People are comparing Hillary Clintons e-mail scandal to Watergate, the infamous burglary that resulted in the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. They are sadly mistaken in any comparison. This is far worse that anything Nixon did.
First of all, there was very little of any consequence that linked Richard Nixon with the planning and execution of the Watergate Burglary. He did direct his staff to cover it up so that it didn't lead to the Oval Office. It was the coverup that led to his resignation. Hillary Clinton herself processed those e-mails.
As the cover-up unraveled, Sen. Ted Kennedy had the audacity to question, in 1974, whether we had one set of rules for the high & mighty and another for everyday people. This was just a few years after he drove a car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick & left a young woman to die there. Authorities in Massachusetts allowed her body to be taken out of the state without an autopsy, standard practice in MVA deaths. He wound up with a one year suspended drivers license; he had to settle for being chauffeured. Any ordinary citizen would have been up the river for three to five.
Even all these years later, there is still dispute as to whether the woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned or asphyxiated in an air pocket in the passenger side footwell. Barry Goldwater excoriated him for his moralistic blusterings.
No one died at Watergate as many have pointed out since. Kennedy was reelected to the Senate, overwhemingly, numerous times and the only political penalty he suffered was that he never was elected to the presidency, as was his presumed birthright by virtue of being the surviving male Kennedy. Hed been selected Senate Majority Whip earlier that year but served out just that term. At least at that time, homicide might have been off limits, even for Democratic leadership.
Has anyone died as a result of possible purloined e-mails? I dont know but this past week, a cryptologist with a number of years of government work and a computer security expert were interviewed on The Michael Savage Show. They went through the entire realm of possibilities and eliminated all but the most damning. Neither of them would say the remaining conclusion.
We are seeing speculation that the content of those e-mails are likely in China and Moscow. This begs for the question how far back were those e-mails on her server and were they hacked by terrorists before Ben Ghazi? If so, did those embassy personnel die as a result of her malfeasance?
And theres another question. Did Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, receive funds for those e-mails? That is the most horrible of the unanswered questions. If so, this is a betrayal of the security of the country on a par, and likely exceeding, what the Rosenbergs did.
No foreign government was given an ace-in-the-hole to play against us in negotiations with Watergate. There is a lot of evidence surfacing that a few of Hillarys e-mails could have been.
Nixon did not authorize the Watergate burglary. Hillary took those e-mails to her server.
No one died as a result of Watergate. Numerous people may have been k**led as a result of Hillarys actions.
None of our enemies was aided by Watergate.
And from this point in time, what was the big deal over Nixons attempting to protect the White House from tarnishing? For years, the French and Italians were astonished that it was treated as such an important matter. One French authority reacted by saying they had Watergates all the time.
Anyone who says there are similarities between Watergate and the e-mail scandal is operating in an alternate universe.
crazylibertarian wrote:
People are comparing Hillary Clintons e-mail scandal to Watergate, the infamous burglary that resulted in the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. They are sadly mistaken in any comparison. This is far worse that anything Nixon did.
First of all, there was very little of any consequence that linked Richard Nixon with the planning and execution of the Watergate Burglary. He did direct his staff to cover it up so that it didn't lead to the Oval Office. It was the coverup that led to his resignation. Hillary Clinton herself processed those e-mails.
As the cover-up unraveled, Sen. Ted Kennedy had the audacity to question, in 1974, whether we had one set of rules for the high & mighty and another for everyday people. This was just a few years after he drove a car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick & left a young woman to die there. Authorities in Massachusetts allowed her body to be taken out of the state without an autopsy, standard practice in MVA deaths. He wound up with a one year suspended drivers license; he had to settle for being chauffeured. Any ordinary citizen would have been up the river for three to five.
Even all these years later, there is still dispute as to whether the woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned or asphyxiated in an air pocket in the passenger side footwell. Barry Goldwater excoriated him for his moralistic blusterings.
No one died at Watergate as many have pointed out since. Kennedy was reelected to the Senate, overwhemingly, numerous times and the only political penalty he suffered was that he never was elected to the presidency, as was his presumed birthright by virtue of being the surviving male Kennedy. Hed been selected Senate Majority Whip earlier that year but served out just that term. At least at that time, homicide might have been off limits, even for Democratic leadership.
Has anyone died as a result of possible purloined e-mails? I dont know but this past week, a cryptologist with a number of years of government work and a computer security expert were interviewed on The Michael Savage Show. They went through the entire realm of possibilities and eliminated all but the most damning. Neither of them would say the remaining conclusion.
We are seeing speculation that the content of those e-mails are likely in China and Moscow. This begs for the question how far back were those e-mails on her server and were they hacked by terrorists before Ben Ghazi? If so, did those embassy personnel die as a result of her malfeasance?
And theres another question. Did Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, receive funds for those e-mails? That is the most horrible of the unanswered questions. If so, this is a betrayal of the security of the country on a par, and likely exceeding, what the Rosenbergs did.
No foreign government was given an ace-in-the-hole to play against us in negotiations with Watergate. There is a lot of evidence surfacing that a few of Hillarys e-mails could have been.
Nixon did not authorize the Watergate burglary. Hillary took those e-mails to her server.
No one died as a result of Watergate. Numerous people may have been k**led as a result of Hillarys actions.
None of our enemies was aided by Watergate.
And from this point in time, what was the big deal over Nixons attempting to protect the White House from tarnishing? For years, the French and Italians were astonished that it was treated as such an important matter. One French authority reacted by saying they had Watergates all the time.
Anyone who says there are similarities between Watergate and the e-mail scandal is operating in an alternate universe.
People are comparing Hillary Clintons e-mail scan... (
show quote)
I don't understand how the foundation could have received money for the e-mails That don't even make sense.
Kachina wrote:
I don't understand how the foundation could have received money for the e-mails That don't even make sense.
If you can't figure that one out, you better start cranking up your cynicism. Exchanges like this happen all the time. It's a little covert but not that much.
The clinton foundation probably got lots of money as she gave foreign countries information and in return they gave money such assaudi arabia.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.