- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for people who remember Watergate
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:20 pm to foshizzle
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:20 pm to foshizzle
quote:
People on this board have a hard time sticking to the subject of a thread. It immediately veers off into something completely unrelated.
Thats nice.
What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? You seem to have veered off
0
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:23 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Eyewitness testimony is evidence. Cohen would know what Trump directed him to do, no?
Thats the same thing. Hearsay.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:32 pm to Dale51
I believe hearsay would be "I heard Michael Cohen say that Donald Trump directed him to spend above campaign spending limits and not report it".
"my boss told me to do crimes" is admissible evidence.
"my boss told me to do crimes" is admissible evidence.
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:35 pm to TigerDoc
Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offfered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:36 pm to BBONDS25
Yeah, what Bonds said.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:58 pm to CelticDog
quote:
weakminded
quote:
CelticDog
Yes, you certainly are.
Add mentally ill and unhinged, that would be.....................
You
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:02 pm to redneck hippie
quote:
absolutely believed that Nixon was innocent right up to the very end and it was very painful for him when Nixon admitted he had lied.
That was me to a T.
Of course, Nixon was being targeted just as Trump is today, but the the social media was not there to bring it to melting point heat.
It was inconceivable to me that Nixon would lie - I was really disillusioned after that. I even wanted jail time for him and was pissed when Ford pardoned him.
Of course I knew the media was out to get him - I had seen that in person since he ran for gov of California. The media treated him just like they treat Nixon - but they only had the print media to put out one edition a day and a half hour newscast at night to cover all the events of the day. The bias was there, but it was pretty much a blip - you had to be tuned in to realize it.
IMHO the bias of the media was solidified when they were able to take down a President of the United States by just hounding him - and every generation of 'journalists' since then has gone to bed with visions of being the next one to take down a POTUS. It became their raison d'être.
The emergence of the social media has just given this movement an instantaneous flash point and multitudes of demented illiterates to storm the gates.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Don’t you be getting all legal and stuff up in here baw
BBONDS25
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:34 pm to ChineseBandit58
I was young and liberal, of a sort. I distrusted Nixon but there was clearly a crime (burglary attempt) and he chose to try to protect the fools who did that. There were witnesses to his cover up attempt. But a lot of people did not believe he committed a crime right up to his resignation.
As a side note, my cost accounting professor would watch the Watergate hearings to look at John Dean's wife, Mo Dean, and would show up in class and give us a Mo Dean update pretty much every day.
As a side note, my cost accounting professor would watch the Watergate hearings to look at John Dean's wife, Mo Dean, and would show up in class and give us a Mo Dean update pretty much every day.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:37 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
He's got Michael Cohen and David Pecker saying he directed campaign finance crimes.
Many lawyers, prosecutors, and a former head of the FEC have said that the payments were not crimes. Just because someone pleads guilty to something, does not mean it was a crime.
Independent journal review: LINK
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:37 pm to CelticDog
and you are guilty of multiple counts of dead animal rape, see how easy that is.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:43 pm to TigerDoc
quote:Damn dude, just stop
campaign finance crimes
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:50 pm to redneck hippie
quote:
Did Nixon's base circle the wagons like Trump's base has?
They did at first but eventually they stood up for law and accountability. it was a different era when men in both parties put country before the party.
quote:
I've read Nixon thought the media was out to get him.
LOL. All president think that and have some degree of an adversarial relationship with the press. Nixon was indeed paranoid. It was part of his personality. Of course Trump takes it to extremes.
Trump uses the Nixon political playbook all the time. Of course, Nixon was an intellect and Trump is a fricking moron.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:56 pm to redneck hippie
I wasn't alive but I've talked to old timers who were Nixon supporters at the time. Most of them feel like he was witch hunted to an extent. That is, no one denies the break-in happened, they just contend that it wasnt that big of a deal. They contend that if the Dems broke into the RNC no one would have cared - or if they did, it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of impeachment.
It is a known fact now that Nixon had nothing to do with the break-in. He didn't even know it happened until later when he tried to help sweep it under the rug. He is even on tape I believe calling the burglars stupid and complaining about the mess they'd caused.
The Dems had it out for Nixon ever since his time in Congress. Nixon seved on the HUAC starting in 1947 and helped DOXX subversives and commies like Alger Hiss. This is a big no-no. The left doesn't like it when their radical agenda is exposed and their Soviet agents outed. Ever since his time in Congress they had hated him.
It is a known fact now that Nixon had nothing to do with the break-in. He didn't even know it happened until later when he tried to help sweep it under the rug. He is even on tape I believe calling the burglars stupid and complaining about the mess they'd caused.
The Dems had it out for Nixon ever since his time in Congress. Nixon seved on the HUAC starting in 1947 and helped DOXX subversives and commies like Alger Hiss. This is a big no-no. The left doesn't like it when their radical agenda is exposed and their Soviet agents outed. Ever since his time in Congress they had hated him.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 5:59 pm to dinosaur
quote:
he chose to try to protect the fools who did that.
Yes - that was his 'crime' and he lied about it and I believed him. At that time I was unaccustomed to being lied to. It really pissed me off that someone who I wanted to be POTUS in '60 (my first vote) would be at the peak of a great legacy and throw it all away by lying about something so trivial as a 3rd rate burglary.
quote:
But a lot of people did not believe he committed a crime right up to his resignation.
His crime was not of judicial origin - it was a political crime of lying to the people.
quote:
watch the Watergate hearings to look at John Dean's wife, Mo Dean
lot of people were in the same boat as you professor - but not me - I never thought she was even pretty. Looked too much like a wax figure to me. Of course I was married to a real smoke show - think of Elizabeth Taylor in her prime - my wife was several notches above that.
btw - she is 81 now and still can be seen to turn heads when she walks by.
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:00 pm to redneck hippie
Did you know than within 6 years of watergate the democrats lost the presidency in a landslide bigger than any since 1984 and they lost twelve senate seats?
I guess your “curiosity” doesn’t extend to how absolutely horrid they had to be to do that.
I guess your “curiosity” doesn’t extend to how absolutely horrid they had to be to do that.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:13 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
How compelling all this should be is of course debateable but it's evidence.
No it's not.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:43 pm to Centinel
quote:
You know the difference between Nixon/Watergate and the Trump investigation?
One of them had evidence.
This.
Trump is in a far better and much more secure position than Nixon ever was because there is still no hard evidence of an actual crime implicating the Trump campaign/admin.
Nixon however had to sweat like a motherfricker because there was actual evidence implicating the Nixon admin because there was an actual break in and the people arrested for it were connected to the Nixon White House.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:52 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
He's got Michael Cohen and David Pecker saying he directed campaign finance crimes.
They're not removing Trump from office for paying off hookers despite what your warped brain will believe.
If 10 republicans refused to convict Bill Clinton for getting nasty with whores, they're sure as shite not doing it for Donald trump.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:53 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
He's got Michael Cohen and David Pecker saying he directed campaign finance crimes.
And trump has audio surreptitiously taken of him by his lawyer where he directs any payment made must be legal. Doc...you rarely listen to me....but listen to me on this. This is an EXTREMELY weak case.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News