A question for my Democrat friends

[kaz]

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him ...

Gee, where is your evidence of that? 8 full Congressional Investigations, 33 Congressional Committee Hearings, $22 million spent on digging up evidence, 11 formal published reports. All say we are done. There is no more. There was no evidence. We have concluded. No evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. That's All Folks.

None of the investigations said what you are lying they said. They said they were not indicting him for a crime. You are lying that they said he did nothing wrong.

Every time I think you people can't get any dumber, you prove me wrong. So let's say you're under attack. You are actually claiming that even while you are under attack, you would not be able to tell the difference between a rioting mob going out of control and a planned, trained, organized military unit attacking you. You are actually saying that would be unclear to you. And to Obama, Rice and Clinton, it was unclear a week and a half later.

It's amazing how liberals tell such flagrant, ridiculous lies that if you are believed makes you look 100 times more stupid than if you're just lying. You're a piece of work.

Duh, dar, I can't tell the difference between an organized military attack and a mob that lost it. Drool, drool. Yeah, you keep sticking with that ...

You are in denial Kaz, and you cannot accept the judgment of not just 7, but soon to be 8, other full fledged investigations, every single one intent on finding wrongdoing. Every single one fell short of their goal. Every single one failed to find indictable evidence of a criminal action. We're done. There is nothing further to explore, you lost. You need to accept that, and you need to stop saying these people are guilty because they aren't guilty of anything or they would have been charged. Justice has been served and the investigations are concluded the case is closed.

Yet you can't cite a single quote from the investigation saying there was no "wrongdoing." Only a writer in the leftist media describing it that way.

That you don't indict someone does not mean they didn't do anything wrong, not by a country mile. We know Obama lied repeatedly, his administration lied repeatedly and then he impeded the investigation. Those are clearly "wrongdoing" regardless of what the investigation found

The investigations are over. No one indicted, no criminal charges, that does mean no one did anything wrong. If it didn't rise to the level of a criminal action, you have nothing. You may not like the way a particular incident was handled, but lacking charges, you are scraping the pot for something that isn't there.

So if something doesn't rise to the level of a criminal action, it isn't wrong. I hope you don't actually believe that. If you act like that in real life, no one would have anything to do with you

 

[kaz]

Yet another lie by Lyin Juan. None of the investigations said he did nothing wrong. They just didn't indict him. A rioting mob and an organized military attack. Stupid Obama can't tell the difference. For a week and a half. Yeah. You're drooling again, idiot

The more you rant the more foolish you look. No one is guilty of anything Kaz, I know you don't like it but those are the undeniable facts of the matter.

I'm "foolish" because I think:

1) The President knew what everyone else did for a week and a half after the attack, he wasn't the only one in the world out of the loop

2) Impeding an investigation isn't "wrongdoing"

Got it

Yes, you are foolish because you dwell on matters already looked into by your Republican congress. They couldn't find anything but you dwell on facts not in consideration.

I'm not a Republican and I don't let politicians do my thinking for me like you do

I understand, I wouldn't claim to be a Republican these days either.

You don't understand, I'm not a Republican because I don't agree with them on most issues. You just can't think beyond Republican/Democrat, you're not very smart. Explains your test scores in school, doesn't it?

 

[kaz]

Gotcha, inside the bubble, we can't tell the difference between an organized military attack and a rioting mob. Outside the bubble an organized military attack and a rioting mob are clearly the same. But only because of your rigid logic and keen intellect.

Again, why tell a lie that makes you look a hundred times more dim wittedly stupid than just admitting you are lying?

Apparently, 8 full congressional committees of Republicans couldn't tell either. That makes who look pretty stupid?

That didn't happen, you're just making up shit

Denial is a coping mechanism that gives you time to adjust to distressing situations — but staying in denial can interfere with treatment or your ability to tackle challenges. - Mayo Clinic

Your argument that the President is so clueless and stupid as shit that he doesn't know what everyone else in the world knows is an interesting defense of him

No, he is not guilty of any crime and you are screaming as if he were. You have no evidence of anything, and neither do eight Republican led investigations.

Strawman. And here's a tissue. You want me to hold it for you while you blow?

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Gee, where is your evidence of that? 8 full Congressional Investigations, 33 Congressional Committee Hearings, $22 million spent on digging up evidence, 11 formal published reports. All say we are done. There is no more. There was no evidence. We have concluded. No evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. That's All Folks.

None of the investigations said what you are lying they said. They said they were not indicting him for a crime. You are lying that they said he did nothing wrong.

Every time I think you people can't get any dumber, you prove me wrong. So let's say you're under attack. You are actually claiming that even while you are under attack, you would not be able to tell the difference between a rioting mob going out of control and a planned, trained, organized military unit attacking you. You are actually saying that would be unclear to you. And to Obama, Rice and Clinton, it was unclear a week and a half later.

It's amazing how liberals tell such flagrant, ridiculous lies that if you are believed makes you look 100 times more stupid than if you're just lying. You're a piece of work.

Duh, dar, I can't tell the difference between an organized military attack and a mob that lost it. Drool, drool. Yeah, you keep sticking with that ...

You are in denial Kaz, and you cannot accept the judgment of not just 7, but soon to be 8, other full fledged investigations, every single one intent on finding wrongdoing. Every single one fell short of their goal. Every single one failed to find indictable evidence of a criminal action. We're done. There is nothing further to explore, you lost. You need to accept that, and you need to stop saying these people are guilty because they aren't guilty of anything or they would have been charged. Justice has been served and the investigations are concluded the case is closed.

Yet you can't cite a single quote from the investigation saying there was no "wrongdoing." Only a writer in the leftist media describing it that way.

That you don't indict someone does not mean they didn't do anything wrong, not by a country mile. We know Obama lied repeatedly, his administration lied repeatedly and then he impeded the investigation. Those are clearly "wrongdoing" regardless of what the investigation found

The investigations are over. No one indicted, no criminal charges, that does mean no one did anything wrong. If it didn't rise to the level of a criminal action, you have nothing. You may not like the way a particular incident was handled, but lacking charges, you are scraping the pot for something that isn't there.

So if something doesn't rise to the level of a criminal action, it isn't wrong. I hope you don't actually believe that. If you act like that in real life, no one would have anything to do with you

Sigh, You still don't have anything, 4 years, $22million, countless questions, countless pages of evidence. and you still have nothing. Zip, Zilch, Nada.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

The more you rant the more foolish you look. No one is guilty of anything Kaz, I know you don't like it but those are the undeniable facts of the matter.

I'm "foolish" because I think:

1) The President knew what everyone else did for a week and a half after the attack, he wasn't the only one in the world out of the loop

2) Impeding an investigation isn't "wrongdoing"

Got it

Yes, you are foolish because you dwell on matters already looked into by your Republican congress. They couldn't find anything but you dwell on facts not in consideration.

I'm not a Republican and I don't let politicians do my thinking for me like you do

I understand, I wouldn't claim to be a Republican these days either.

You don't understand, I'm not a Republican because I don't agree with them on most issues. You just can't think beyond Republican/Democrat, you're not very smart. Explains your test scores in school, doesn't it?

I didn't want to bring it up, but since you want to have a hissy fit and drop down to the next level, I'll tell you. Isn't it just possible that if you spent a little time learning to improve how you spell, read, count, and write, that you wouldn't have to come here for pity any longer?

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Apparently, 8 full congressional committees of Republicans couldn't tell either. That makes who look pretty stupid?

That didn't happen, you're just making up shit

Denial is a coping mechanism that gives you time to adjust to distressing situations — but staying in denial can interfere with treatment or your ability to tackle challenges. - Mayo Clinic

Your argument that the President is so clueless and stupid as shit that he doesn't know what everyone else in the world knows is an interesting defense of him

No, he is not guilty of any crime and you are screaming as if he were. You have no evidence of anything, and neither do eight Republican led investigations.

Strawman. And here's a tissue. You want me to hold it for you while you blow?

I'm good with the way our president has conducted himself. I'm also quite happy that he is dropping on the all time presidential rankings list and will beat Ronald Reagan soon.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I call bullshit on most of the partisans who have posted in this thread.

I've LITTLE doubt that if a GOP administration was mired in the same sort of cloud of indiscretions, secrecy, and lies that the Obama administration has been that people like Juan would be up in arms and screaming for impeachment.

And if anything, Hillary is even more deceitful than Obama.

 

[BlindBoo]

Clearly you are in denial. The House Select Committee on Intelligence was the sixth report that came to the same conclusions

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

Keep repeating "It's only a cover up, it's only.......)

"Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason."

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too | Michael Cohen

btw that was Johnson and yes I know Nixon wasn't really Impeached but the Committee had passed the resolution.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I call bullshit on most of the partisans who have posted in this thread.

I've LITTLE doubt that if a GOP administration was mired in the same sort of cloud of indiscretions, secrecy, and lies that the Obama administration has been that people like Juan would be up in arms and screaming for impeachment.

And if anything, Hillary is even more deceitful than Obama.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I call bullshit on most of the partisans who have posted in this thread.

I've LITTLE doubt that if a GOP administration was mired in the same sort of cloud of indiscretions, secrecy, and lies that the Obama administration has been that people like Juan would be up in arms and screaming for impeachment.

And if anything, Hillary is even more deceitful than Obama.

Who cares what you think? You started this thread and then ran off after making eight comments and didn't contribute anything further to it.

Ronald Reagan ran a criminal enterprise and 138 people in his administration were charged with crimes, Obama has none. The GOP has spent millions in taxpayer money digging trying to find indictable criminal actions in the Obama administration and have failed to secure a single indictment.

Maybe the problem is you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aren't you fed up with the lies, the scandals, the secrecy, the duplicity?

Please no "the GOP does it to" , yes of course, but that isn't what THIS thread is about, so kindly go start your own.

THIS thread is about all the scandals and lies and deceptive tactics we've seen since one Barrack Obama took office.

And if all you're going to do is come in here and deny these things occurred, please go elsewhere. I'm looking for serious comments from people who are mature enough to admit what there own party has been up to these last 7 1/2 years and almost certainly would continue to do under one Hillary Clinton.

In this coming election there will be two candidates with the possibility of winning.

One Republican and one Democrat.

I choose between the two candidates- and I find Trump to have ore scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than Clinton.

I find that the Republican Party is more likely to engage in scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than the Democratic Party.

But yes- I agree with you- both parties are guilty of engaging in them.

By any objective measure, actual corruption (illegal/unethical conduct in return for personal benefit) has been far more common among Democrats than Republicans.

For example, the three most celebrated GOP "scandals" (Watergate, Iran-Contra and WMDs) did not involve any personal benefit to Nixon, Reagan or Bush. Compare those with the Clinton scandals, all of which involve personal benefit to the Clintons.

Oh please spare me your cherry picking.

There are no examples of the Clinton's being found guilty of anything that involved personal gain- despite years and years of Republicans attempt to prove such a thing.

Watergate was all about 'personal gain' for Nixon- he wanted to rig the election in his favor. And you amazing leave out Spiro Agnew

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

Try again with that 'objective measure'- because all you have done is cite gossip and ignore Republican convictions.

Let's not forget the $39.5 billion that Dick Cheney was able to shovel into the coffers of Haliburton over the Iraq debacle either.

Go start your own thread.

Quit pretending you have Democrat friends on USMB.

 

[Foxfyre]

Aren't you fed up with the lies, the scandals, the secrecy, the duplicity?

Please no "the GOP does it to" , yes of course, but that isn't what THIS thread is about, so kindly go start your own.

THIS thread is about all the scandals and lies and deceptive tactics we've seen since one Barrack Obama took office.

And if all you're going to do is come in here and deny these things occurred, please go elsewhere. I'm looking for serious comments from people who are mature enough to admit what there own party has been up to these last 7 1/2 years and almost certainly would continue to do under one Hillary Clinton.

This could be an interesting topic, but obviously you aren't going to get a civil or reasoned discussion on it in Politics. All you will get is diversion to a discussion of how "the GOP is far worse."

The fact is, neither Democrats or Republicans have clean hands when it comes to politics. But if you want to have a serious discussion you're going to have to put this in the Structured Debate Zone where you can set the rules for the discussion something like:

1. Only self-identified Democrats may respond
2. This thread is about Democrat scandals only. Republicans and Republican scandals are off limits in this thread.
and if you want the focus on Obama and the Clintons. . .
3. Please limit scandals to those in the last 25-30 years.

And to be fair, we probably should have a similar separate thread for the Republican scandals.

 

[kaz]

I'm "foolish" because I think:

1) The President knew what everyone else did for a week and a half after the attack, he wasn't the only one in the world out of the loop

2) Impeding an investigation isn't "wrongdoing"

Got it

Yes, you are foolish because you dwell on matters already looked into by your Republican congress. They couldn't find anything but you dwell on facts not in consideration.

I'm not a Republican and I don't let politicians do my thinking for me like you do

I understand, I wouldn't claim to be a Republican these days either.

You don't understand, I'm not a Republican because I don't agree with them on most issues. You just can't think beyond Republican/Democrat, you're not very smart. Explains your test scores in school, doesn't it?

I didn't want to bring it up, but since you want to have a hissy fit and drop down to the next level, I'll tell you. Isn't it just possible that if you spent a little time learning to improve how you spell, read, count, and write, that you wouldn't have to come here for pity any longer?

Wow, calm down. This is just a message board, brother. If you're going to pop a vein just because other people think differently than you do, maybe you should find other endeavors. Maybe you should at least put down the keyboard for a while until you get get back under control. Try breathing into a bag

 

[kaz]

What a load of crap, they were still saying it a week and a half later

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

Keep repeating "It's only a cover up, it's only.......)

"Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason."

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too | Michael Cohen

btw that was Johnson and yes I know Nixon wasn't really Impeached but the Committee had passed the resolution.

The cover up was why he was driven out of office. Gawd, liberals are stupid

 

[BlindBoo]

Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they lied . It was a surprise attack ! You act as if they knew everything instantly .

People thought the 911 anthrax attacks were done by alqueda . Turns out it wasn't .

So there is no proof of lying .

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

Keep repeating "It's only a cover up, it's only.......)

"Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason."

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too | Michael Cohen

btw that was Johnson and yes I know Nixon wasn't really Impeached but the Committee had passed the resolution.

The cover up was why he was driven out of office. Gawd, liberals are stupid

Sure it was....

Richard M. Nixon - Articles of Impeachment

 

[kaz]

Everyone else knew it, Timmy!

Obama wasn't very well connected, was he?

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

Keep repeating "It's only a cover up, it's only.......)

"Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason."

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too | Michael Cohen

btw that was Johnson and yes I know Nixon wasn't really Impeached but the Committee had passed the resolution.

The cover up was why he was driven out of office. Gawd, liberals are stupid

Sure it was....

Richard M. Nixon - Articles of Impeachment

No Watergate, no impeachment. You're deflecting from my point which was that Democrats do get that covering up is a crime other than when Democrats do it. Nothing you're arguing contradicts that

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Wow, calm down. This is just a message board, brother. If you're going to pop a vein just because other people think differently than you do, maybe you should find other endeavors. Maybe you should at least put down the keyboard for a while until you get get back under control. Try breathing into a bag

Lol now that's some irony.

 

[BlindBoo]

I can remember not too long after this Ben Gahzi guy started being a thing SoS Clinton went before some Senate dickhe...er.... Republicans and said the immortal words, "What difference does it make?" when asked about what she and others said in the immediate aftermath of the attack. I'm sure we all can remember the conniption ODS nutters all over the country had over those words.

Fast forward a few years to the House kangaroo court Benghazi hearings and this time she didn't say those words, but others on here and elsewhere pushed the question, "what difference dose it make?" and guess what: the people getting vapors about it really didn't have an answer anyway.

That hasn't stopped kaz here, though. He's just gonna keep on saying "she lied" and "why did she lie" because that's really about all that's left. Simple fact of the matter is, though, even the "Hillary lied" angle he and others keep harping has been shown to be debatable at best.

IOW, when it comes to the Ben Ghazi issue, wingnuts really do have bupkis.

The Obama administration lies about what the attack was and obstruction of the investigation were both seriously wrong even if they did nothing else wrong.

Ask Nixon how covering up worked out for him. Spoiler alert, here's how it turned out for him. The standard for Democrats has changed since then ...

Keep repeating "It's only a cover up, it's only.......)

"Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason."

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too | Michael Cohen

btw that was Johnson and yes I know Nixon wasn't really Impeached but the Committee had passed the resolution.

The cover up was why he was driven out of office. Gawd, liberals are stupid

Sure it was....

Richard M. Nixon - Articles of Impeachment

No Watergate, no impeachment. You're deflecting from my point which was that Democrats do get that covering up is a crime other than when Democrats do it. Nothing you're arguing contradicts that

My argument was the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. Those are the reasons he was forced to resign. A lot more than just a cover up.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Aren't you fed up with the lies, the scandals, the secrecy, the duplicity?

Please no "the GOP does it to" , yes of course, but that isn't what THIS thread is about, so kindly go start your own.

THIS thread is about all the scandals and lies and deceptive tactics we've seen since one Barrack Obama took office.

And if all you're going to do is come in here and deny these things occurred, please go elsewhere. I'm looking for serious comments from people who are mature enough to admit what there own party has been up to these last 7 1/2 years and almost certainly would continue to do under one Hillary Clinton.

This could be an interesting topic, but obviously you aren't going to get a civil or reasoned discussion on it in Politics. All you will get is diversion to a discussion of how "the GOP is far worse."

The fact is, neither Democrats or Republicans have clean hands when it comes to politics. But if you want to have a serious discussion you're going to have to put this in the Structured Debate Zone where you can set the rules for the discussion something like:

1. Only self-identified Democrats may respond
2. This thread is about Democrat scandals only. Republicans and Republican scandals are off limits in this thread.
and if you want the focus on Obama and the Clintons. . .
3. Please limit scandals to those in the last 25-30 years.

And to be fair, we probably should have a similar separate thread for the Republican scandals.

well I put it in the Clean Zone, but someone moved it for unknown reasons, and I didn't even know of the other zone. Thanks. And I agree, there should be a thread for each of the parties . It obviously wasn't my intent to imply that only the Democrats are corrupt and deceitful.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

In this coming election there will be two candidates with the possibility of winning.

One Republican and one Democrat.

I choose between the two candidates- and I find Trump to have ore scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than Clinton.

I find that the Republican Party is more likely to engage in scandals, lies and deceptive tactics than the Democratic Party.

But yes- I agree with you- both parties are guilty of engaging in them.

By any objective measure, actual corruption (illegal/unethical conduct in return for personal benefit) has been far more common among Democrats than Republicans.

For example, the three most celebrated GOP "scandals" (Watergate, Iran-Contra and WMDs) did not involve any personal benefit to Nixon, Reagan or Bush. Compare those with the Clinton scandals, all of which involve personal benefit to the Clintons.

Oh please spare me your cherry picking.

There are no examples of the Clinton's being found guilty of anything that involved personal gain- despite years and years of Republicans attempt to prove such a thing.

Watergate was all about 'personal gain' for Nixon- he wanted to rig the election in his favor. And you amazing leave out Spiro Agnew

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

Try again with that 'objective measure'- because all you have done is cite gossip and ignore Republican convictions.

Let's not forget the $39.5 billion that Dick Cheney was able to shovel into the coffers of Haliburton over the Iraq debacle either.

Go start your own thread.

Quit pretending you have Democrat friends on USMB.

Why wouldn't I? Not everyone is like you, Not all of us judge people on their race, their gender, their political persuasion. Actually , the person I get along with best on this board since my arrival is a gay Democrat . mdk is a great guy, we disagree on almost all things political, doesn't intrude on our friendship.