Senate report: Lois Lerner wanted to target Bristol Palin

[Ravi]

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable .Actually its pretty pathetic.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehoe prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what your ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it. If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

Bristol is a celebrity (god knows why) so your point is stupid.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, if Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller said it - it must be true. We need Allen West to verify it.

 

[emilynghiem]

...so this couple comes into a bar and the bartender says, sorry, we don't serve alcohol to retards...

...so the kid says, that's okay,

she'll have a Coke.

And I'm still trying to get the JOKE on taxpayers that goes:

Two Prochoice politicians, from the SAME party demanding separation of church and state and keeping govt out of personal decisions,
pass and sign laws requiring all citizens to buy private insurance or pay a fine
to federal govt with NO CHOICE of other exempted ways of paying or providing for health care (while the govt officials passing this law are exempted from it).

So basically it is NOT govt's place to restrict or penalize the choice of abortion which is private; but for the choice of how to pay for health care, that IS the govt's business to fine law-abiding taxpayers for not using the system THEY believe in mandating for everyone.

And after that passes by Congress as "not a tax" but justified as a public health care bill under either the commerce clause or general welfare,
the Supreme Court Justices strike down the commerce clause argument but "reinterpret" the bill as a tax so it can be declared within federal constitutional authority to pass.

Is it because it isn't funny that nobody gets this joke or can explain it to me?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lois Lerner needs to be in jail, NOW.


Lois Lerner Wanted To Investigate... Bristol Palin The Daily Caller

Senate report Lois Lerner wanted to target Bristol Palin

Why waste public resources jailing her?

Why not let her launch her own reality show
where she gets paid to target and market the next big media hype of the day!

I'd rather see Bristol Palin and the Palin family all over social media than any more
hype on Jenner and that whole saga.

Anything to get the Jenners/Kardashians off the air! How are they still around?!

Simple. The Jewish run media loves degenerates.

So this is the new you after your rightwing pals convinced you to tone down the anti-black rhetoric?

lol

Which rightwing pals have told me to tone it down about feral savage negroes? Be specific.

So you're offering evidence that none of the conservatives on this forum have expressed any displeasure with you being the most racist poster on the forum?

On second thought, I guess that would not be surprising.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...so this couple comes into a bar and the bartender says, sorry, we don't serve alcohol to retards...

...so the kid says, that's okay,

she'll have a Coke.

And I'm still trying to get the JOKE on taxpayers that goes:

Two Prochoice politicians, from the same party demanding separation of church and state and keeping govt out of personal decisions,
pass and sign laws requiring all citizens to buy private insurance or pay a fine
to federal govt with NO CHOICE of other exempted ways of paying or providing for health care (while the govt officials passing this law are exempted from it).

And after that passes by Congress as "not a tax" but justified as a public health care bill under either the commerce clause or general welfare,
the Courts strike down the commerce clause argument but "reinterpret" the bill as a tax so it can be declared within federal constitutional authority to pass.

Is it because it isn't funny that nobody gets this joke?

You talk too much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ...POLITICIANS'... ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals / politicians believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable. Actually its pretty PATHETIC.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehow prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what YOUR ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it? If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

lol, I think some of us are being accused of being politically incorrect.

That's a welcome relief from the perpetual attacks on some of us for being too politically correct.

RW derangement in action.

 

[easyt65]

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable .Actually its pretty pathetic.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehoe prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what your ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it. If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

Bristol is a celebrity (god knows why) so your point is stupid.

Bristol Palin is the daughter of a hated Conservative Politician. SHE is not in politics, but as you have pointed out the 'left' is attacking her for political reasons. If she was NOT the daughter of Sarah Palin you wouldn't give a rat's rear about who she was/is. You ONLY know about her and care about her becasue she is the daughter of Sarah Palin. Why don't you stick to verbally attacking Sarah Palin, Ravi? As you pointed out, she's more successful than YOU are any way...seems like someone has a little envy to go along with the political hate they are spewing.

Can't focus on the 2016 election without drifting out the lane and attacking someone not even involved? lol Pathetic. As I said, the only reason you know or care about Bristol is because she is Sarah Palin's daughter (which is also the only reason she is a celebrity). There are something like 16 GOP candidates...can't find one of them to pick on and instead have to go after Bristol? ....just Pathetic.

 

[Ravi]

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable .Actually its pretty pathetic.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehoe prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what your ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it. If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

Bristol is a celebrity (god knows why) so your point is stupid.

Bristol Palin is the daughter of a hated Conservative Politician. SHE is not in politics, but as you have pointed out the 'left' is attacking her for political reasons. If she was NOT the daughter of Sarah Palin you wouldn't give a rat's rear about who she was/is. You ONLY know about her and care about her becasue she is the daughter of Sarah Palin. Why don't you stick to verbally attacking Sarah Palin, Ravi? As you pointed out, she's more successful than YOU are any way...seems like someone has a little envy to go along with the political hate they are spewing.

Can't focus on the 2016 election without drifting out the lane and attacking someone not even involved? lol Pathetic. As I said, the only reason you know or care about Bristol is because she is Sarah Palin's daughter (which is also the only reason she is a celebrity). There are something like 16 GOP candidates...can't find one of them to pick on and instead have to go after Bristol? ....just Pathetic.

You mad.

 

[paulitician]

The woman should be in cuffs wearing an orange jumpsuit. She's a criminal. But who gave her the orders? It goes to the very top. Bet on that.

 

[easyt65]

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable .Actually its pretty pathetic.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehoe prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what your ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it. If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

Bristol is a celebrity (god knows why) so your point is stupid.

Bristol Palin is the daughter of a hated Conservative Politician. SHE is not in politics, but as you have pointed out the 'left' is attacking her for political reasons. If she was NOT the daughter of Sarah Palin you wouldn't give a rat's rear about who she was/is. You ONLY know about her and care about her becasue she is the daughter of Sarah Palin. Why don't you stick to verbally attacking Sarah Palin, Ravi? As you pointed out, she's more successful than YOU are any way...seems like someone has a little envy to go along with the political hate they are spewing.

Can't focus on the 2016 election without drifting out the lane and attacking someone not even involved? lol Pathetic. As I said, the only reason you know or care about Bristol is because she is Sarah Palin's daughter (which is also the only reason she is a celebrity). There are something like 16 GOP candidates...can't find one of them to pick on and instead have to go after Bristol? ....just Pathetic.

You mad.

LOL! THAT is your response? You just got schooled....

 

[paulitician]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There was a time when

Apparently Bristol Palin is an easy target, if you know what I mean.

lolol

I'd do her

She's almost as feminine as Caitlin Jenner.

There once was an un-written political rule that involved courtesy and descency, one that simply stated kids and family members were off limits. As Liberals' ...POLITICIANS'... ethics, morality, tolerance, and descency sank lower and lower they ignored this rule more and more. Liberals / politicians believe in pushing the boundaries and continuing the 'deed' and it will eventually be accepted. If it isn't, they protect themselves from criticism yet pounce on and punish anyone who does the same thing. Some things never change...and no matter how many times they continue to do it, it still isn't ethically acceptable. Actually its pretty PATHETIC.

If you can't win an election on your own merrit, if you have to stoop to personally attacking children and other family members of your opponent to somehow prove you are 'better' and more 'worthy' than they are you have done nothing but prove the opposite.

I don't care who does it - Hillary, Obama, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Sanders...whoever - if you want to prove you deserve the Presidency, or any office, it's really simple: Tell me why I should consider YOU. Why should I vote for YOU! Tell me what YOUR ideas are. Don't tell me the problems we face - we are all well aware of that. What are YOU going to do about it? If you have to deviate from that, if you have to mention anyone else's name you have just proven yourself unable and unworthy of holding the office you are seeking. I don't want to hear about anyone else, not from YOU...I want to hear about YOU from YOU!

The moment I hear a politician anymore say anything negative about another politician I say in my mind, "F* Off" and turn THEM off! If more Americans would do the same thing, TEACH them we want no part of THAT kind of politicis, things would get better, and we would have better candidates!

Dear easyt65 and Ravi
What I WOULD criticize the Left on is how easily they overlook jumping on Sarah and Bristol Palin with sexist remarks targeting and degrading women,
but complain when this tactic is applied to Hillary Clinton or someone on their side.

I actually pointed this out at a liberal feminist women's group when I heard them repeating insults about Sarah Palin. I confronted them, saying if you didn't approve of people making such remarks about Hillary Clinton, why are you teaming up and bulling Sarah Palin based on remarks that can be taken as sexist?

I think you have an argument there!

And please note, sexism isn't excused if it's women instead of men doing the bullying ad targeting of women. Regardless of the gender or race of the people
doing the bullying, if you are targeting victims of harassment by their race that is still racist, or by their gender that is still sexist. It depends on the nature of the comments made that are taking advantage of someone's race or gender to disparage them on that basis.

People complain all the time of Blacks being racist against other Blacks,
and getting away with it. Nor should women get away with targeting other women based on gender.

Honestly, if you ask me, I'd say it's better we all shift away from this media culture of harassing and disparaging people or groups for the negative publicity and hype.

We have the gifts of free speech, free press, right to petition and democratic due process. Why not use our words to lift each other up, share solutions and encourage better working relations and collaboration to improve situations and problems we all agree are otherwise costing us resources we can't afford to lose.

I'd like to see the media shift in that direction, and politics along with it.

Maybe on behalf of the Clintons and Palins used as easy target practice,
I should invite posters here to join in a challenge to pick a member you have difficulty seeing eye to eye on, find an issue you equally care about, and
write a petition, letter or start a media campaign asking others to fund a solution.

the diversity and courage to put aside the conflicts
in order to focus on a solution might attract public sympathy,
attention and even financial support if you find a smart solution.

My friend Juda and I are polarized opposites on the issue of abortion.
She doesn't even want abortion legal for rape and incest,
and I don't believe any laws should be passed without consensus
by the public since these involve beliefs, so I am prochoice to an extreme.

If we can agree that health care and social benefits should be
divided by party, so people can fund the beliefs of their choice,
how many people would join us in a class petition to BOTH parties
to separate funding and policies, and manage programs that the
constituents can voluntarily fund and deduct from our taxes
either as business or charity, depending on what each party sets up for its members. Why not petition the party leaders to put the money where their mouths are and practice what they preach, as well as fund it directly?

Wouldn't that stop most of the bullying if we weren't forced
to be under the policies of the other group, so the attacks would stop??

 

[emilynghiem]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

 

[BlindBoo]

What? I thought she was already in jail? All you rabid scandal fans claimed she was going to jail years ago!

I love the sound of Fauxrage in the mornings (or afternoons)

 

[paulitician]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

The Rule of Law is dead. Nixon was ahead of his time. He would fit in perfectly if he was around today.

 

[BlindBoo]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

LOL

Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.”

History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice — the Watergate coverup — definitively established. Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the coverup was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions.

Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the president of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.

.......

In the course of his presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Long before the Watergate break-in, gumshoeing, burglary, wiretapping and political sabotage had become a way of life in the Nixon White House.

What was Watergate? It was Nixon’s five wars.



Read more: Woodward and Bernstein Nixon s crimes were worse than we knew Ct

 

[paulitician]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

LOL

Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.”

History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice — the Watergate coverup — definitively established. Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the coverup was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions.

Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the president of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.

.......

In the course of his presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Long before the Watergate break-in, gumshoeing, burglary, wiretapping and political sabotage had become a way of life in the Nixon White House.

What was Watergate? It was Nixon’s five wars.



Read more: Woodward and Bernstein Nixon s crimes were worse than we knew Ct

Guy was just ahead of his time. We actually held leaders accountable back then. He would be considered a Hero today. He'd fit in perfectly.

 

[emilynghiem]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

The Rule of Law is dead. Nixon was ahead of his time. He would fit in perfectly if he was around today.

The responsibility for enforcement has shifted to the people
who live by the laws they enforce. So the buck is passing
to those who do have the authority, who haven't broken the very laws
they invoke. The meek shall inherit the earth. The ones who aren't abusing
power are the ones with the authority to compel corrections. These
shall rise up and when that voice of justice is heard, all people
will be called to conscience. It is happening. The people I know who
really stand for what are fair and equally inclusive standards are organizing
and standing up to reclaim responsibility while those refusing responsibility
will lose respect if they don't join in doing the right thing and correcting abuses.

It's time to call all parties to enforce the same standard Constitutional
principles and ethics we should all be following anyway.
The ones already doing so will have nothing to hide and
only positive records to stand on. The ones who violated their
own principles will be exposed as frauds in the process.

this election season, the campaigns should take on a different approach
if all the disenfranchised voters left and right get smart, band together,
and hold party leaders responsible for paying back the public for past abuses.

We have a lot of damages and debts to collect back on,
claim collateral or credit on our taxmoney we already spent,
and demand that it be invested in solutions we approve of
instead of paying for messes we didn't!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Lerner was concerned that the salary figure could violate IRS rules against charitable groups being for the private benefit of individuals."

Isn't that what she was getting paid to have concerns about?

Only for Dems or liberals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Richard Nixon is rolling in his grave, shocked by what this Administration has gotten away with.

I think he'd be saying:
I am not a crook... next to these criminals!

LOL

Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.”

History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice — the Watergate coverup — definitively established. Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the coverup was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions.

Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the president of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.

.......

In the course of his presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Long before the Watergate break-in, gumshoeing, burglary, wiretapping and political sabotage had become a way of life in the Nixon White House.

What was Watergate? It was Nixon’s five wars.



Read more: Woodward and Bernstein Nixon s crimes were worse than we knew Ct

Guy was just ahead of his time. We actually held leaders accountable back then. He would be considered a Hero today. He'd fit in perfectly.

Must be a different Nixon than the one I survived.

The one I didn't vote for was just plain evil.

Which was more corrupt and criminal? Nixon or Reagan? As bad as they were, the Bushes being in bed with the bin Ladens- nothing compares with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk