"Even Nixon Didn't Block White House Staff From Testifying"

[Lee]

Even Nixon didn't block White House aides from testifying
Jan 21

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) sought to
contrast then-President Nixon's behavior
during the House impeachment investigation
to President Trump's tactics as part of
Democrats' argument to subpoena acting
chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Jeffries, speaking from the front of the
Senate chamber, argued that Trump is
engaging in "complete and total
presidential obstruction" that is
"unprecedented in American history."

"Even President Nixon, whose articles
of impeachment included obstruction of
Congress, did not block key White House
aides from testifying in front of
Congress during the Senate Watergate
hearings. ...President Trump's complete
and total obstruction makes Richard Nixon
look like a choir boy," he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479287-jeffries-even-nixon-didnt-blo
ck-white-house-aides-from-testifying

[jane....@gmail.com]

.

That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and neither one has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's actions risked damaging the separation of powers built into the Constitution.

[Rudy Canoza]

Nothing but total bullshit from not-jane. Congress has oversight duties
based on the Constitution, and that oversight cannot be done when there is
a *blanket* refusal to provide information and witnesses material to it.
The president can claim executive privilege for some materials, but he may
not engage in a blanket refusal to provide anything at all, and
particularly when *no* part of that refusal is based on executive
privilege. That is an impeachable offense, and could and should result in
the impeachment, conviction and removal of a president who does it. The
fact that it won't here is only due to the perfidy and and perjury of 53
Republiscum liars in the Senate.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,

jane....@gmail.com wrote:

> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
> history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and neither one
> has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's actions risked damaging
> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.

I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
Constitution.

I guess republicans don't have a problem with corrupt elections.
See also Georgia.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/22/2020 10:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
>> history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and neither one
>> has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's actions risked damaging
>> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>
> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
> Constitution.

There is no evidence Nixon knew about, authorized, encouraged or abetted
the burglaries. It was the coverup of them, which he knew about and
authorized the next day, that brought him down. That is what endangered
the constitutional order.

[jane....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
> > history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and neither one
> > has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's actions risked damaging
> > the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>
> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
> Constitution.
>

.

I agree. Don't get me wrong; I am not defending Nixon's illegal actions and I think Congress was right in pursuing impeachment.

The main reason I think Nixon was one of the worst presidents is the reduction of economic checks and balances. Prior to "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974" we had economic balance. The Executive could not spend money that was not allocated by congress; not all of the money allocated by the congress had to be spent by the Executive.

In effect, we had a line-item veto.

Another president that I think falls into the "Worst President" is FDR.

[Mitchell Holman]

jane....@gmail.com wrote in
news:53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com:

Really?

The GOP Congress had no right to
"make demands" that Executive Branch
turn over all of Hillary's Benghazi
notes and order her to testify before
numerous Congressional committees?

[Mitchell Holman]

jane....@gmail.com wrote in
news:9335e916-d925-44ff...@googlegroups.com:

And now Trump just snaps his fingers and
orders BILLIONS to be paid to farmers because
of them being bankrupted by the trade war HE
started. Billions that will of course NEVER
be repaid. Ditto for the billions he is
stealing from the Pentagon budget to pay
for his border, or the millions he diverted
from the National Park Service to pay for
his "Hail To The Chief" July 4 military bash.

Even Reagan understood the limits of
presidential spending and rigged the whole
Iran/Contra scheme to finance the insurgents
instead.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/22/2020 11:08 AM, *not-jane*, a far right-wingnut apologist, a
"founders fetishist" and liar, lied:

> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article
>> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
>>> history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and neither one
>>> has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's actions risked damaging
>>> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>>
>> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
>> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
>> Constitution.
>>
> .
>
> I agree. Don't get me wrong; I am not defending Nixon's illegal actions and I think Congress was right in pursuing impeachment.
>
> The main reason I think Nixon was one of the worst presidents is the reduction of economic checks and balances.

There was no reduction, *not-jane*.

[K. A. G. Trump 2020]

You ignorant cunt. Nixon was a great president. You stupid cunt

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<9335e916-d925-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,

jane....@gmail.com wrote:

> In effect, we had a line-item veto.

Which was unconstitutional.

[jane....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <9335e916-d925-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In effect, we had a line-item veto.
>
> Which was unconstitutional.
>

.

Please expound.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/22/2020 10:06 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

A categorical refusal by the executive to answer legislative subpoenas
tilts the balance of power towards the executive.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Nixon created the White House plumbers and gave them carte blanche to do
what they had to to get him reelected. A lack of direct knowledge of
the burglary doesn;t let Nixon off the hook for endangering the
constitutional order by creating the plumbers.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/22/2020 1:24 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/22/2020 11:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/22/2020 10:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>   jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
>>>> history.  The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and
>>>> neither one
>>>> has authority to make demands of the other.  Nixon's actions risked
>>>> damaging
>>>> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>>>
>>> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
>>> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
>>> Constitution.
>>
>> There is no evidence Nixon knew about, authorized, encouraged or abetted
>> the burglaries.  It was the coverup of them, which he knew about and
>> authorized the next day, that brought him down.  That is what endangered
>> the constitutional order.
>
> Nixon created the White House plumbers

No, he didn't. Some subordinate well below the president did.

[Rudy Canoza]

A categorical refusal that was *not* based on executive privilege. Trump
made no claim of privilege - he simply said he wasn't going to cooperate.
That's obstruction.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/22/2020 1:24 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

> On 1/22/2020 11:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/22/2020 10:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>   jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in
>>>> history.  The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and
>>>> neither one
>>>> has authority to make demands of the other.  Nixon's actions risked
>>>> damaging
>>>> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>>>
>>> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
>>> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
>>> Constitution.
>>
>> There is no evidence Nixon knew about, authorized, encouraged or abetted
>> the burglaries.  It was the coverup of them, which he knew about and
>> authorized the next day, that brought him down.  That is what endangered
>> the constitutional order.
>
> Nixon created the White House plumbers and

Speaking of plumbers, I just found that Egil (Bud) Krogh died four days ago.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Creating was too strong a word. Authorizing and giving crate blanche to
their activities isn't.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

You might find this contemporaneous story by Seymour Hirsch interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/10/archives/nixons-active-role-on-plumbers-his-talks-with-leaders-recalled.html

[John Carlson]

It is extremely doubtful anyone told Nixon the plumbers were going to
engage in break-ins.

[John Carlson]

I just looked at a different one about 30 minutes ago
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/22/archives/the-plumbers.html

[Siri Cruise]

In article <r0afpm$uo9$1...@josh.motzarella.org>,

Nixon conspired after the fact to reduce eventual sentences,
suborn testimony before Sirica, and limit investigation beyond
the one burglary. Allowing politically motivated burglaries. He
also allowed things like the canuck letter.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, Nixon is still on the
hook for giving them carter blanche. One thing Nixon *did* create was a
culture of no-holds barred approach to defeating your political
opponents. Trump operates the same way, only Trump thinks his actions
are perfect. I'm pretty sure Nixon knew he was in the wrong.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/22/2020 1:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <r0afpm$uo9$1...@josh.motzarella.org>,
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2020 1:30 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2020 1:24 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2020 11:01 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2020 10:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <53597537-d378-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>   jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents in

>>>>>>> history.  The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and
>>>>>>> neither one
>>>>>>> has authority to make demands of the other.  Nixon's actions risked

>>>>>>> damaging
>>>>>>> the separation of powers built into the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought his allowing politically motivated burglaries while
>>>>>> interfering in the election might have risked damaging the
>>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no evidence Nixon knew about, authorized, encouraged or

>>>>> abetted the burglaries.  It was the coverup of them, which he knew
>>>>> about and authorized the next day, that brought him down.  That is

>>>>> what endangered the constitutional order.
>>>>
>>>> Nixon created the White House plumbers
>>>

>>> No, he didn't.  Some subordinate well below the president did.

>>
>> Creating was too strong a word. Authorizing and giving crate blanche to
>> their activities isn't.
>
> Nixon conspired after the fact to reduce eventual sentences,
> suborn testimony before Sirica, and limit investigation beyond
> the one burglary. Allowing politically motivated burglaries. He
> also allowed things like the canuck letter.

The Canuck letter is similar to what Trump has done, except Trump
decided to use the power of his office to smear his opponent instead of
relying on hardball politics like forged editorials. Both actions are
reprehensible, but Trump's rises to the level of impeachment.

[jane....@gmail.com]

.

By the same token, An unjustifiable demand by one branch on one of the other two branches is ALSO a "tilt of the balance of power towards" the demanding branch.

THAT is why we have a third branch, to settle the dispute between the first two. Not one of the three has an ultimate say by itself. Case in point is a decision of the Supreme court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation. in an apocryphal quote by Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Whether or not Jackson actually made the statement, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling, the Executive refused to uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court, and directed the expulsion of the Cherokees.

I am not endorsing Jackson's actions; I am pointing out that, right or wrong, no one branch of the government has sovereignty over any one of the other two. It takes the third branch to enforce a balance.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/22/2020 6:13 PM, *not-jane*, a far right-wingnut liar, lied:

> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 4:22:35 PM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 1/22/2020 10:06 AM, *not-jane*, a far right-wingnut liar, lied:

>>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 11:57:53 AM UTC-5, Lee wrote:
>>>> Even Nixon didn't block White House aides from testifying Jan 21

>>> .
>>>
>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents
>>> in history. The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and
>>> neither one has authority to make demands of the other. Nixon's
>>> actions risked damaging the separation of powers built into the
>>> Constitution.
>>
>> A categorical refusal by the executive to answer legislative subpoenas
>> tilts the balance of power towards the executive.
> .
>
> By the same token, An unjustifiable demand by one branch

The House request for documents and testimony was eminently justified,
*not-jane*.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/22/2020 6:13 PM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 4:22:35 PM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth
> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2020 10:06 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

{snip}

>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst
>>> presidents in history. The Legislative branch and the Executive
>>> are EQUAL and neither one has authority to make demands of the
>>> other. Nixon's actions risked damaging the separation of powers
>>> built into the Constitution.
>>
>> A categorical refusal by the executive to answer legislative
>> subpoenas tilts the balance of power towards the executive.
>

> By the same token, An unjustifiable demand by one branch on one of
> the other two branches is ALSO a "tilt of the balance of power
> towards" the demanding branch.
>
> THAT is why we have a third branch, to settle the dispute between the
> first two. Not one of the three has an ultimate say by itself.

I'm OK with this argument. But given this argument, I'm not following
how Nixon risked damaging separation of powers.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

What would anyone testify about? There was no crime and no actual
justification for anyone to testify.... so far the impeachment has been
an exercise in futility.

--
That's Karma

As I said... before we went to the Middle East, don't go to war, but
if'n you're stupid enough to start a war then at least be smart enough
to finish it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why is Schiff blocking the LEAKER "FAKE Whistle-Blower" form testifying?

[Mitchell Holman]

BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in news:QsbWF.61969$tu4.56852
@fx07.iad:

> On 1/22/20 9:23 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/22/2020 6:13 PM, *not-jane*, a far right-wingnut liar, lied:
>>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 4:22:35 PM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2020 10:06 AM, *not-jane*, a far right-wingnut liar, lied:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 11:57:53 AM UTC-5, Lee wrote:
>>>>>> Even Nixon didn't block White House aides from testifying Jan 21
>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one of the reasons why Nixon is one of the worst presidents
>>>>> in history.  The Legislative branch and the Executive are EQUAL and
>>>>> neither one has authority to make demands of the other.  Nixon's
>>>>> actions risked damaging the separation of powers built into the
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> A categorical refusal by the executive to answer legislative subpoenas
>>>> tilts the balance of power towards the executive.
>>> .
>>>
>>> By the same token, An unjustifiable demand by one branch
>>
>> The House request for documents and testimony was eminently justified,
>> *not-jane*.
>
> What would anyone testify about? There was no crime and no actual
> justification for anyone to testify....

If there was no crime then why does
Trump need 19 criminal defense lawyers?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <XnsAB4D569A0E6...@216.166.97.131>,

Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net> wrote:

> If there was no crime then why does
> Trump need 19 criminal defense lawyers?

He could bring in 19 criminal defence lawyers for a parking
ticket. A right to counsel is in the Bill of Rights. Don't
dispute it, and don't interfere with their legal and ethical
advocacy for a client. Even though some wankers say only the
guilty need lawyers, a wise innocent also has a lawyer.

Okay, maybe not 19.

[Gronk]

<https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/when_you_raid_a_whorehouse_take_the_piano_player_too_because_no_one_is_enti/>

14 April 1973, Wilmington (NC) Morning Star, “Nixon election committee
plans to release McCord testimony,” pg. 1, col. 4:
Sen. William B. Saxbe, R-Ohio, told a news conference the bugging
controversy would not end until the White House provides morewitnesses in
the Ervin investigation. He said the assertion that White House personnel
did not know of the bugging “kind of reminds me of the piano player in a
bawdy house who didn’t know what was going on upstairs.”

[illegals]

In article <r0lu6o$ck4$2...@dont-email.me>

Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> John Carlson wrote:
> > On 1/22/2020 1:45 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >
> > It is extremely doubtful anyone told Nixon the plumbers were going to
> > engage in break-ins.
>
> <https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/when_you_raid_a_whorehouse_take_the_piano_player_too_because_no_one_is_enti/>
>

> 14 April 1973, Wilmington (NC) Morning Star, “Nixon election committee
> plans to release McCord testimony,†pg. 1, col. 4:

> Sen. William B. Saxbe, R-Ohio, told a news conference the bugging
> controversy would not end until the White House provides morewitnesses in
> the Ervin investigation.

How about Obama? When are you Democrats going to put his head
on a pike?

http://eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to
take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack
Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over
lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his
once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have
given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an
alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release
of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-
wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband
took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700im_/http://eastandard.n
et/images/current/nh-obama.jpg
Barrack Obama

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most
likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44,
said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a
brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has
turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to
play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife
went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they
felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was
"truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to
unseal the records.

—AP

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlin
es/news26060403.htm

Copyright © 2004 . The Standard Ltd

The Standard Ltd
I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.
Tel. +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 214467, 229218, 218965.
Email: edit...@eastandard.net, onl...@eastandard.net
News room Tel: +254 20 3222111, Fax: +254 20 213108.
Advertising: standa...@swiftkenya.com

[Gronk]

The whistle blower's identity is not known.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>> Why is Schiff blocking the LEAKER "FAKE Whistle-Blower" from testifying?

>
> The whistle blower's identity is not known.
>

Sure it is and Schiff plotted this whole impeachment based on the fact
that the leaker would point to TRUMP while under oath, that is until it
was discovered that Schiff had been in contact with the leaker before
the leaker filed the whistle blower forms.

And that means that Schiff lied and was witness tampering and colluding
to obstruct the Presidency.....


--
That's Karma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=UXA--dj2-CY&feature=emb_logo

Biden is guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gronk]

Who is it ->

> that the leaker would point to TRUMP while under oath, that is until it
> was discovered that Schiff had been in contact with the leaker before the
> leaker filed the whistle blower forms.

Witness Protection Act.

> And that means that Schiff lied and was witness tampering and colluding to
> obstruct the Presidency.....

Obstruct what???