Today in Supreme Court History

Today in Supreme Court History: May 9, 1974

|

5/9/1974: Resolution to impeach President Nixon introduced in the House of Representatives. On 7/24/1974, the Supreme Court would decide U.S. v. Nixon.

President Richard Nixon

NEXT: Recent Developments in Controversies About Quoting Slurs from Court Cases

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Nixon had had the same Congress Trump had, he’d have finished out his second term. If Trump had had the same Congress Nixon had, he’d have been gone a year into his term.

    1. True.

      In an Oval Office meeting Trump agreed with an aide’s suggestion that the CIA be approached to lean on the FBI to cut back on the Watergate investigation. This was the “smoking gun” tape that immedtoatley collapsed Republican support with certain impeachment and conviction if Nixon didn’t resign.

      On national TV, Trump told Lester Holt that he directly fired the head of the FBI because of the Russia investigation. Republicans said nothing.

      1. The Russia investigation was fake Comey should have been arrested. We need capital punishment sentencibg for insurrection and the mass arrestes, brief trials and simmary executions of masses of lawyer traitors. To deter.

        1. I haven’t been here in a few days, there is now a “mute user” option? Fantastic!

      2. In an Oval Office meeting Trump (I think you meant Nixon) agreed with an aide’s suggestion that the CIA be approached to lean on the FBI to cut back on the Watergate investigation. This was the “smoking gun” tape that immedtoatley collapsed Republican support with certain impeachment and conviction if Nixon didn’t resign.

        Yes, imagine that. The republican’s dropped support for Nixon once he tried to use the levers of government against his political opponents. But today’s Dems peddled a fake report to the FBI and used that agency to thwart the Trump administration. Faked Fisa documents, Comey’s denials of having been briefed by the CIA concerning Hillary’s campaign efforts to spread disinformation regarding russian collusion, and Comey’s denial of knowledge of who paid for the Steele dossier are a testament to government efforts in support of one political party.

        Comey’s admission that he purposefully leaked documents to friend in order to assure that an independent counsel be put in place to investigate an act that Comey must have known did not occur except in the frenzied minds of Hillary and Steele is more than enough evidence to support his firing.

        1. And yet Comeys letter that he was re opening the email investigation is probably what got Trump elected. If as you suggest Comey was willing to be a toady for Hillary, why would he send a Hillary-campaign-killing letter two weeks before the election?

          1. America First got Trump elected in 2016, and in 2020.

            1. By which you mean they arranged for Trump to get fewer votes?

          2. Comey was mostly about Comey. He wanted to be a player and wasn’t very good at it.

            1. Comey’s concern was the institutional reputation of the FBI. He was assuming (like most people, including the Trump campaign) that Hillary would become President with a Republican Senate — and therefore subject to endless frivolous investigations. He wanted to keep the FBI out of it by defuse any impression that the FBI had given Hillary some kind of free pass.

          3. Because the revelation of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch was too much crap to hide under a rug. And when even more evidence (Huma Abadeen’s laptop) came to light, thus making a farce of Comey’s claim that a thorough investigation had been done, Comey’s hand was forced. Even a partisan hack cannot hold back the tide, he had to re-open the investigation. That he was able to supposedly have his team weed through thousands of emails and report back that everything was cool just before the election is evidence of his hackery. The independent counsel’s investigation dragged on until after the mid-terms even though they had determined more than a year prior that there was no evidence of collusion. Funny how that works huh? If its a repub, drag it out until after the election. If its a Dem, do everything humanly possible to clear them before the election.

            1. They had not determined more than a year earlier that there was no evidence of collusion. I have no idea where this hackish talking point comes from. (In fact, they never determined that there was no evidence of collusion.) But “more than a year earlier” the investigation was still in its early stages. They had not interviewed most of the key players, including any of the members of Trump’s inner circle. How could they possibly have made a determination at that time?

              1. “In fact, they never determined that there was no evidence of collusion”

                Yeah, its out there somewhere, they just haven’t found it yet.
                The haven’t found it because the actual collusion was beyond Mueller’s purview. He refused to investigate why it was that Glen Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya before and after her meeting with trump jr. He refused to investigate why Mifsud fed papadopolis the rumor that the russians had dirt on Hillary, and why the FBI lied about Carter Page. What sort of investigator refuses to look at obvious signs that the whole mess was fabricated? The investigator who knows the whole mess was fabricated.

                1. Depending on what you mean by “evidence of collusion” you can get any answer you’d like. The Russians wouldn’t take little Donnie’s meeting, so objectively, there is no collusion. On the other hand, there’ plenty of evidence that the lingering orange fart wanted to collude. such as video tape of President Loompa saying “Of course I wanted to (listen to the Russian intelligence agents who claimed to have dirt on Hillary). I’d do it again if I got the chance. I think anyone would.”
                  He tried to use a foreign intelligence service to manufacture dirt on Biden.

        2. If your point is that back in Nixon’s day, Republicans were more objective-reality-oriented, Yah. Everybody knows this.

        3. Comey’s admission that he purposefully leaked documents to friend in order to assure that an independent counsel be put in place to investigate an act that Comey must have known did not occur

          Comey must have known that Trump didn’t fire him? Huh?

          There were not “faked FISA [or “Fisa”] documents,”¹ and it’s hard to figure out what most of the rest of your attempted Gish Gallop even refers to, and it’s not worth trying.

          ¹Perhaps you mean Clinesmith’s actions, which was a single email, not “documents.” And one that had nothing to do with Trump and played no role in the first two Carter Page FISA warrants.

          1. David,
            C’mon man. You had to know it was Clinesmith I was referring to. For the record clinesmith lied multiple times, he claimed multiple times that Page was not an asset, the most outrageous was the one you mention where he actually altered an email from the CIA confirming that Page was an asset.

            The inspector general listed 17 “errors” regarding the FISA pplications that all went in one direction. All the hand waving and feigned ignorance will not make the facts disappear.

          2. David,
            You overlooked Comey’s denials of having been briefed by the CIA concerning Hillary’s campaign efforts to spread disinformation regarding russian collusion, and Comey’s denial of knowledge of who paid for the Steele dossier until that broke in the press.

            If you can give Comey a pass on those claims, you will believe anything.

            1. “you will believe anything.”

              This complaint, coming from a Trump supporter, is super-ironic.

    2. If Woodward and Bernstein weren’t the political hacks that they are, they would have written copious articles on why the Comey/ Mueller investigations were the most damaging to the rule of law this nation has yet seen. Nixon merely had to ask about using the levels of government against his political opponents to get himself removed from office. The Dems carried on a fake investigation with the aid of partisans within the FBI. And nobody has gone to jail, not even the FBI lawyer who doctored emails to maintain the FISA fraud.

      All Woodward could manage was that Trump downplayed the covid issue -as if a real leader is one who inspires panic and mayhem rather than deliberate action such as the steady leadership that gave us a vaccine in record time.

      1. (1) The Justice Department Inspector General has already ruled Comey’s investigation was legitimately founded, so we can easily put that lie to bed.

        (2) Mueller’s investigation resulted from Trump firing the head of the FBI and then bragging about it to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov & Ambassador Kislyak thus : “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” Given AG Sessions own Russian entanglements, that made a special counsel inevitable. It’s hard to decide which Trump imbecility was dumber : Thinking he could erase the investigation by firing Comey, or needing to brag about it to a roomful of Russians in the Oval Office.

        (3) And once Mueller started investigating, did he find troubling evidence? By the boat-load. Trump’s campaign manager giving secret briefings to a known Russian spy. Trump’s son responding with glee (in writing) when told the Russians wanted to secretly help his daddy’s campaign. Trump’s fixer taking multiple clandestine trips to Russia to negotiate a massive business deal with Kremlin officials – this during the campaign & right up to the eve of the election. Trump’s National Security Advisor nominee placing five calls to the Russian Ambassador on the day Obama announced sanctions, and then lying about the call to other Trump officials, to the Vice President, to the FBI. Of course Trump himself repeatedly lied about his Russian business dealings when asked specific questions in the ’16 campaign.

        Of course there’s much, much more, but that’s enough to disprove Mike Hansberry’s bullshit….

        1. And yet, there wasn’t evidence sufficient to support charges on Russian collusion….

          1. He just listed it for you.

            We also know:

            1. Someone posing as a Russian government agent called Donald Jr. and arranged a meeting in a week promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.
            2. Donald Sr. then announced that “next week, I’ll have some very interesting news about Hillary Clinton”.

            1. Yep. Just hours after Trump Jr. scheduled a meeting with someone described to him (in an email) as “a Russian government attorney” who would deliver dirt on Clinton, Donald Trump promised a “major speech” on Hillary. This was on 07June, at a public rally:

              “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting”

              But the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, didn’t deliver. Coincidently (I’m sure) that “major speech” never happened. Of course Trump later insisted he knew nothing about his son’s efforts at the time, but who puts value in anything Trump says?

              As for Junior, he was told (by email) the meeting & Clinton dirt was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

              Trump Jr. replied (by email) : “If it’s what you say I love it.”

              1. Yes.

                Let’s not let that go down the memory hole.

            2. Sorry, I’ll trust Mueller’s opinion on what is sufficient evidence, instead of your inexpert opinion.

              1. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? “We found evidence of a conspiracy, but insufficient to support criminal charges” is in no planet in any universe within the multiverse support for the notion that the investigation was improper.

          2. True. But that fact alone doesn’t support the butthurt snowflake victimhood whining up & down these comments – nor the conspiratorial tin-foil-hat bullshit form in which they are expressed. Everywhere here I see people claiming the investigations were unfounded & illegitimate political sabotage. That is a crude lie.

            1. Was the initial investigation for a legit reason? Yes
            2. Was Mueller’s appointment for a legit reason? Yes
            3. Did Mueller find evidence to support his inquiry? Yes
            4. Was Mueller’s investigation conducted professionally? Yes
            5. Were Mueller’s conclusions justifiable? Yes

            Game. Set. Match.

            As to Mueller’s finding, one more observation : The unofficial end of his inquiry came on 24July2019, when Mueller testified before Congress there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime for colluding with a foreign country to influence a U.S. election.

            Next day (25July), Trump attempted to extort collusion from a foreign country to influence a U.S. election – only that time there was a phone transcript. Given Trump’s sleazy ethics, no one can possible claim it’s impossible that he might have conspired with the Russian government in their U.S. election efforts. It had to be investigated.

            1. Insufficient evidence.

              Let it go. You’re acting crazy.

              1. And you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Let’s reduce it to a child’s level :

                (1) Multiple people in this thread claim the investigations into Trump-Russia connections were illegitimate & a political abuse.

                (2) That’s plainly untrue. (see evidence above)

                The fact that Mueller decided he couldn’t charge additional people with crimes doesn’t change #2. I assume even you get it now ?!?

                1. What I think is you’re so deep in conspiracy theory land that you can’t let go of a Russia investigation that didn’t show what you wanted it to. So, you’re acting like a nutter.

                  1. So nothing you say is serious. Got it.

                    1. grb,

                      If you can’t admit that there wasn’t any real evidence to support the so called “Trump – Russia collusion”, I don’t know what to tell you.

                    2. Well, I know what to tell you: you should stick to litigating about living room furniture.

                      Maybe you should try looking up the word “insufficient” in the dictionary.

                  2. “What I think is you’re so deep in conspiracy theory land that you can’t let go of a Russia investigation that didn’t show what you wanted it to. So, you’re acting like a nutter.”

                    This is an odd thing for a nutter who can’ let go of the Russia investigation because of being in deep conspiracy-theory denial to say.

          3. “And yet, there wasn’t evidence sufficient to support charges on Russian collusion”

            Because the Russians wanted nothing to do with him, and wouldn’t take his meetings. It takes two to collude.

          4. You must not confuse them with facts, they ignore the bottom line of the Mueller report and instead cling to the unfounded allegations.

        2. (1) The Justice Department Inspector General has already ruled Comey’s investigation was legitimately founded, so we can easily put that lie to bed.

          Except no one has investigated the initial foundation. Was that lead really from a “friendly.” Was the ambassador (who supposedly heard Papadopolis mention being told by a democrat plant that she had dirt on Hillary) a friend of Hillary or the USA?

          Mueller thought it beyond the purview of his investigation. How convenient.

          1. Except no one has investigated the initial foundation. Was that lead really from a “friendly.” Was the ambassador (who supposedly heard Papadopolis mention being told by a democrat plant that she had dirt on Hillary) a friend of Hillary or the USA?

            Except that John Durham and Bill Barr spent a couple of years trying to chase down these conspiracy theories, and found nothing to substantiate any of them.

      2. “…deliberate action such as the steady leadership that gave us a vaccine in record time.”

        Which deliberate action of the Trump Administration do you imagine did that? The vaccine was produced in record time because a couple university research teams had been working on coronavirus vaccines since the SARS outbreak of the early 2000’s.

        1. Does Trump get credit because it happened on his watch? Sure, that’s just the way politics goes. But gushing praise of Dear Leader’s “steady leadership” is just downright embarrassing. A timeline :

          10 January : China releases genome of virus.

          11 January : Scientists around the world immediately begin work on a vaccine.

          14 January : Moderna begins development of its mRNA-based vaccine.

          23 January : The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations provides $12.5 million in seed money to three companies, including Moderna.

          26 January : BioNTech begins work on its mRNA-based vaccine.

          15 February : More than two dozen companies have announced that they are working on a COVID-19 vaccine.

          26 March : Congress passes the CARES Act, which allots $9.5 billion for vaccine development. It is passed almost unanimously. President Trump signs it into law the next day.

          16 April : HHS announces $483 million in funding for the Moderna vaccine.

          29 April : Operation Warp Speed is announced in the press.

          1. Let’s not forget that when offered an opportunity to buy more vaccine, Trump passed. His team thought everybody would be immune because they arranged for everybody to come to events to spread the virus, and the survivors would no longer be susceptible to the disease.

      3. “the steady leadership that gave us a vaccine in record time.”

        Al Gore rightly was mocked for claiming that he invented the Internet. (Yes, libs: I know he didn’t use the word “invented.” His exact claim was “During my service in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” He was still rightly mocked.) And yet some of the same people doing that mocking want to give credit to Trump for developing a vaccine, despite the fact that Trump didn’t even believe in the disease that the vaccine was being developed for.

        1. He believed in it enough to be airlifted to Walter Reed when his stupidity finally got him infected.

      4. ” Nixon merely had to ask about using the levels of government against his political opponents to get himself removed from office.”

        Minor detail: Nixon wasn’t removed from office.

    3. “If Nixon had had the same Congress Trump had, he’d have finished out his second term. If Trump had had the same Congress Nixon had, he’d have been gone a year into his term.”

      No, there used to be honorable Democrats in Congress.

      Compare that to now when the Dems openly spoke of Impeachment on Inauguration Day and did so as soon as they had a majority in the House.

      1. They’re out to get you, you know.

      2. and did so as soon as they had a majority in the House.

        Dr. Ed, lying as always. They impeached him almost a year after they took over a majority in the House.

        the Dems openly spoke of Impeachment on Inauguration Day

        Lying again. “The Dems” did nothing of the kind. A couple of Democrats did. “The Dems” rejected it.

        1. Your facts have no power to compel Special Ed. Just like waving a cross at a Muslim vampire won’t stop him.

    4. Unlikely,

      The difference between the Watergate investigation and the Mueller investigation are extremely large, on multiple fronts.

      1. The primary one being that Nixon had a Congress that did its job; Trump did not.

        1. Sorry Krychek,

          The differences in the evidence are massive.

          Take a look back at Watergate. Take a look at all the evidence, everyone who was charged, everyone who was convicted, and what they were actually convicted for.

          Compare that to the Mueller investigation.

          1. The Mueller investigation was far from all Congress had. Though there is also the little detail of Trump refusing to allow several witnesses to testify, which I think should have been impeachable all by itself.

            1. You think Trump “refusing to allow several witnesses to testify” should’ve been impeachable all by itself?

              If memory serves, you’ve repeatedly said that Clinton didn’t deserve to be impeached. Yet Clinton did the exact same thing, using executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to refuse to allow certain witnesses to testify or be questioned. Did Clinton deserve to be impeached and convicted on that?

              Furthermore, the Senate didn’t exactly try very hard to question the witnesses. At least one said he would comply with a Senate subpoena, despite Trump’s assertion of executive privilege. The Senate just never subpoenaed him…

              1. Armchair Lawyer:

                Memory does not serve. Clinton “deserved” to be impeached, removed from office, and disbarred. But being a skunk is not a high crime or misdemeanor for purposes of impeachment. So I think the decision not to remove him was legally correct, and what he deserved had nothing to do with it.

                Now, a general comment: Your standard argument seems to be “LA LA LA LA, I CAN”T HEAR YOU.” You’ll ask a question, someone answers, and then you’ll go on as if no one did, as with grb and CaptCrisis above. Or, you’ll take what someone said and then twist it slightly, as in the previous thread where you couldn’t seem to understand the difference between being legally guilty and factually guilty in the case of OJ. Bobbing and weaving is not an effective strategy when you’re on a blog with people who argue for a living.

                1. Krychek_2 : when you’re on a blog with people who argue for a living

                  On the one hand, I’m an architect so perhaps that comment doesn’t apply to me as you intend.

                  On the other hand, I just had an infuriating morning via the Contractor From Hell, so maybe it does after all.

                2. 1. “So I think the decision not to remove him was legally correct,”
                  So, despite Clinton doing the EXACT SAME THING that you think Trump should’ve been impeached for, you think “the decision not to remove Clinton was legally correct”
                  Un..be…lievable. Do you hear yourself?

                  2. “with grb and CaptCrisis above.”

                  They need to admit that there was not evidence to support the Russian Collusion theory. Despite a 30 million dollar investigation, from VERY motivated lawyers and investigators, there just wasn’t anything real there. If they can’t admit that, nothing will convince them. They could have every minute of Trump on tape , 24 hours a day, 365 days days a year, and there could be no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, and they still would somehow believe he did/

                  3. difference between being legally guilty and factually guilty in the case of OJ.

                  I don’t know if OJ was “factually guilty”. And frankly, either do you if you’re being honest. Did OJ do it? Maybe. Probably. But do we know for sure? No. And was there reasonable doubt sufficient for jury? Yes.

                  1. 1. When did I say Clinton and Trump did the exact same thing? (They didn’t.) Please stop imputing to me arguments that I did not make.

                    2. Trump was not impeached over Russian collusion. He was impeached over his attempt to sic the Ukraine on Hunter Biden. This is another example of you dishonestly changing a central fact in whatever is being discussed.

                    3. Do I know to a 100% certainty? No. But I do know to a 100% that my original comment was whether he was guilty as a factual matter, and you dishonestly changed it to a discussion about whether he was guilty as a legal matter.

                    Bottom line, you’re not an honest interlocutor. I can have conversations with people that I disagree with so long as it’s an honest discussion. But you’re not. You impute to people things they haven’t said; you quietly alter significant facts, and you deliberately use a different meaning for what someone says that what, from the context, was obviously met. If you can’t have an honest discussion, please find someone else to talk to.

                  2. “So, despite Clinton doing the EXACT SAME THING that you think Trump should’ve been impeached for, you think ‘the decision not to remove Clinton was legally correct’
                    Un..be…lievable. Do you hear yourself?”

                    The EXACT SAME THING being totally different things, you mean.
                    Clinton was maneuvered into perjury. Trump forgot that everything he does is scrutinized, and tried to strongarm a foreign government into helping his reelection campaign in the open, then tried lying his way out of it.
                    “They need to admit that there was not evidence to support the Russian Collusion theory. ”

                    Depends entirely on how you spin the “Russian Collusion theory”… if you mean the theory that DJT was entirely willing to collude with the Russians if they’d have let him, that’s not theory. The reason there wasn’t collusion wasn’t because the donald is/was incorruptible and pure, it’s because the Russians thought they were more likely to get what they wanted if they left Trump hanging. So that’s what they did. They didn’t want to tell him about what all they were doing to get him elected, likely because they were afraid he’d screw it up for them.

                    “I don’t know if OJ was ‘factually guilty'”
                    OJ knows.

  2. Bill Clinton exposed this process as a partisan, lawyer, pretextual bs tool. Clinton’s impeachment took up his time instead of Al Qaeda. This lawyer con caused 9/11.

    1. Pelosi should have been arrested and sent to prison for trying to reverse the 2016 election.

      1. Should you be sent to prison for not understanding that literally nobody tried to reverse the 2016 election?

    2. If your theory that 9/11 happened because Clinton was focused on his impeachment rather than on al Quaeda is correct, then wouldn’t the actual blame go to Congressional Republicans for launching what was a frivolous impeachment? Their whole strategy was to prevent him from governing by forcing him to spend his time on one investigation after another. Maybe that strategy worked too well.

      1. That is correct. The reason for the Clinton impeachment was his raising taxes on the rich, not the trivial lawyer gotcha that consumed time and $millions in salaries and fees. I wrote to both my PA Senators, vote for Clinton’s fake impeachment, do not come back. Santorum voted for impeachment and sent me a 5 page letter justifying his vote. He was turned out of office to become a CNN commentator. He was finished in PA.

        1. Clinton and Trump were weak, although stronger than Nixon. Because everyone with a job commits many federal felonies a day, I would have set the FBI on the devices and records of the prosecutors, the Congress people, the billionaires controlling them. I would have had them arrested, thrown in federal stir without bail, and sought decades of prison at hard labor. To deter. Let Pelosi conduct her investigation with the privileges of a federal prisoner.

          Before setting the FBI on anyone, I would have fired the entire agency Inauguration Day 2017, replaced them with experienced police officers from outside the Coasts. The FBI are worthless, Beltway, rent seeking, political hit squad today. They allow billions of federal crimes to go unanswered, and are not protecting the American people.

          1. Lawyer nitpicking and gotcha is tyrannical methodology. It should be visited on the lawyer. In Russia, make dollar 2, the police shows up with a long list of technical infractions, and the sentencing being faced by the business man. Then, they offer a plea. Give the second dollar to Putin, and your problems are over. That makes Putin, by far, the richest man in the world. It was the method of the Inquisition that build that really rich looking Vatican.

          2. “Because everyone with a job commits many federal felonies a day”

            Because you say several nonsense things a day, how about the FBI sets up at your place?

        2. Santorum voted for impeachment and sent me a 5 page letter justifying his vote. He was turned out of office

          False like everything else you say. He easily won reelection after voting for impeachment. He was turned out of office eight years after voting for impeachment.

          1. The gay force finally got him.

      2. “If your theory that 9/11 happened because Clinton was focused on his impeachment rather than on al Quaeda is correct, then wouldn’t the actual blame go to Congressional Republicans for launching what was a frivolous impeachment?”

        One little detail: Clinton was a private citizen when 9/11 happened.

  3. Were there multiple impeachment resolutions?
    I don’t remember hearing about one *before* the election — and remember that Nixon won in a landslide.

  4. Who can forget Nixon’s asinine claim that it (otherwise illegal activity) is not a crime when the president does it? Today’s Dems without a trace of embarrassment say use of government power to squelch their opponents is not a crime when they do it.

    1. Please name a Democrat who has actually said that.

      1. “I’ve got a pen and a phone” was damn close….

        1. mute user

          1. Stop muting people just because you don’t like what they say, and then even virtue signaling that you did. It makes you sound like a spineless coward.

            1. Try spending more time saying something worth reading, and less time worrying about what other people sound like.

        2. In Dr. Ed world, using pens and phones is illegal.

          1. And blatantly so.

  5. Nixon should have been impeached when he left Bretton Woods and took us off the gold standard opening up the deficit spending, money printing, inflation (until Volker), and outright offshoring of the inflation to China (which also led to China buying so much debt..driving even more debt, maleinvestments, bailouts, enrichment of the “educational complex (and debt fueled college tuitions and kids graduating with no job and $100K in the red), wars, and on and on…seriously Nixon should be remembered as causing all the major issues we face today (who started racial hiring quotas?). We had two good Presidents who selected the wrong VPs. Ike with Nixon and Reagan with Bush…

    1. Whether one agrees with you or not, you are proposing a substantive reason to impeach, instead of the trivial, lawyer gotcha always used. If Clinton had been impeached for raising taxes, that would be a valuable proceeding instead of the phony, pretextual bs that was charged. Then the Trump impeachments were insults to democracy, and mere Dem partisan tactics.

      1. I was joking…well sort of…crimes against the economy??? 🙂

    2. “Nixon should have been impeached when he left Bretton Woods and took us off the gold standard ”

      Did he somehow stop you from using gold to settle your debts?

Please to post comments