Search Box

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Hillary's Watergate

A friend, Ed Gendreau, recently pointed out the difference between the way the media covered Watergate -- and the matter of the erased tape -- and the way they are covering the Hillary Clinton email scandal, with its many missing and erased emails.

Ironically enough, Clinton herself, as a young lawyer back in 1973, actually worked to find grounds for impeachment during the Watergate scandal. According to Wikipedia:

In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974. 

(What would the media's reaction have been if, during the height of the scandal, Richard Nixon had lost his temper and cried out, "What difference, at this point, does it make?!")

In any case, despite the media's relatively gentle treatment of Clinton, poll numbers are showing that the current scandal is hurting her chances for the Preidency. 

As they say, karma is a Hillary Clinton. 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

God forbid that Hillary ever becomes President of the U.S.A I don't want her to get what she wants. The liberals have pretty much tanked our country.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
it is a nightmarish thought.

Gubbler of the Society of Reformed Chechenistics said...

The Nixon tapes would not have been an issue if not for the burglary.

The burglary was so blatantly a criminal act that Nixon shot himself in the foot.

If not for the burglary, Nixon would have survived.

True, Clinton and Obama are just as crooked as Nixon, but they didn't do something so spectacularly stupid. I mean a burglary.

John Craig said...

Gubbler --
Love your name (though it does seem to be purposely obfuscatory).

Good point. But has it been proven that Nixon was involved in the original burglary as well as the coverup? I'm not an export, but I don't think it was ever proven that anyone beside Erlichman and Haldeman ordered the burglary. Nixon was unquestionably involved in the coverup, which is why he had to resign, but I think that was all that was proven. (I wouldn't be surprised at all if Nixon WAS originally involved, I'm only raising the question of proof.)

I'd liken the Watergate coverup to the Benghazi coverup. Both were blatant attempts to mislead. And the State Department DID refuse to provide more security for that embassy even though they asked for it. Hillary never had to pay much of a price for that scandal -- just as no one seems to be paying much of a price for the IRS scandal -- but email-Gate does seem to be weighing her down.

Anonymous said...

From the article "Hillary lies again" by Andrew Napolitano

"It now appears that Mrs. Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband’s charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue."

If Napolitano's statement is true, we have both crime and what appears to be cover-up.

The severity and importance of Nixon's and H. Clinton's crime and cover up can be debated.

- Ed

Anonymous said...

As is often said , the cover-up is often worse than the crime

Hopefully this scandal will prevent her from being the democratic nominee...would not surprise me if many leftists want this outcome, most people are sick of the Clinton scandals.

Bill Clinton doubled the amount of money he earned from speaking engagements funded by foreign entities while his wife served as secretary of state. The government of Norway donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation and was rewarded when the State Department shelled out $177.9 million for a new embassy in Oslo in 2011.
The agency built the complex over the objections of diplomatic officials in Norway, who suggested the money be spent to strengthen embassies and consulates in countries that faced a higher terror risk.

John Craig said...

Anon--
Wow. That's an amazing story. And the fact that I'd never heard it, the fact that it's not a scandal, is a scandal in itself.