illegal use of the autopen could undo lots of things pardons, judicial appointments if nothing else keep the Democrats on defense for several years.

[PrairieLady2]

Obviously they didn’t want the vice president to take over. Neither they nor we, want Kameltoe.

[JohnBovenmyer]

The 25th doesn't specify "The Cabinet," but rather the "principal officers of the executive departments." I posted the list of those responsible and thus arguably guilty of dereliction of duty here before. And its very next words, "or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" provide all the Constitutional justification required for hearings investigating Biden's incompetence. Harris and ALL then principal officers should testify publicly as to whether they saw any sign of incompetence, and if so had a duty to report it, or not. The latter claim defending the proposition that 25th§4, as currently established, works fine and no "other body" is needed.

Joe should be politely invited to testify in public that he has no problem. That remains his official position. Over his long public career he has not only participated in but chaired numerous Congressional hearings. He certainly understands, or at least once understood, their value and should be very comfortable with the format. He's always been quick to defend any attack against himself or his family. If this whole mess is the nonsense Joe claims nothing could end it quicker than a great performance (perhaps with an attached timely negative toxicology report) by Joe. Refusal to testify by Joe, after a suitably buttery invitation, wouldn't comport with his preferred legacy and would feed the fire. Having Jill or other family members testify, even if felt to be guilty as sin, is apt to be a bad look, a worse precedent and backfire.

[JohnBovenmyer]

> It is hard to polish a turd

Oddly, MythBusters disproved that.

[_Jim]

Can we get Senator Sam Ervin out of retirement? (Or resurrected?)

[mewzilla]

Speaking of Watergate, something just occurred to me...

I’ve always wondered why, if Deep State wanted Nixon gone and used Watergate to do it, what the thinking behind that was. What Nixon had done that made Deep State so desirous of getting rid of him.

Was it Nixon’s use of impoundment...?