Senate Democrats get final word, and declare victory, in fight over judges

Boston Globe ^ | 11/15/2003 | Jim Abrams

[Viva Le Dissention]

and by the way, brainwashed?

Please, defend the Saturday Night Massacre. Ah, Nixon. A paragon of integrity.

[duckln]

All the appointees serve at the discretion of the president. Can't call it a Massacre, but the media was up to the task, and gullibles swallowed it.

Was it Cox that got replaced by Bork? A definite improvement IMO.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Cox was fired by Bork. Leon Jaworski replaced Cox.

I keep forgetting that in your world, the President is above the law and can do whatever he wants. Is there anything that you think the President CAN'T do?

In case you've forgotten, U.S. v. Nixon was 8-0.

Nixon got pissed all over for a reason. He was a bad, bad, President that broke the law and ignored the constitution.

[duckln]

and by the way, brainwashed?

It can happen you know. It's happened to me when I was less estute. For years I swallowed the Democrat swill on Wisconsin Senator McCarthy. Finally I was set free by Ann Coulter's book.

[Republican Wildcat]

Okay, gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood your post.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Right. the Washington Post engineered the Watergate break-in. They engineered Nixon firing Richardson and Ruckelshaus. They engineered Sirica's ruling that Nixon was to turn over the tapes. The Post engineered Nixon refusing to comply with the subpoena and refusing to turn over the tapes. They engineered an 8-0 vote on the Supreme Court, in which Burger, Powell, and Blackmun--all Nixon appointees--voted against Nixon. Burger even wrote the opinion.

Well, that Washington Post is one powerful paper. I'm impressed.

[duckln]

Cox was fired by Bork. Leon Jaworski replaced Cox.

As I recall, Cox was an independent prosecutor. Bork replace the person who refused to fire Cox. Leon was a district judge, he didn't replace anyone but was a political pick by the democrats to jail the Republican administration. He succeeded.

..there anything that you think the President CAN'T do?

There are limits and the constitution prescribes the impeachment process. Nixon was never impeached. There was no 8-0. Leon accomplished it all. To this day Liddy views him as a complete rat!

[Viva Le Dissention]

Shoot! My bad...

[duckln]

And what did the 'tapes' prove? Where was the 'crime'. It's now perported that if Nixon had gone to trial he would have won.

A little while back, the Democratic feminazis in the senate got hold of Senator Packwood's diary, and they did a McCarthy on him.

Do you have a diary, is it something worth protecting?

The Supreme Court goofed, as they did in Roe, Michigan affirmative admission, and Sodomy in Texas. Silly for you to accept it to bolster your case. Conversations in the Oval office are protected, by exexutive privilage, and rightly so. Except you think Nixon should be treated differently.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Cox was the special prosecutor. Once the Senate investigation found out that there were audio tapes, Cox subpoenaed them. Nixon, apparently thinking that he was above the law, decided that he didn't need to comply with a subpoena. After Cox wouldn't go away, Nixon told Elliot Richardson to fire him.

Richardson, one of the few people in the administration that had a spine, refused, and then resigned. Dpty. AG Ruckelshaus was told to fire Cox. He refused, too, and also resigned. Ah, but then we have Solicitor General Bork, who was willing to blindly follow orders. "Fire Cox? You betcha Mr. President!"

Nixon found all of this investigation very annoying, and announced that he was going to abolish the office of the special prosecutor. Although a nice try, Nixon was later forced to name another special prosecutor, and ABA President Leon Jaworski was named.

And don't forget, the only reason that Nixon wasn't indicted himself along with Liddy is that Jaworski told the grand jury that in his legal opinion a sitting President could not be indicted. Nixon was named an un-indicted co-conspirator.

It's worth noting, too, that Nixon surely would have been impeached had he not resigned. He spared himself *some* embarrassment in the whole mess. But not much.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Where do you POSSIBLY get the contention that executive privilege protects this?

It's not in the constitution, because there is no such thing as executive privilege in the constitution. Then again, given your previous arguments, I wouldn't expect you to actually look at the constitution when attempting to determine constitutional law. I keep forgetting that you're a "Presidential fiat" kind of guy.

If you are contending that executive privilege covers this sort of thing, present one iota of evidence backing your claim. Nixon couldn't. That's why he lost. Big. Huge.

Um, well, the tapes were pretty damning. They prove that Nixon knew about the break-in and tried to cover it up from the beginning. They don't call it the "smoking gun tape" for nothing.

I look the time to find a transcript of the tape for you:

http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

[duckln]

Very good post, you have a good memory. Line by line, how the opposition destroyed a unanimously elected second term president, all propagated by the democratic media. Same thing going on today in the reporting of the war in Iraq. To bad you don't see the fraud of it all.

By the way, seeing you're so sharp today, how many Democrats have ever been jailed? Dirty politics, breakin, and FBI files is the name of the democrat game. Hillary saw them all while Nixon was accused of having one file. And that was of a dissident sharing secret files with, I think, your Washington Post.

[RJCogburn]

a unanimously elected second term president

You got a problem, fella.

[duckln]

What's your point?

[freekitty]

And I am sorry that I worded it that way.