Worse Than Watergate? The Calls For Impeachment Outstrip Historical Sources

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the recent comparison of Chairman Adam Schiff and others to Watergate. It is not the first time that the rhetoric has outpaced the law of impeachment. However, if we are to have a meaningful exchange about impeachment, we should make a good-faith effort to agree on the historical facts.

Here is the column:

“This is beyond anything Nixon did.” Those words declared by Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff capture the vast constitutional challenge for the House Judiciary Committee as it heads toward its announced hearing on the impeachment of President Trump. There is still disagreement, to use a Clintonian twist, of what “this” is.

Yet whatever “this” is, it is not Nixonian, at least not yet. Schiff seems to struggle to reduce the harsh allegations against Richard Nixon in order to elevate those against Donald Trump. Schiff explained that Watergate was merely “a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters” while “what we are talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting” of the Ukrainian president and of “the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. This is beyond anything Nixon did.”

Schiff is not alone. Neal Katyal, who served in the Justice Department under President Obama, said that the Ukraine allegations are “in many ways even worse” than the alleged obstruction by President Nixon of his impeachment investigation. Katyal added that it is now “all there” in the record. (His analysis is undeniably consistent, as he previously declared that the obstruction case against Trump in the Russia investigation was “devastating” and that there was an easy “road map” for the charges.)

The Nixon impeachment began with a felony crime with the Watergate burglary and then swept to encompass an array of other crimes involving political slush funds, payments of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, directing tax audits of critics, witness intimidation, multiple instances of perjury and even an alleged kidnapping. In the end, there were nearly 70 officials charged and four dozen found guilty. Nixon was also named as an unindicted conspirator by a grand jury.

However, according to Schiff and Katyal, all those federal crimes appear to pale in comparison to the Ukraine controversy. Katyal said on air that Trump has denied Congress the testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton and “a whole bunch of other people.” This on its face, Katyal claimed, constitutes “unprecedented obstruction, in many ways even worse than President Nixon during Watergate. They have gagged every single executive branch employee from going and testifying.”

But that is not exactly unprecedented. Take the Obama administration position, for instance, on the investigation of “Fast and Furious,” which was a moronic gunwalking operation in which the government arranged for the illegal sale of powerful weapons to drug cartels in order to track their movement. One such weapon was used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and Congress began a justified oversight investigation. Some members called for impeachment proceedings. But Obama invoked executive privilege and barred essential testimony and documents. The Obama administration then ran out the clock in the judiciary, despite a legal rejection of its untenable and extreme claim by a federal court.

During its litigation, the Obama administration argued that the courts had no authority over its denial of such witnesses and evidence to Congress. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has tried Trump associate Roger Stone, ruled that “endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.” Katyal is likely familiar with this precedent. He was acting solicitor general of the Justice Department at the start of “Fast and Furious” at the start of the controversy.

Presidents have often gone to court to litigate conflicts over Congress calling top White House officials whose conversations are ordinarily protected by executive privilege. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all barred evidence on that ground, and presidents are entitled to receive judicial review in conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. In the Obama litigation over the blocking of evidence, Jackson reaffirmed that such judicial review is part of the constitutional system of allowing courts to “determine whether another branch has exceeded its power.” Citing two Supreme Court rulings, Jackson added that it would “elevate and fortify” one branch to dictate the results in such conflicts.

Putting the “unprecedented” claim aside, it is not true that the Trump administration “gagged every single executive branch employee from going and testifying.” Yes, the Trump administration did tell executive officials not to testify, and I have disagreed with that position as well as the underlying claims of privilege and immunities. However, several officials have testified despite the White House position. This includes many core witnesses in the impeachment hearings, such as National Security Council Director of European Affairs Alexander Vindman, Ambassador William Taylor, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, Acting Assistant Secretary of State Philip Reeker, Under Secretary of State David Hale, Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mark Sandy, and foreign service officer David Holmes. All remain in federal service in good standing.

I have written that the case for impeachment could be greatly enhanced by the witnesses not subpoenaed by the House. Democrats burned two months during which they could have subpoenaed and litigated access to Bolton as well as Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others. Schiff has simply said that he refuses to be tied up in the courts. However, a lower court decision that former White House counsel Don McGahn should testify on the Russian matters shows that the courts are indeed ready to issue such orders.

With impeachment, such review can be expedited. Yet Democrats chose not to go to court even though the refusal of an order would be a clear obstruction case if not stayed by a higher court. It is difficult to see the “devastating” aspect of such an incomplete record against Trump as it exists today, let alone the claim that Trump has “out-Nixoned” Nixon. That is why, whatever “this” is, in the words of Schiff, it is not Watergate. That does not mean it is not impeachable, but the House will have to build its case to that level, not lower historical impeachments to “this” level.

Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He has testified with other constitutional experts in the Clinton impeachment.

270 thoughts on “Worse Than Watergate? The Calls For Impeachment Outstrip Historical Sources”

  1. Marky Mark Mark – do you use the same defense for each client you defend? You sure cut-and-paste here which leads me to believe you are doing the same for your clients.

  2. IF President Obama did something out of line, this doesn’t make it okay for President Trump to do something out of line.

    IF Bill Clinton flew around in Epstein’s plane a bunch of times, this doesn’t make it okay that Donald J. Trump is the only man in history who played co-defendant to Jeffrey Epstein in a child rape case, and after that fact, was then rewarded with a presidency.

    I hope people research their babysitters better than they research their presidents.

    Whataboutism is really getting old, people. Nixon did this, and Johnson did that … but no president has ever jeopardized the security of our country the way President Trump has.

    While I do agree with Turley that rushing through this is not the way to do it, I only agree with that because half of America has been given the sleeper hold of the fake news whims of the GOP, and they should have the opportunity to wake up and become acquainted with the facts so that this impeachment is by The People, not by just the people who weren’t hoodwinked by this administration’s opportunism.

    It is difficult to accept that Trump’s base is still intoxicated by his armed stance in the middle of 5th Avenue (and the smell of his orange Tic Tacs), but yeah, if impeachment is not wanted by more of “The People,” things could get ugly … or uglier.

    The problem is, this is no longer just an unfitness for office issue; it is a national security issue. The president operates as a lobbyist and not a protector of the nation. He has soiled the office and he has betrayed his oath.

    The crime of bribery is committed as soon as the public official exercises his power with an “ask.” Bribery does not require payoff. Neither does Quid Pro Quo. “Something for Something” only requires the demonstration of expectation.

    The money for Ukraine had already been approved. The president doesn’t get to add some hoops for Zelensky to jump through just because Trump is the DEALMAKER and knows poking holes in Biden helps him in November. He just had to “go there.” He basically put his hand up the skirt of the OMB, and what was Zelensky supposed to say? If he wants to defend his country, he can’t do it without Trump’s power.

    Everybody was mad at Bill Clinton for his abuse of power over a young Monica Lewinsky. Gosh. What about a president’s power over a guy who is at war with RUSSIA? Remember when Russia was still not to be trusted? Guess not. There are Russian tanks sitting on Ukraine streets. The people of Ukraine wake up to this, but Trump wants to barter with our money for favors that help him.

    President Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier because there were time constraints. They could tell he was playing games, and thank goodness they did. We can no longer count on a president doing the right thing.

    And this is why there’s a rush. Y’all need to wake up.

    1. “IF President Obama did something out of line, this doesn’t make it okay for President Trump to do something out of line.” But it does show there are two completely different standards applied based on party affiliation.

      For instance, Joe Biden brags on camera about a literal quid pro quo: You fire the prosecutor or I leave in six hours and take over a billion in aid with me. It meets all the standards of a quid pro quo, and both parties are fully aware, and there is video evidence. It benefitted his son, Hunter Biden, whose company was under investigation. Hunter was getting paid $50,000 a month with no other qualification than that his father set Ukrainian policy. Joe is on camera bragging that he, not Obama, was in charge of Ukrainian policy.

      Compare and contrast with Trump: The transcript shows no quid pro quo. Ukraine was not aware of any quid pro quo. There was no direct evidence. Witnesses admitted they either “presumed” (i.e. made it up themselves) or heard it form someone who heard it from someone, who all admitted no one directly tied aid to the investigation.

      Look at the lengths that Democrats are willing to go to in order to prevent an investigation into alleged criminal misconduct on the part of their presidential candidate.

      Their reason to impeach Trump is that if he investigated Ukraine, it would benefit him politically. Tying aid to that investigation would personally benefit him.

      However, any investigation into any Democrat would benefit Republicans. Therefore, Democrats are above the law. Ignore the fact that Obama spied on candidate Trump.

      Conclusion: evidence of a quid pro quo by Joe Biden is okay. He is a Democrat and therefore not subject to the same standards and laws. No direct evidence of a quid pro quo by Trump is an impeachable offense, as he is subject to an entirely different set of standards and laws.

      This is an example of why we conservatives are desperately trying to prevent Democrats from installing yet another Leftist dictatorship. They are guilty of everything they accuse Republicans of doing, including abuse of power for political gain. This is all to damage Trump prior to 2020, meddling in our election. They claimed they were defending the Constitution. Really, because they actively fight against the 2nd Amendment, the first Amendment, freedom of religion, and the electoral college.

      This is what Democrats just do not get. They claim they fight Trump using all means necessary, because they are trying to prevent a tyrant. It’s not Trump who seeks tyranny, it’s THEM. Look at how they systematically target and destroy opponents, including little pizza parlor owners who would not want to participate theoretically in a gay wedding. Or bakers who don’t want to make a cake celebrating that a man thinks he is a woman, and therefore should have access to their showers, locker rooms, and battered women shelters. Look at how they threaten invited conservative speakers on college campuses across America. Look at how they argue – oppose illegal immigration, then you’re a xenophobe who hates kids. It’s tyrannical.

      We are trying to save the Left from themselves. It is ironic that they would usher in the very tyranny they claim they are fighting against.

      When we vote against Democrat Socialism, we vote against starvation, a government powerful enough to take your business and home from you, and mass murder. And they call us evil for it.

      Moderate Democrats where are you? Are you too afraid to speak up because you don’t want to suffer the abuse you’ve seen heaped upon conservatives?

      1. “But what about President Obama? Why can’t President Trump be a POS, TOO?”

        That’s what I heard.

        HINT: If you were unhappy with how President Obama did his job, you should have gotten your representatives to act.

        The rest of your response is really not worth responding to. You managed to lose any chance at credibility by being so presumptuous. Pay attention: You are no longer battling JUST the Democrats.

        I am an ex-Republican because the Republican Party no longer exists when every GOP member excuses the filth I’ve seen it excuse during the past three years.

        “Conservatives” handing over a presidency to the only man in history who managed to allow his name to be joined with Jeffrey Epstein’s in a co-defense for a child rape case … is not a good look.

        Further, your concern for the fetus is wasted when there is clearly a concerted effort to disregard children in general, and also, women. Had President Obama grown a list of 15 women accusing him of rape, I can guarantee you President Obama would have been removed.

        In closing, I don’t find you particularly “evil.” I find you gullible, and I find you sad, and I find you weak in much the same way I find my mother’s family who turned their heads while Jews were marched away from their homes and into train cars headed for concentration camps during World War II.

        They have since seen their error, as I hope you will.

        When America attempted to systematically target and destroy a dictator during World War II, ALL Americans waved their flags in unison. And hey, I understand how hard it will be to admit you fell for a naked emperor, but I would encourage you to be more stringent about the information you ingest, more stringent in your critical thinking, and for God’s sake, have more self-respect.

        We have a parasite in The People’s house on Pennsylvania Avenue, and he will continue to feed upon his host for as long as you continue to offer him that linen tablecloth and napkin with which you dab his slobbering gob.

        1. Miriam:

          ““But what about President Obama? Why can’t President Trump be a POS, TOO?”

          That’s what I heard.”

          Well, then you have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension, because that’s not what I said.

          What I actually said is the exact opposite of what you claim I did.

          You said, “IF President Obama did something out of line, this doesn’t make it okay for President Trump to do something out of line.” I said, But it does show there are two completely different standards applied based on party affiliation.

          Now, do you support two different standards applied based on party affiliation? If so, why? Because the disparity is really consistent. When you reason this out, try not to fabricate my own position.

          1. Tonight, on The Karen Show:

            Karen is appalled by the black privilege of that darned ol’ President Obama.

            Join us tomorrow when Karen is further appalled because her Great White Hope isn’t getting a trophy for showing up at the Integrity Contest at which he was not a winner.

        2. Miriam:

          Oh, and one more thing. Your comment, “In closing, I don’t find you particularly “evil.” I find you gullible, and I find you sad, and I find you weak in much the same way I find my mother’s family who turned their heads while Jews were marched away from their homes and into train cars headed for concentration camps during World War II.” – that’s vile, disgusting, and reprehensible.

          Equating my comment that a different standard is applied depending on political affiliation with people looking the other way while millions of Jewish men, women, and children were tortured and murdered” is beyond belief. I am shocked that anyone lacking that kind of moral compass or critical reasoning skills is able to thump out a sentence on a keyboard. The hatred and bigotry must be difficult to live with.

          You exhibited the exact same hatred that I discussed in an earlier post. It’s irrational. God help you.

      2. You have conveniently forgot (or never knew because hannity didn’t say it) that Vice President Biden’s discussion with Ukraine regarding the military aide was conducted for the benefit of the United States, and was directly consistent with the stated goals of United States foreign policy. In other words, Biden wasn’t seeking any personal benefit when he informed the Ukrainian government that their head crook needed to be run off. Moreover, all the gullywash about the company that Biden’s son was involved with is chaff meant to trick the simple-minded; that company wasn’t under investigation at all at that time.
        But why would one of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors or grifters on the make accept the wise counsel of dedicated, experienced, professional foreign policy experts and law enforcement professionals who have repeatedly informed any who would listen regarding all these facts, when the screeching fools on Pravda Faux News can dish out some comforting gruel to placate your worried mind regarding the fact that you support a likely traitor as buffoon in chief?
        This just goes to show, even the day glo bozo blind supporters realize that there’s no defense to the charlatan’s attempted bribery and shadow treason; talk about anything but that. However, we American patriots will remedy your blindness, and save my beloved country. The ticking sound grows louder.

        this is to “oh, ya, well rush musta forgot about all that” karen

        1. Key Words:
          American patriots, my beloved country, dupes, Klan wannabees, day glo bozo, Pravda Faux News, etc. , blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

          This fool could use some new material.

        2. “was conducted for the benefit of the United States”

          Mark M, you sling out BS in such a sophomoric fashion. Go back to your basement. Hunter Biden was enriched as was the Biden family. Are you on the take?

  3. What a poor interpretation by Jonathan Turley in his attempt to critique reasons for impeachment in https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/03/adam-schiffs-capacious-definition-of-bribery-was-tried-in-1787.

    Turley discusses historic accounts to discuss something completely irrelevant. Not a single Democratic leader on the Intel or Judiciary committees has claimed “self-dealing” on its own is an impeachable act. Self-dealing is an emoluments violation. In addition, by Turley saying “all politicians do it” does make it right.

    1. Impeachable acts for seeking foreign interference in an election as a way to retain a President;’s power. That is illegal. The American right to free, unfettered elections should never be interfered with by President seeking to retain office.

    2. Asking for something of personal value in exchange for a government act; a Presidential meeting or foreign aid. That’s bribery Jonathan!

    3. Withholding Congressionally approval foreign act critical to safeguard a democratic ally against Russian aggression; jeopardizing National Security for Trump’s own personal interest. According the Constitution, impeachable. He put Ukrainian lives at risk, weakening Ukraine position in peace negotiations with Russia and putting American national security at risk should Russia take more Ukrainian land as they move West. This is putting a President’s personal political interests over that of the American people. The same thing Trump did turning his back on our ally the Kurds, or talking about waiting for an economic deal with China until after the 2020 election. All items of personal interest or benefit to Trump – undermining what is in the best interests of democracy and the American people.

    4. Congressional obstruction. No subpoenas adhered to by the Trump Administration, with clear obstruction, no documents provided and explicit witness tampering and intimidation.

    Jonathan Turley CLAIMS thins evidence. Not true. Hundreds of hours of corroborating witnesses and testimony, including first-hand witnesses and call transcripts and phone records.

    Jonathan Truly claims more evidence should be collected over a longer period. What 7-years like Hastings? Trump has blocked 71 requests for documents, and prevented key individuals in the Whitehouse from testifying. Nixon nor Clinton did this. Even Gordon Sondland said these additional documents, records and testimony would be helpful as EVERYONE was aware of the quid pro quo. What would Turley propose as the mention for getting this additional evidence that has been withheld?

    Turley’s bias is obvious here. If this is not impeachable, what is Jon?

    1. Now walk in Turley’s shoes and present your own ‘evidence’ something I failed to find t any degree in the diatribe.

    2. If you think Professor Turley is biased in favor of Trump, then you clearly don’t read his blog.

      He argued against President Bush on many issues. He voted for Obama, but critiqued his abuse of power. He routinely criticizes Trump, but his analysis is on legal merits.

      He is not a Republican activist. He mentions his own personal opinion of matters in passing, but his legal analysis is independent. For instance, I recall him personally believing in Obama’s goals, while legally criticizing his methods.

  4. So based on the claims of two anti-Trump daughters of a long- deceased podiatrist, Natacha “knows” that Trump had “non- existent bone spurs”.

    1. Yet it is virtuous to support Bill and Hillary Clinton even if Bill raped women and Hillary smeared said victims till this very day….

      #Metoo_wtf

      Then there is this hot mess of 1/1024th Injun who will destroy any hope of Americans ever being united again…because she feels compelled to wear a PP scarf as the most polarizing statement ever

      “Elizabeth Warren Promises To Wear Her Pink Planned Parenthood Scarf When She Is Sworn in as President”
      https://grabien.com/story.php?id=263243

      1. There is nothing virtuous about the DNC when it comes to supporting the Clintons when ‘virtuous’ is coupled to ‘decent’ citizens. Likewise there is noothing virtuous in pointing fingers at their own ‘agents’ that we called RiNOs but who are really just the right wing OF the left.

        As for the pink scarf business ‘sworn in’ is more likely to become ‘sworn at’ for simple reasons such as. ‘”hey lizzie borden warren! So iyou publiczed one set of tax returns have you publicized the others or have you paid back the money you stole from the programs to encourage others to apply for jobs requiring an indigenous background? or the curious unsupportable mathematics you use figuring out how much money you can gain from a tax raise.”

        Nothing to difficult to expose E. Warren and her lack of virtues . But try to find some to extoll? the bell cracks and does not resonate in the minds of ‘decent’ people

    2. Tom, the podiatrist in question just happened to rent his office space in building owned by Fred Trump.

      1. Peter, This borders on idiocy. Statistically this is not as uncommon as you wish to believe so taken alone the statement is meaningless.

        Think of how many types of relationships many people could have had with Trump.

        “the podiatrist in question just happened to rent his office space in building owned by Fred Trump”
        play cards
        go to the same house of worship
        have children in the same school
        have children that played ball with him
        etc.

        Think of six degrees of separation.

        1. A surgeon who operated on me “just happened to” be in the same medical complex as a relative, who was also an MD.
          Maybe John Burgoyne can build a conspiracy theory out of that as well.

          1. Not a conspiracy just a well known fact, you are stupid. Are you and Alan graduates of short school bus program, bless your hearts.

            1. I understand YNOT’s inability to distinguish “a well known fact” from a second or third hand allegation arising decades later.
              Best to stick with your “very own” set of facts, YNOT. I don’t think you have the capacity to do otherwise.
              Your consistent obnoxious makes your “facts” even more compelling.

            2. YNOT, none of your comments dispel the truth that your intellect lies somewhere between your legs and your waist. Don’t even try to understand statistics. You have to first learn how to add and subtract.

    3. Not entirely. Trump claims he doesn’t recall what medical problem resulted in his deferment, and the medical documentation for his alleged disability is missing. Plus, there’s the fact that Trump can’t come up with the name of any practitioner who treated him for this alleged condition, has no demonstrable ongoing impairment, hasn’t had surgery, and lies all of the time, so, yes, like most logical people, I believe there were no bone spurs and that Trump is just a coward.

      Why do you think these daughters are “anti-Trump”? Because they don’t lie for him or try to spin the facts?

      1. the fact was established by the podiatrist who examined the patient

        the daughters are not experts and they did not perform any exams.

        end of story.

        pathetic that you would try and bring forth unqualified garbage like that which wouldn’t even pass muster in small claims court. sad

      2. “Plus, there’s the fact that Trump can’t come up with the name of any practitioner who treated him for this alleged condition” I can’t recall the name of a doctor that I saw 20 years ago. You are talking about 50 years.

        I suffered terrible symptoms from bone spurs from a show a year ago. I do not exhibit symptoms today.

        Almost everything you write is a falsehood. Almost every accusation you levy against President Trump has been false, as well. Then there’s the lies that you’ve told about me, and others. Plus you include a string of insults in virtually every post. This is very ugly, Natacha. It is also a microcosm of a general trend among Democrats, as well. It’s been about 20 years of Democrat arguments amounting to insults, ad hominem, and false accusations against conservatives. We’ve been false accused of being racists, Nazis, etc by people unable to make a cogent argument. Don’t you see that insulting someone gives the clear message that you are over faced by their argument?

        Perhaps you are an example of someone who lies out of political motivation. Very sad.

    4. That’s Comrade machine parts of The Collective unsupported opinion but then the description I use fairly fits the waiting to be programmed collective while the Constitutional Centrists and others are not so gullible. Further it’s why the left never mentions the Citizens as a whole but cognizant group of self governing citizens but only the tiny fragments they have chosen to demonize.

      Couple that with the claims of this or that amount of voters one only has to subtract the illegals and phonys,and the walk aways whom they do not control and the largest voting group of 2016 where 40% were neither GOP or DNC but in the end took 55% versus 45% and in doing so controlled the election by adding the non RINO portion of the GOP. and poof poof pizzle there other than the meaningless propaganda of the left goes their whole reason for existing.

      Flip to the off year elections such as 2018 and you see and you do see a difference but this is not an off year election and yet we have only to enter the discussion with useful and verifiable information to produce the same result.

      All with zero budget.

  5. By now, we should all know how evil both political sides are, but the left gets the grand prize. The hearings were scheduled on a day that they knew Trump would be out of the country at a NATO meeting, just so they could run ads and publish articles saying “Trump refuses to be at the hearings”, is truly an act right out of 1984.

    There is no doubt, the Left is the most evil force on the earth at the present moment.

  6. It is unfair to call Adam Schiff a snake. Unfair to snakes. No. Adam is from some place in CA. That is the sanctuary state. Ask yourself this question. If you were at a farmers market and a person selling cow manure looked like Adam Schiff would you trust him when he says it is really manure from a cow? No. Look at his eyes. What an itShay.

  7. You know what was worse than Watergate?

    Bush lying the world into war and illegally spying and torture.

    Democrats are literally trying to impeach Trump for exactly what Biden did in the Ukraine and bragged about.

    1. Fortunately those of us who recognized the sudden refusal to deny the existence of two thirds of the known weapons of mass destruction or the evidence concerning the other one third just pointed out, at least to us in the military the lengths the left goes to to switch sides after voting to send us to war.

      It does nothing to remove the stigma the left carries as the War Monger Party nor negate it’s responsibility since 1909 for the deaths caused to US service personnel among other perpetutated falsehoods.

      I’ll match the record of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama out of the information in any of the World Almanacs and Book of Facts any day of the week. So much for Comrade Peeles’ unsupported nonsense.

      When was the last US military vs Indigenous population war? Paiute 1923 Coolidge Republican. FDR continued by Truman who began the Korean Conflict then ,

      Every socialist liberal President was seated at the beginning of a war or conflict. Except Obama whose party had voted for one under the War Powers act.

      No Socialist/Democrat has honored the War Powers Act. since it’s inception or claimed it was a war in progrress. Both Bush’s did go before Congress which voted in favor of war.

      The rule is if you were in the seat your get the credit for the bodies.

  8. here CBS censors Trump political ads.

    this is an outrage. if the corporate media won’t report objectively, and won’t even sell ads, then how do you get the word out to the masses?

    we all know the answer to that. Romans called it “Facta non verba”

    we all know how this ends if they keep it up. OK– si vis pacem…..

    1. excellent story benson, one just wonders how expensive the concoction would be, otherwise it won’t get adopted

      1. Since it is just wastes, not much more than the transportation cost; cheap for those near the grape vines and unobtainable otherwise.

        1. not sure if it matters but grape vines are abundant up north in the midwest, kind of parasitical like kudzu in the South. but, usually they do not fruit, unless they’re in the full sunlight. usually they only fruit when they’re cultivated.

  9. “However, a lower court decision that former White House counsel Don McGahn should testify on the Russian matters shows that the courts are indeed ready to issue such orders.”

    Lower courts may be ready to do so – but let’s play this out knowing Trump’s strategy here. The courts will issue such orders for the witness to appear, and then Trump will appeal them. And then the appeals courts will issue such orders and Trump will appeal them to SCOTUS. And then SCOTUS will order them to appear and then the witness will appear and refuse to answer most of the questions because, see, the SCOTUS order only said they had to appear – it did not say which questions they have to answer. And then the lower court will issue an order to force them to answer and Trump will appeal that. And then the appeals court will issue an order to force them to answer and Trump will appeal that to SCOTUS. And then, finally, the witness is brought back before Congress and the witness will say “I do not recall.”

    This whole process will take a couple of years, at which point the record will be complete with these witnesses’ “I do not recall” statements with no real further information added to the record, well after the next election by which time this may be a moot point or the public would have lost all interest in it.

    Schiff can see right through this strategy even if Turley refuses to see it.

    1. Nick:
      I’m sure you’ll agree that opening your case with your expert witness is one of the surest ways to lose. Opening with a group of them disagreeing in public is suicide.

      1. mespo, Agree. I remember Watergate and there were serious legislators on both sides of the aisle. This Congress is a clown convention. I can’t remember any case in my 40 years that opened w/ expert testimony.

        1. Nick:
          It’s sheer insanity to open with a discussion of the law and leave your fact witnesses in the wings. Tone deaf advocacy. No one is going to sit through it. Who cares what a group of intellectuals think whose name isn’t preceded by “Justice.” Nadler forgot the only court that matters in a democracy is the Court of Public Opinion. For example, abortion has never been more legal, broadly construed or easy to get and yet there are fewer abortions now per capita than before Roe v. Wade when it was illegal.

          1. Towards the end of Lou Dobbs tonight explains the words people like Prof Turley should say just before they walk out in protest.

            Do not walk out, it will be they that are shown the fool.

              1. Mespo:
                1973, pre-Roe there were 16.3 abortions per 1000 US women. In 2013, there were 15.9 abortions per 1000 US women.

                The FDA approved mifepristone followed by misoprostol in the year 2000. Those two pills are taken in sequence days apart to induce a medical abortion…..at home. Abortions historically were performed in a facility that employed physicians to surgically perform abortions.
                Today more than 40% of abortions are performed via pills that women can buy online. While Planned Barrenhood charges more for medical abortion “consultations” compared to surgical abortions, women can get these medications via various alternative methods bypassing traditional abortion providers. You cant capture those medical abortions into statistics.

                Abortion rates have likely increased in America since Roe v Wade when you factor decline in birth rates and account for medically induced abortions. Abortion stats are unreliable in general given that the most infamous provider that performs them lies with gusto

                1. This is true. Kurtzie articulated this theory way back during the hair-pulling and teeth-knashing over the ascension of the latest two right-wing troglodytes to the Supremes. Basically, since these meds are so effective and easy to obtain, traditional abortion as we have come to know it will slowly peter out.

                  to esty

        2. Hi Nick!

          Notice with the Swamp running Nixon out of office the public, you, me, etc. at the time we were not inform that some inside of the FBI/CIA/etc., helped set Nixon up for the fall.

          I still don’t know the real story is except with more details I now trust Nixon was the better party for the USA, & that’s an odd position for me.

    2. My guess is that JT’s articles in the Hill are the reason he was selected by the Republicans. I suspected that JT was finagling for such a platform. Indeed, it would hardly surprise me if he joins the Trump impeachment legal team! He has already butted heads with Adam Schiff defending an impeachment against a sitting judge, a case he lost to Schiff which might explain his dismissive view of Schiff in the most recent Hill article. Still, JT is hardly the kind of counsel whose opinion will thrill Trump as his main complaint is that the Democrats need only to take their time in order to fortify their case against Trump by forcing the undoubtedly damning testimony of those aides nearest to him. It will be interesting to watch the reaction of the Trump sycophants to JT’s suggestion to the Democrats to litigate their subpoenas against Pompeo, Bolton, et.al., as opposed to moving ahead on an incomplete record but otherwise impeachable presidential abuse of power (if not bribery per se).

  10. “The Nixon impeachment began with a felony crime with the Watergate burglary and then swept to encompass an array of other crimes involving political slush funds, payments of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, directing tax audits of critics, witness intimidation, multiple instances of perjury and even an alleged kidnapping. In the end, there were nearly 70 officials charged and four dozen found guilty. Nixon was also named as an unindicted conspirator by a grand jury.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    The coup d’etat against the duly elected President Donald J. Trump began with the election of 2016 “…then swept to encompass an…” insidious appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate not a crime but a contrived, hypothetical counter-intelligence operation and, ultimately, a counterfeit coup attempt as fanatical comrade, Mark S. Zaid, told us, the …”coup has started…impeachment will follow…,” the leader of which was Barack Obama, as the radical Feminazi White Shirt, Lisa Page, told us, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing…,” in a September 2, 2016, text exchange with her FBI colleague and lover, Peter Strzok. Defining “impeachment” as a last resort and egregious abuse of power by Congress to obstruct, prevent and overturn a free and fair election in 2020, Rep. Al Green stated, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.”

    – Mark S. Zaid, Twitter account on Jan. 30, 2017
    ____________

    “SCOTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page
    _________

    “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

    – Rep. Al Green
    _____________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray,

    McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap,

    Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer,

    Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel,

    Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy),

    Nadler, Schiff, Obama et al.
    _____________________

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin, 1787

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

    – Ben Franklin, 2019
    ________________

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    1. You list all whom you see as the conspirators. So why do you think none have been charged – McCabe only for lying to Congress – with a Trump Administration in control of DOJ for almost 3 years? Does this inform you of anything?

      You wish to see President Trump “seize power” … become an Erdogan to “save the Republic”. I suggest reading the history of the last decades of the Roman Republic. Lincoln did not “seize power” … check the history, and he was dealing with a situation incredibly more grave.

      1. And JFK was in control of the U.S. government until November 22, 1963. Oops!

        “Crazy Abe” won 1860 by 38.9%, a la Hitler, and 1864 by brute military force – Honest Abe sneaked in and ruled as a brutal dictator until someone changed his mind.

        “Honest Abe” was dealing with nothing more than eminently constitutional secession (secession is not denied or precluded by the Constitution) – something the Founders engaged in some 85 years previously. Do you know any American history? Do you know that Catalan, Brexit, Bangladesh, Pakistan, East Timor, West Virginia and every nation in the former Soviet Union all seceded or petitioned to secede legally and peacefully. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was the “odd man out.” He didn’t believe in divorce – he believed the wife should be forced to stay with the abusive husband. Thanks, Abe. “Crazy Abe” refused to withdraw invading military forces from a legal, constitutional, sovereign foreign nation. “Crazy Abe” unconstitutionally and criminally suspended Habeas Corpus and illegally detained his political opponents; he confiscated the legal private property of Americans; he failed to deport illegal aliens which freed slaves became when their status changed from “property” to “illegal alien” due to the requirement of the Nationalization Act of 1802 which required cit-zens to be “…free white person(s).” Abraham Lincoln was the greatest mortal enemy the Constitution and America have ever seen. Abe predicted America would be destroyed from within. He was right. He destroyed it.

        1. Very funny! Thanks for all the good laughs. “invading military forces from a legal, constitutional, sovereign foreign nation”, “unconstitutionally and criminally suspended Habeas Corpus”. Life is short. Get all the good laughs you can. Have a couple of good hits and take another shot.

          1. you’re snarky C but in fact Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, smashed newspaper printing presses, and did any number of dictatorial things.

          2. Yup, he invaded the sovereign foreign slave states who had zero legal grounds to decide to pursue their own interests having agreed and approved the Constitution, with no provision to roll their own … only after a federal fort was attacked. Suspension of habeas corpus involved a limited number of MD assemblymen by judgment of a pro slave sympathizer justice (Taney), decision strange, filed in Circuit Court, not by the Supreme Court, unclear of role since justices acted in both. This was done because MD surrounded DC and MD was against the Union, could ring fence CD out of the Union. Facts in history matter. If you can’t see this, and you choose to grab the ones you like, your choice. Meanwhile … I get all the good laughs I can as Will Rogers advised.

            1. actually there was a legitimate claim to secession by the states. and at the time the northern states were practicing nullification of federal laws willy nilly, such as Michigan that would not enforce the Fugitive Slave act

              sorry to burst your bubble “C”

              george carries on a bit long winded about this subject and I don’t wholly agree with him, but one the points I’ve identified he’s in line with the facts

              here’s an essay about it. i find the subject tiresome but if you have integrity you will pull up the link and study the perspective of people who lived in that time and disabuse yourself of your ignorance

              https://bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm

              it is fair to say that Lincoln answered the question of the right of secession decisively with organized violence, ie, war. Which is always the last word in political matters, isn’t it? Which is why I am not exercised over this issue like George is.

              War is always the most decisive answer to all political questions particularly where matters of organic laws of nation-states are concerned. Legal arguments are just arguments, organized force which prevails is the judge of all such matters, as long as it can maintain the same answer. As long as…..

              1. Read the link, some arguments I’d not read previously, some arguments snatched from places not relevant, some good ones, some added to ‘fuzz up’ the conversation. Overall, I didn’t buy the thesis. It would be interesting to read a dispassionate analysis by a 3d party instead of from deep South academic institutions. “3d party” could be UK or … maybe West Coast, states with no skin in the game. At the end of the day it’s moot. Some history is worth learning from, some is a waste of time, done … although a favored pastime is re-envisioning/re-engineering history typically with factoids that don’t fit or arguing the past, or countering claims of current bad behavior with “what about XXX? why aren’t they in jail?”. I try not to do the last because it is intellectually bankrupt. Home now and will look down but done with this topic, meaningless to me.

          3. If you care for some facts and truth in a brief overview of Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror,” read “Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics 1776 – 1963” by Donald Jeffries. You can even e-mail the author for fact citations. And yes, Lincoln compelled “loyalty,” had a political opponent thrown in prison for presenting the counter political expression in body language and, upon the vote for and declaration of secession by the member states of the CSA, the CSA was a sovereign foreign nation.

            1. The CSA was a confederation of slave states wishing to preserve the plantation economic model without which the southern culture could not survive. Robert E. Lee admitted as much as did others. If you see this as legitimate having approved the Constitution and chosen to leave, your choice. An interesting thought experiment would fast forward to today if there were a separate South and Union. Given the economic deprivation of the southern states today, they would arguably be worse off in the plantation model system. You wish to defend the legitimacy of the as a “sovereign foreign nation”!!! Clearly you don’t’ support the tenets of the original “experiment”. I do having some stake in the game with ancestors who fought and those who came later and fought/died in N Africa, Sicily, Anzio, New Guinea, Guadcanal, Tarawa, Saipan. If the Union has no meaning to you, fine. However, it is intellectually bankrupt to defend using the Constitutional protections to decry what you see as infractions while at the same time not defending the violation of the Constituion by secession. Think about it, but from your post I doubt any of what I wrote would affect your thinking. Congruence and confirmation bias are powerful.

              1. C: you are as much in a fantasyland as anyone if you think that justice and rectitude are what answers questions of revolution and secession decisively. those questions and arguments have validity as far as they go. but they do not go as far as bullets do.

                a selection from a poem by Ragnar Redbeard that is worth as much as 3 years of law school, if you understand it properly:

                “Put not your trust in princes”
                Is a saying old and true,
                “Put not your hope in governments”
                Translateth it anew.
                All “books of law” and “golden rules”
                Are fashioned to betray:
                “The survival of the strongest”
                Is the gospel of today.
                Might was right when Carthage flames
                Lit up the punic foam –
                And when the naked steel of Gaul
                Weighed down the spoil of Rome;
                And might was right when Richmond fell –
                And at Thermopylae –
                It’s the logic of the ancient world –
                And the gospel of today.
                Where pendant suns in millions swing,
                Around this whirling earth,
                It’s might, it’s force that holds the brakes,
                And steers through death and birth:
                Force governs all organic life,
                Inspires all right and wrong.
                It’s nature’s plan to weed-out man,
                And test who are the strong.”

      2. “So why do you think none have been charged…”

        The Obama holdover brigade of the Deep Deep State is still in charge. It most recently falsely accused the President of quid pro quo, bribery, obstruction and other high crimes.

        By the way, Ukrainian President Zelenskiy indicated there was no “quid pro quo” with President Trump. Oops! Looks like it was all “Bullschiff!!!”

        “Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.”

      3. C:
        “You wish to see President Trump “seize power” … become an Erdogan to “save the Republic”. I suggest reading the history of the last decades of the Roman Republic.”
        ***************
        You need the refresher course. The Republic fell through incessant warfare, neglect of the Roman populace’s concerns in favor of those of foreign nationals, unbridled immigration which undermined the stern Roman character and, finally, dissolution of Roman culture that rendered the city a center of debauchery. Unbridled greed by the ruling class drove native Romans from their lands and forced them into cities where they became mobs to be placated by bread and circuses. This led to civil wars by those in power against the common folk who found their champions in the Caesars. Trump is not Sulla but more Cicero: he’s not the cause of this degeneration; he’s the antidote.

        1. Wonder about your sources because the Republic degenerated over a more than 50 year period and within this timeframe Sulla was only one actor of many in a long multi act play. In actuality causes were corruption by the powerful and would be powerful, “immigration” by would be’s – additions of areas outside Rome diluting – to add votes. The mobs and your ref to common folks was a 2d order outcome. The parallels to today are eerie. I totally disagree that a 1 person rule is the answer, ironically what 3d world countries seek … the strong man theory of government, a savior who feeds on fears and promises everything… bringing bathe ‘good old days’.

          At a hospital, not on a computer, no time to debate, better over an ale. Welcome to reply but I won’t see it, maybe to your liking.

  11. To denounce Trump for his alleged “crimes” while simultaneously, consciously refusing to try Clinton for treason is the height of hypocrisy and proof our Left-Wingers have no stomach for truth or justice or our democracy.

    1. “Left-Wingers have no stomach for truth or justice or our democracy.”

      – wentzelwinkie
      ____________

      Are you ——- kidding me?
      _____________________

      “You can’t handle the truth!!!”

      – Colonel Jessup
      _____________

      The TRUTH you can’t handle is that the entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

      Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. are all unconstitutional.

      Congress cannot impose the principles of the Communist Manifesto as:

      Central Planning
      Control of the Means of Production (i.e. regulation)
      Redistribution of Wealth
      Social Engineering

      The right to private property is absolute and Congress has no power to claim or exercise dominion over, possess or dispose of or otherwise interfere with ownership or manipulation of the private property of individuals in any way shape or form. Period.

      Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the power of Congress to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power of Congress to tax for individual welfare in any way, shape or form. Period.

      Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the power of Congress to regulate ONLY the value of money and commerce among states, nations and Indian tribes for the SOLE PURPOSE of precluding bias or favor by one state, nation or tribe over another. Period.

      The American Founders ended the dictatorship of the British monarchy and every other form of government dictatorship, and made the People the “Sovereign” and government the “Subject.”

      Your rights have been stolen by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) in America.

      You can’t handle the TRUTH!!!

      You are free.

      Americans are free of the dictatorship of government.

      1. The only problem whether you support it or not is constitutional law includes and incorporates the entire body of Supreme Court Constitutional holdings, aside that your labeling programs and portions of government as unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. The Constitution in itself is not so prescriptive as to cause these to be in violation. I will give you one back … Agriculture is arguably the most socialist of federal systems, with means of production (the definer of socialism) being supported, paid, protected, by the federal government. When farmers claim to be victims it’s hard not to chuckle.

        1. Read the Constitution. It is very specific and it does not say, “You can do whatever you want.” There are rules that provide maximal freedom to individuals and severely limit and restrict government to the role of facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision merely of security and infrastructure.
          _______________________________________________________

          “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

          “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

          – Alexander Hamilton

            1. “The only problem whether you support it or not is constitutional law includes and incorporates the entire body of Supreme Court Constitutional holdings, aside that your labeling programs and portions of government as unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.”

              – C
              ___

              You are out of your ——- mind. You presume legitimacy of the “dictatorship of the judicial branch” when it is actually a criminal act for the SCOTUS to “decide” in opposition to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. If we understand the language, we don’t need an “interpreter.” Americans understand English. The Constitution is written in English. The SCOTUS has no authority to legislate or modify. The SCOTUS has a legal obligation to support the Constitution. Secession is not denied or precluded by the Constitution. Secession is constitutional. Secession is concluded upon a vote of the member states. Lincoln’s opposition to secession was unconstitutional. Lincoln had no power to confiscate private property or suspend the Constitution; in particular, Habeas Corpus. Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution, enemy of the U.S., despot and tyrant.

              That Lincoln won 1860 by 38.9% and 1864 by brute military force does not make the actions he forced upon America legitimate. At the time when Lincoln’s similarly illegitimate successors forced the “Reconstruction Amendments” down the throat of America at gunpoint and under the duress of post-war military occupation, the freed slaves, whose status had changed from “property” to “illegal alien” upon the issuance of the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation, must have been deported by law, per the Naturalization Act of 1802 which was in full force and effect in 1863.

              You’re confused. You enforce and enjoy the laws that suit you, legitimate or not, while you deny the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

              You are absolutely right on one score. The corrupt judicial branch wields power, and it shall until Congress impeaches it en masse for corruption, dereliction, negligence, abuse of power and treason.

          1. Forgot to add … Hamilton wrote in The Federalist … copy on my shelf … this is not constitutional law. Personally, I don’t like all the decisions that have become “constitutional law” but it “is”. Disregarding and deciding antecedents or that the first document only governs feels like burying your head in the sand. It may feel good not reality.

    2. A gentle reminder … President Trump appointed DOJ leaders, has had control for almost 3 years. No Clinton investigation much less a prosecution has been launched. (Personally, there was cause to indict.) Obviously, there are issues for which the advantage of continual drumbeat outweighs action because of zero chance of success.

  12. Everyone gets to roll their own, i.e. decide. This is moot in the end since the politically partisan and biased Senate will vote lock step by party. Personally, I see this as worse than Nixon/Watergate because of massive abuse and misuse of presidential power for personal and political gain (the Founders’ English Common Law meaning for “bribery”) and subsequent obstruction. There is also the Mueller investigation obstruction. As Prof. Turley knows obstruction need not be concealed to be obstruction nor need it be successful. Presidential supporters need not vote to convict but in unabashed defense apparently believe this should be accepted normal behavior henceforth. It sets a new standard reminiscent of the behavior of the last decades before the fall of the Roman Republic. What previous presidents, much less senior political leaders, would do this? According to polls of Republicans, must be all since 53% ranked President Trump a better president than Abraham Lincoln. Each American will have to choose how to see this, and my bet is 50/50 with a majority loath to see Democrats trying to remove him from office. This is the new normal, one I never contemplated. Times change.

  13. Notice how our media has jumped at the chance to reference what Turley points out. Not a word. Not one word escapes their keyboards to balance the claims of Trump haters. And Jonathan and other scholars still refuse to call them out on their hypocrisy. Absolutely amazing, but the American way under the leadership of our Left-Wingers who control “the narrative” here at home. Ruskies love our Big Media.

  14. There is a lot here that you are overlooking because you want a narrow focus on the Ukraine scandal. Trump has an enemies list if you ever look at his twitter feed. He routinely calls for investigations and criminal charges against his enemies. And yes, it sometimes results in official actions against his enemies – see Omarosa, Andrew McCabe, and now Hunter Biden being investigated by Lindsay Graham’s committee. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal case against Michael Cohen – and Cohen is in prison for that. He has paid hush money and implicitly dangled pardons to keep people on his side. He has intimidated witnesses.

    But none of the Nixon stuff involved selling out the US foreign policy for his personal political financial interests.

    1. He didn’t sell it out. The Ukraine socalled allies, got their precious weapons. Probably, they shouldn’t have, is my opinion.

      I voted for Trump in part because of a desire for deconfliction with Russia. You people who want war are the crazies who don’t fear nuclear hazards.

      It’s pathetic that you will stoop to any level of anti-Russian bogeyman rhetoric, which emboldens the war powers, and poisons diplomacy, just to attack our own President. This is an awful trend and it’s very much damaging to US foreign policy in itself.

      Did it ever occur to you fools that you too may be swayed by foreign powers, who are advocating for more fierce stance against Russia, for their own political advantage, no matter the cost to US interests?

      Yeah, like Ukraine, or, maybe, some others inside NATO itself, or for that matter the Saudis, who see in warmer relations with Russia, a threat to their own regional conflicts with Iran. These countries want the US in a state of perpetual low intensity conflict with Russia and mostly because it allows them to offload their necessary defensive expenditures on the US taxpayer.

      Just a hypothesis, of course!

      1. Well, another hypothesis which is directly supported by the official actions taken by the day glo bozo, is that Putin does indeed have those pics of the charlatan in chief doing the weird naughty with the honey-traps. Just sayin.

        this is to “well, he’s prolly just carrying putin’s luggage for the exercise” kurtzie

    2. Mr Smith – ” selling out the US foreign policy for his personal political financial interests. ” ? Sir, how many fine young Americans were KILLED in Viet Nam because President Johnson couldn’t bring himself to withdraw, fearful that if he did so he would likely NOT be re-elected?

      1. And Nixon working against the peace talks to further his campaign and on and on. Except I am based on fact and you on conjecture.

    3. “…none of the Nixon stuff involved selling out the US foreign policy for his personal political financial interests.”

      Not sure what “personal political financial interests” are.

      “…implicitly dangled pardons to keep people on his side.”

      Do you know who Marc Rich was? How ’bout slick’s brother? Juanita Broaddrick? The 800,000 slaughtered innocents?

Leave a Reply