• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Watergate

BobTheCoward said:
Impeachment is a political act. It is not indicative of good evidence a crime occurred.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the impeachment but rather the SCOTUS decision. The president has some special privileges, but he is not above the law. Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
I'm not talking about the impeachment but rather the SCOTUS decision. The president has some special privileges, but he is not above the law. Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

How is his CIA directive illegal obstruction of justice? CIA makes requests of FBI that limits their investigations often enough.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Nixon asked the CIA to request the FBI not look at bank information related to the robbery in Mexico. That is the smoking gun. Read your own source.
Click to expand...

What Mexican robbery? The allegation was that the plumbers were laundering cash through Mexican banks. Nixon demanded that the CIA lie to support the cover-up, and it refused. The CIA had nothing to do with the break-in. What makes you think the President can order anyone to lie to obstruct a federal criminal investigation?
 
Bob001 said:
What Mexican robbery? The allegation was that the plumbers were laundering cash through Mexican banks. Nixon demanded that the CIA lie to support the cover-up, and it refused. The CIA had nothing to do with the break-in. What makes you think the President can order anyone to lie to obstruct a federal criminal investigation?
Click to expand...

I did not say Mexico robbery. The bank information related to the robbery was located in a Mexican bank.

He didn't ask the CIA to lie. He asked the CIA to say it was a national security issue. Hehas the power to determine keeping Mexico out of the news protects national security.
 
Bob001 said:
It was pretty clear that Nixon did not authorize or direct the Watergate break-in. What came down on his head was everything he did to cover it up, including lying, directing others to lie, destruction of evidence, etc., which in turn opened up the whole plumbers operation. Nixon could have saved himself if he had just fired some people at the beginning. And he resigned after Republican elders went to the White House and said "Go now, or you'll be impeached and convicted." Some people thought he quit to protect his federal pension as much as anything else.
Click to expand...

You could be correct about Nixon's role, but I'm not sure any of this has much to do with his famous line, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That particular claim, even in context, seems indefensible.

To be sure, in context, it does not seem to be related to Watergate in the least, which contradicts the impression I had.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I did not say Mexico robbery. The bank information related to the robbery was located in a Mexican bank.

He didn't ask the CIA to lie. He asked the CIA to say it was a national security issue. Hehas the power to determine keeping Mexico out of the news protects national security.
Click to expand...
No. The President is not above the law and his executive privilege is not unconditional. SCOTUS very clearly settled this.
 
phiwum said:
You could be correct about Nixon's role, but I'm not sure any of this has much to do with his famous line, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That particular claim, even in context, seems indefensible.

To be sure, in context, it does not seem to be related to Watergate in the least, which contradicts the impression I had.
Click to expand...

It is, Nixon argued in the Supreme Court case related to his refusal to obey the subpoena that he was above the law.
 
phiwum said:
You could be correct about Nixon's role, but I'm not sure any of this has much to do with his famous line, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That particular claim, even in context, seems indefensible.

To be sure, in context, it does not seem to be related to Watergate in the least, which contradicts the impression I had.
Click to expand...


To be sure, it is indicative of Nixon's view of the relationship between the Presidency and the law. Regardless of context.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
It is, Nixon argued in the Supreme Court case related to his refusal to obey the subpoena that he was above the law.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you. I wondered after posting whether the context I read was insufficient.

Everything I know about Watergate, I learned from trade paperbacks of Doonesbury.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I did not say Mexico robbery. The bank information related to the robbery was located in a Mexican bank.

He didn't ask the CIA to lie. He asked the CIA to say it was a national security issue. Hehas the power to determine keeping Mexico out of the news protects national security.
Click to expand...

A corrupt police chief has the 'authority' to shift the department's priorities away from a case that will expose him (or those he wishes to protect).

That doesn't mean his doing so is lawful and if he gets caught, should be punished for it (in addition to whatever corruption was being investigated to begin with).
 
Last edited:
The Wikipedia link I posted earlier, which Bob said he had already read, is not the Watergate page but the Nixon Tapes page. It includes an audio file of the smoking gun tape. Link

Here's a bit of the smoking gun tape, edited down from a transcript on the Watergate.com website:
  • Haldeman: Okay -that’s fine. Now, on the investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the-in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they have, their investigation is now leading into some productive areas, because they’ve been able to trace the money, not through the money itself, but through the bank, you know, sources – the banker himself. And, and it goes in some directions we don’t want it to go....
  • Nixon: When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!
Click to expand...

In other words, contrary to Nixon's testimony in Congress, he was very aware of the Watergate break-in and was actively involved in covering it up. That he was trying to get the CIA to obstruct the FBI despite the fact there was no national security issue involved. If they had tried to place bugs in the DNC Watergate offices because they had information of criminal activity there, or that they had information of something that threatened national security, that would have been different. But this was all politics. Basically Republican politics.

That was clearly understood at the time. Essentially, everything this tape revealed about what Nixon knew -- and when he knew it -- totally contradicted his previous statements. This is from the Wiki Nixon Tapes:
In April 1974, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the tapes of 42 White House conversations. At the end of that month, Nixon released edited transcripts of the White House tapes, again citing executive privilege and national security; the Judiciary Committee, however, rejected Nixon’s edited transcripts, saying that they did not comply with the subpoena....

[The Supreme Court ruled] 8-0 (Justice William Rehnquist disqualified himself owing to having worked for Attorney General John Mitchell) in United States v. Nixon that President Nixon was wrong in arguing that courts are compelled to honor, without question, any presidential claim of executive privilege.

Once the "smoking gun" tape was made public on August 5, 1974, Nixon's political support practically vanished. The ten Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment in committee announced that they would now vote for impeachment once the matter reached the House floor. He lacked substantial support in the Senate as well; Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott estimated no more than 15 Senators were willing to even consider acquittal.
Click to expand...
 
newyorkguy said:
The Wikipedia link I posted earlier, which Bob said he had already read, is not the Watergate page but the Nixon Tapes page. It includes an audio file of the smoking gun tape. Link

Here's a bit of the smoking gun tape, edited down from a transcript on the Watergate.com website:


In other words, contrary to Nixon's testimony in Congress, he was very aware of the Watergate break-in and was actively involved in covering it up. That he was trying to get the CIA to obstruct the FBI despite the fact there was no national security issue involved. If they had tried to place bugs in the DNC Watergate offices because they had information of criminal activity there, or that they had information of something that threatened national security, that would have been different. But this was all politics. Basically Republican politics.

That was clearly understood at the time. Essentially, everything this tape revealed about what Nixon knew -- and when he knew it -- totally contradicted his previous statements. This is from the Wiki Nixon Tapes:
Click to expand...

A key post of mine was orphaned somewhere so let me paraphrase.

Nixon is right in the tapes. It could lead to a rehashing of bay of pigs.

It isn't hard to construct a hypothetical where president criminal activity has a national security implication. Suppose FDR and Churchill were smuggling heroin and FBI investigation would damage a key ally at a sensitive time.

What is the actual test to apply to the smoking gun as a matter of obstruction of justice?
 
newyorkguy said:
In other words, contrary to Nixon's testimony in Congress, he was very aware of the Watergate break-in and was actively involved in covering it up. That he was trying to get the CIA to obstruct the FBI despite the fact there was no national security issue involved...

Essentially, everything this tape revealed about what Nixon knew -- and when he knew it -- totally contradicted his previous statements.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what laws did he break in doing this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom