I went to Politico's website this morning and was struck by something.

What is amazing is the paucity of actual fact in the discussion. If we want to take a really hard look at what happened in the Nixonian era, it was clearly the first time Democrats used Lawfare to overturn an election. After the landslide win, Democrats chose to engage a new strategy. Lawfare. Translation. The illegal use of public office to interfere with an election. We've been living with the consequences ever since.

So, rooting out those who misuse their offices, and power seems to be the right thing to do. Unless you're the feckless hacks who are abusing their power I suppose. How about this. Why don't we quit hyperventilating that suddenly the power of the nation is returning to the people, and not the acolytes who so obviously were trying to destroy the nation and subjugate the citizens.

What we are actually seeing is the unwinding of the Democratic party autocracy that they so carefully crafted over the proceeding 6 decades. A thankless job for sure. And of course, we will see more crying from those who fear the fact they lost their ability to dictate to the nation.

 

That firings occurred in an entirely different political era. Long before our modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship had taken place. Those firings occurred in an era where both major parties respected each other, where partisanship was at a minimum, when both major parties had their conservative, liberal and moderate wings. The firings occurred when campaigns were about ideas, solutions, substance, not all negative personal attacks where today the idea is to get folks to hate the other guy/party more than they hate your guy/party in hopes of getting their vote.


There wasn’t such a thing as straight party line vote’s either. Neither party was out to stop the other party’s political agenda. There was nothing like today where both parties automatically oppose anything proposed by the other party regardless of merit. This all happened within the last 30 or so years. It was also an era when around 80% of all Americans identified themselves with both major parties. When neither major party had their litmus tests to belong as they do today. Today only around 56% of all Americans affiliate or identify themselves with the major parties.


There’s a huge ideological divide between parties today that wasn’t there during Nixon. It’s this modern political era were in that has produced the absents of the rule of law, where being a republican or democrat takes precedence over being an American. There’s no going back, no going back to the ideals and values we had back then. Way too much has changed. In my opinion this change hasn’t been for the better, at least when it comes to political values and ideals or should I say the values and ideals we held dear back then no longer apply today. Today’s political values are all about getting dirt on political opponents, trying to destroy political opponents, not about ideas, solutions, etc. I do miss those old days of Nixon when both major parties would work together with respect for each other.

 

If you bothered to read history, you'd understand that Nixon was a victim of the democratic party and their illegal misuse of their power that led to his resignation. But you don't care, do you? No, Trump won't go down in history as the most corrupt president in history. That will be attributed to the Obama/Biden regimes. History will out.

 

There was a Smoking Gun Tape that caught Nixon red-handed conspiring to cover-up the Watergate Break-in...
And, some people (with an incredibly misinformed view of U.S. History) are claiming that he "was a victim of the democratic party and their illegal misuse of their power"?
That is completely hilarious...
I would suggest anybody holding such an incredibly misguided view go back and take some history lessons...
"Nixon was a victim of the democratic party and their illegal misuse of their power"?

 

Contradicting yourself so early in your response is what's referred to as an epic fail.

 

If you bothered to read history you'd know Nixon resigned because it was made clear to him he had lost the support of Repubs and would have rightly been convicted had the impeachment proceeded.

 

https://shepardonwatergate.com/

Do a little reading. Get back to us. The level of misinformation that you're willing to accept is staggering.

 

For someone who claims they are informed.... I'm sure your party thanks you for your service comrade....

 

The Russians knew who beat them.

“. . . . Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s. . . .

“Reagan’s SDI was a very successful blackmail,” Gerasimov told The Associated Press. “The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S. military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn’t endure such competition. . . . ."

In Russia, Reagan remembered for helping bring down ...

NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › wbna5145921

Jun 5, 2004 — Ronald Reagan's determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy ...

 

GOP unlikely to reprise role it played in Nixon’s 1974 exit

NEW YORK (AP) — On Aug. 7, 1974, three top Republican leaders in Congress paid a solemn visit to President Richard Nixon at the White House, bearing the message that he faced near-certain impeachment due to eroding support in his own party on Capitol Hill. Nixon, who’d been entangled in the Watergate scandal for two years, announced his resignation the next day.

Could a similar drama unfold in later stages of the impeachment process that Democrats have now initiated against President Donald Trump? It’s doubtful. In Nixon’s time, there were conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Compromise was not treated with scorn.

In today’s highly polarized Washington, bipartisan agreement is a rarity. And Trump has taken over the Republican Party, accruing personal rather than party loyalty and casting the GOP establishment to an ineffectual sideline.
https://apnews.com/article/ff1504ddaa5446e5903d4e883e79ff51

I'll let the actual history do the talking for me. Clearly, you can't do the same.

 

I have at no point argued equivalence. I have argued that closing partisan ranks to defend a President was a precedent set by Democrats. All that's needed to prove that is a calendar.
As for the rest, elections have consequences. It remains to be seen whether Trump's DoJ actions are within his power.

 

Democrats picked the fight. They spent four years using the power of government to destroy President Trump, and failed. But thru the misuse of the power of the press they managed to install Biden as President, which brought about the Jan6 riots. Then Democrats followed that by using the power of government for the next four years attempting to destroy private citizen Trump, and failed again. Americans saw thru this abuse of power and re elected Trump to the presidency. Now Trump is replacing those involved in the attempt to destroy his name, family, career, reputation, business and holdings. He is bringing the fight they started back to them. But he isn't trying to destroy every aspect of who they are as they tried to do to him. He is simply pushing them out and replacing them with a new crop. It isn't a conspiracy. It's democracy, by the will of the American electorate.

 

Read up. It's free. https://shepardonwatergate.com/

 

The circumstances could hardly be more disparate, hence your false equivalence.

 

You'll have to pardon me for not wanting to waste time on sensationalized, revisionist, factually false versions of history.

 

No, we don't see it happening, of course we don't. If anyone thinks for a second the spineless dweebs of the Senate GOP are going to 'stop Trump's autocracy', well, don't hold your breath. In my view, the only thing we have where there is a smidgeon of hope are the courts and the good folks behind Mark Elias's Democracy Docket to sue the bastards into oblivion and stop their seeds of fascism.

In a related thread, I posted this;

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...by-donald-trump.624706/page-3#post-1075212297

There is one saving grace in the Senate, and that is that Sen. Maj. Leader Thune probably won't acquiesce to Trump's desire to extinguish the filibuster, though he will be under a lot of pressure from him to do just that. We still have the filibuster, but, it is the very reason Trump attempts to bypass the Congressional purse strings with EOs, because of the filibuster. This leaves room for lawsuits to stop his unconstitutional EOs (those that are, of course, not all of them are).

 

The circumstances are actually beside the point.
It's worth noting, however, that your view might change if you had to explain to junior officers, as I did, why their Commander in Chief got a pass on a transgression that would have disqualified them in their background investigations.

 

Your saturday night massacre meme is as absurd as it is dishonest. Sorry the wholesale firing of US prosecutors whenever the presidency changes political hands is an old game. Clinton did it, Bush the younger did it, so did Obama. Note Nixon fired people He himself appointed in a vain attempt to cover his own raggedy butt. Trump is firing people that were appointed by others.

 

LOL.. Translation.. oh shyte.... Yes. There are plenty of receipts. As with so many things the democrats did to this nation, your unwillingness to even read the debunking of your favorite fantasy play is right up there with achievements in socialized information management.

 

Well you finally go something right Trump did nothing illegal, Clinton regarding perjury did.

 

Trump didn't either. In fact that isn't even in the charging documents for the impeachment.

 

Your revisionist history aside...

Yes, presidents replace U.S. attorneys. That’s standard practice. But what Trump did wasn't just your run-of-the-mill transition cleanup -- he axed anyone investigating him or his allies. Preet Bharara? Gone. Geoffrey Berman? Out the door. SDNY had cases swirling around Trump’s inner circle, and poof -- those attorneys disappeared faster than a campaign promise after Election Day.

And Nixon? He wasn’t just “firing people he appointed.” He was trying to obstruct justice in real time -- literally deleting anyone standing between him and accountability, culminating in the third guy down the chain (Bork) finally agreeing to be his lapdog.

Trump’s move wasn’t about “normal” political transition. It was about self-preservation, about bending the Justice Department to his personal whims like a mob boss purging disloyal capos. If Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre was a frantic cover-up, Trump’s was a slow-motion power grab, stretching over months and infecting the system like a bad case of political syphilis.

So no, this wasn’t just “business as usual.” This was a wannabe strongman flexing his corrupt muscles and you, Garyd, are out here playing historical hopscotch trying to defend it.

 

Receipts?, then produce them. Sorry, excuse us for not wanting to take your word for it.

 

Trump's EO suspending the 14th amendment was illegal as it violated the constitution and federal law.

So, yes, he did do something that was illegal, and all done within his first 12 day of office.

Yes, Clinton committed perjury. But it was about sex. Excuse me, but men, bless their hearts, will lie to God, Himself, let alone Congress, on the subject of sex, noting that his perjury had nothing to do with national security, matters of state, etc., whereby the inquisition (in Dem's view) was none of Congress's business in the first place, which is why Dems in the Senate did not convict him. If anything, he should have been censured, but, impeached? Nonsense. His act pales compared to Trump's wholesale crimes committed on many fronts.

 

Courts, juries (not to mention facts) opine otherwise.