After Chicago Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson blamed former President Richard Nixon following 19 murders being committed in Chicago over the July 4 weekend, the Richard Nixon Foundation harshly criticized him. One hundred nine people were reportedly injured in the shootings.
“The spree spanned 74 separate incidents, including a horrific family slaying that saw an 8-year-old boy killed along with two relatives, while two other boys, aged 5 and 7, were injured in the same shooting,” The Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13617833/Chicago-shooting-Richard-Nixon-mayor-brandon-johnson.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
“Black death has been, unfortunately, accepted in this country for a very long time,” Johnson declared at a news conference. “We had a chance 60 years ago to get at the root causes, and people mocked President [Lyndon] Johnson. And we ended up with Richard Nixon.”
“Mayor Johnson’s reference to President Nixon is gratuitous and the facts are not on his side in his characterization of Richard Nixon and the Nixon administration’s civil rights record,&#8221; the Nixon Foundation stated on X, adding a litany of Nixon’s decisions to help the black community:
<blockquote>
In 1971, the Nixon administration developed a plan to carry out the 1954 SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education to desegregate all schools in the South. In 1969, 64% of Southern Schools were segregated. By 1974, 8% were segregated. Done effectively and peacefully. From 1969 to 1972, federal funding for civil rights programs grew from $75 million to more than $600 million, the equivalent of more than $3.4 billion today. Nixon initiated the Emergency School Aid Act with $1.5 million to help end school segregation and pay for the promotion of interracial experiences among children where racial isolation existed.
Nixon issued an executive order calling on federal government agencies to apply equal-opportunity policies to every aspect of federal personnel policies and practices. Nixon allocated $12 million for research on sickle-cell anemia, a blood disorder that afflicts one out of every 500 black children, with the hope of decreasing that number. From 1969 to 1971, the government’s federal purchases from black-owned businesses increased more than 900 percent, from $13 million to $142 million. In 1969, Nixon issued an executive order creating an Office of Minority Business Enterprise in the Commerce Department. Nixon mandated that federal contractors had to comply with equal employment-opportunity laws. This “Philadelphia Plan,” led to the dismantling of institutionalized racism in labor unions. The Nixon administration was the first to institute plans to increase jobs for minorities in the construction industry. From 1969 to 1973, federal aid to predominantly black colleges and universities more than doubled.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mayor Johnson’s reference to President Nixon is gratuitous and the facts are not on his side in his characterization of Richard Nixon and the Nixon administration’s civil rights record. 
Here are the facts: 🧵 <a href="https://t.co/bWBx5v7DJd">https://t.co/bWBx5v7DJd</a>
&mdash; Richard Nixon Foundation (@nixonfoundation) <a href="https://twitter.com/nixonfoundation/status/1810500320734421235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
“Richard Nixon was a champion of civil rights as Vice President and as President,” Jim Byron, the president and CEO of the Richard Nixon Foundation, fired back in a statement to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-mayor-blasted-ridiculously-blaming-deceased-gop-president-deadly-july-4-gun-violence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a>. “The record is clear. Unfortunately there are many misconceptions about Richard Nixon, but perceptions of years ago are now being reconsidered as we see renewed interest in studying and understanding his life and legacy in full. As of now, our correction of the record is racing toward one million views on X alone.&#8221;
“What is happening in Chicago is heartbreaking, and I imagine the people of Chicago want leaders who take responsibility and work together to solve problems rather than try and pass the blame, in this case ridiculously and gratuitously,” he continued.

Brandon Johnson

After Bloody July 4 Weekend, Chicago Mayor Blames Nixon. Nixon Foundation Levels Him With Facts.

Chicago

Crime

Illinois

Murder

Politics

Richard Nixon

The presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Trump may well help decide the election in November; the history of televised presidential debates suggests that their effect can be significant. One factor that makes this debate so unusual is that is  being held far in advance of the presidential election.
The first televised debates occurred in 1960, when Vice President Richard Nixon debated Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy. In the wake of the two parties conventions, Nixon held a six-point lead over Kennedy in most polls. The four debates were held on September 26, October 7, October 13, and October 21.
The first debate was seen by 65 million viewers; Nixon had been campaigning extensively and had <a href="https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/history/debate/kennedynixon/kennedynixonscholarly.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lost 15 pounds</a>. In addition, Nixon refused to wear makeup while Kennedy did, leading to Kennedy looking refreshed while Nixon’s five-o-clock shadow made him look more haggard.
Howard K. Smith, who moderated the first debate, <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/2000/09/22/60-minutes-that-shook-the-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said decades later</a> that television legitimized Kennedy as a candidate.  “One night elevated Kennedy,” he said. “He had been known as a ‘boy senator.’ But the person who came into the studio that night wasn’t a boy. He was a man.”
“60 Minutes” creator Don Hewitt agreed: “When it was all over, I said, ‘My God, we’ve just elected a president of the United States.’ But I also remember saying, ‘I’m not sure we should elect one this way.’ We were just looking at two performers and picking the better performer.”
The next televised presidential debates occurred in 1976 between President Gerald Ford and Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. The three presidential debates (a fourth vice-presidential debate was held between the GOP’s Robert Dole and the Democrat’s Walter Mondale) were held on September 23, October 6, and October 22. Carter <a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1976/index.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> years later, “If it hadn&#8217;t been for the debates, I would have lost. They established me as competent on foreign and domestic affairs and gave the viewers reason to think that Jimmy Carter had something to offer.”
1980 featured only one debate between former California governor Ronald Reagan and President Carter. The first presidential debate was held on September 21, but because independent candidate John Anderson was invited Carter did not participate. After Reagan did quite well, Anderson’s poll numbers plunged. Carter and Reagan debated alone on October 28. Reagan won handily, largely because of him asking whether Americans were better off than they had been four years before and his oft-repeated statement to Carter, “There you go again.” An ABC poll after the debate <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1980/10/30/archives/tv-instant-poll-steals-pastdebate-scene.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> two-thirds of respondents thought Reagan won. Reagan had been running as much as 8% behind Carter before the debate, which occurred one week before the election. He then crushed Carter in the election.
In 2000, George W. Bush debated Al Gore on October 3, 11 and 17. Time Magazine <a href="https://time.com/archive/6927910/the-debate-on-tv-what-happened-to-al-gore-attack-debater/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> of the first debate, “The pundits and the polls agreed: Gore had won the debate. Then he lost: within a week, Bush had opened up a lead in several polls, as voters apparently decided they were tired of Professor Know-It-All.” Bush narrowly won the election.
In 2012, three debates were held between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, on October 3, October 16, and October 22. Romney had been trailing in polls until the first debate, which people thought he won, thus helping him <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/obama-debate-election-2012/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge into the lead</a> in Gallup and Pew polls. But Obama did much better in the second debate, propelling him to victory in the election.
The 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump occurred on September 26, October 9, and October 19, and proved to be a major exception. Clinton was deemed the winner of each debate in virtually every poll. But in the end, Trump won the election.

President Carter and Ronald Reagan Debating

Presidential Debates And How Much They Can Matter

Donald Trump

Jimmy Carter

Joe Biden

John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Ronald Reagan

U.S.

The Watergate scandal is perfect fodder for both journalists and Hollywood studios.
Deception! Intrigue! A White House in crisis mode!
It’s no wonder Hollywood created memorable films tied to the scandal over the years, notably “All the President’s Men,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Nixon,” and even “Forrest Gump.” How could the industry resist?
Except Hollywood can’t quit Watergate, even if audiences may be tiring of the subject. Last year, we saw a star-studded recreation of the GOP crisis, and we’ll soon see another high-profile series based on Nixon’s downfall.
It’s hardly a secret why Hollywood keeps cranking out Watergate-related stories. The industry adores taking shots at Republicans, be it President Donald J. Trump or a leader whose Beltway skills were no match for his political paranoia.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hugh-hewitt-the-real-story-of-the-most-famous-political-scandal-in-u-s-history" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watergate</a> is too ripe a scandal to leave in the past.
Plus, the era reminds us of a time when journalists doggedly pursued the truth and held the powerful to account. That only happens, alas, when a Republican is in the Oval Office in the 21st Century.
And let’s not forget how Hollywood liberals lionize reporters any chance they get.
Watergate refers both to the D.C. hotel where Nixon’s minions broke into the Democrat National Committee’s headquarters and the machinations behind it and the cover up.
The last few years have seen major films tied to President Richard M. Nixon’s undoing. Liam Neeson portrayed the man known as Deep Throat, in the 2017 drama “Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House.”
The film hit theaters in the heat of awards season, but got summarily ignored by voters across the Hollywood landscape. Neither critics nor crowds gave the film much respect.
That same year, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep teamed up for “The Post.” The film took a loving look at both The Washington Post and its reporters’ efforts to publish the Pentagon Papers. President Nixon anchors the film’s waning moments as The Post investigated a curious burglary at the Watergate hotel.
Documentarians also have had a field day with Watergate. 
The 2022 film “The Martha Mitchell Effect” (40 minutes) recalled the wife of the U.S. attorney general who tried to warn the public about nefarious actions within the Nixon White House. Some within Nixon’s inner circle tried to dismiss the charges by alleging Martha Mitchell suffered from mental health woes, but the facts eventually proved her right.
Last year, CBS and Paramount+ teamed to bring us “Watergate: High Crimes in the White House.” The documentary, released 50 years after the initial burglary, looked at how a seemingly minor crime ballooned into a crisis that ended Nixon’s presidency.
CNN pounced on the anniversary, too, producing a docuseries called “Watergate: Blueprint for a Scandal,” narrated by former Nixon White House counsel John Dean.
Not all Watergate-themed projects draw a crowd, though. “Mark Felt” earned an embarrassing $768,946 at U.S. theaters, and the Starz series “Gaslit” got all but ignored by the pop culture zeitgeist.
That 2022 series boasted two Oscar winners – Sean Penn and Julia Roberts – plus stories that allegedly got less attention during the 1970s. The limited series included Martha Mitchell (Roberts) and her attempts to blow the whistle on White House malfeasance.
Starz uncorks another Watergate-themed movie this spring. “18 ½,” named after the gap in time found in the Watergate tapes, is a companion piece, of sorts, to the channel’s “Gaslit.” Dubbed a thriller/comedy, “18 ½” follows a woman who turns on President Nixon and leaks the infamous tape to a reporter. The film stars Willa Fitzgerald, John Magaro, Vondie Curtis Hall, Richard Kind, Sullivan Jones and the voice of cult movie fave Bruce Campbell as Nixon.
This year, Woody Harrelson and Justin Theroux team for HBO’s “White House Plumbers,” Partly based on the book “Integrity” by Egil “Bud” Krogh and Matthew Krogh, “Plumbers” explore how Nixon’s saboteur dream team — Harrelson as E. Howard Hunt and Theroux as G. Gordon Liddy — ended up doing more damage to the cause than good.
The project, co-produced by liberal scribe Frank Rich, focuses both on the humorous aspects of the crisis as well as the nuts and bolts details of the initial burglary.
Why the drip-drip-drip of Hollywood projects based on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watergate-doesnt-mean-what-press-thinks-it-means-andrew-klavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watergate</a>? The industry understands the soft power that storytelling offers, and it relentlessly applies it across the creative board. It’s why we see a similar onslaught of stories based on the 1950s blacklist era.
That historical chapter showed the GOP’s cartoonish overreach, plus it paints Hollywood figures like screenwriter Dalton Trumbo in heroic fashion. 
Hollywood isn’t done with the Blacklist era, either.
This year, we’ll see “McCarthy,” a feature-length biography of the hard-charging senator played by Michael Shannon.
Plus, these films and TV shows allow the artists to not only explore the past but use history as a modern-day cudgel against their ideological foes. The film’s director, Václav Marhoul, made “McCarthy” to <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mccarthy-director-michael-shannon-mccarthyism-symbol-evil-1235036853/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">draw parallels between the senator and modern politicians.</a>
“These people are very dangerous. And I realized this when I watched the news in January and saw Donald Trump and his call for the Capitol attack. But it’s not just about Trump. Over the past decade in Europe and all over the world, there are so many Joe McCarthys. For instance in Brazil it’s Bolsonaro, in England, it’s Johnson. It’s about populism,” Marhoul said.
Journalists, who openly root for one party over another, will prod these stars to make statements like this without the benefit of balance or fact checks.
Nixon becomes Trump, or Ron DeSantis, or Ted Cruz. Whatever works for the artist in question, and that message gets spread far and wide.
That means we haven’t seen the last of Watergate on screens large and small.
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News&#8217; Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@HollywoodInToto</a>. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Richard Nixon Giving “V” Sign After Resignation

Why Hollywood Can’t Get Enough Of Watergate

Why Hollywood Can't Get Enough Of Watergate

Documentaries

Hollywood

Movies

Readers Pass

Republicans

American democracy has survived since 1776 because our Constitution clearly defines an individual’s freedoms. It establishes a system of checks and balances with three separate but equal branches of government. Our Founding Fathers were advocates of limited government that afforded citizens protections from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Monday FBI raid on President Trump’s residence stands to crack the foundation of our democracy and everything the Founders worked for 246 years later.
Independence and impartiality are <a href="https://www.justice.gov/about#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Department,and%20to%20protect%20civil%20rights.">core values</a> of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/about">says</a> that it “works each day to earn the public’s trust” and to pursue justice “without prejudice or improper influence.” Lady Justice is blind to symbolize America’s commitment to fairness and impartiality when an individual’s liberty is threatened. Our system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best. I’m confident <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/brittney-griner">Brittney Griner</a> and all Americans imprisoned abroad would agree.
Watergate drew bipartisan condemnation in the early 1970s so intense that it forced President Nixon to resign rather than drag the country through a messy impeachment. It shocked the conscience of Americans that a sitting president could abuse the levers of power to cover up the surveillance of a rival political party. America survived a constitutional crisis because our system worked as the Founders had intended it. Due process and transparency were on display via months of congressional hearings and reporting. Indeed, the process was as important as the result by allowing the country to heal.
Since Watergate, America has waded through Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, and Valerie Plame. However, over the last ten years a discernible pattern of government weaponization against political opponents has stained Democratic administrations. In 2013, the IRS reportedly targeted conservative organizations by denying and delaying the approval of their requests for tax exempt status. Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit, twice appeared before Congress and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/">pleaded the Fifth Amendment</a>. Her refusal to testify was a powerful admission that the IRS scandal rose to the highest levels despite the Obama administration’s nonchalant attempts to blame two <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html">low level</a> employees in Cincinnati. The DOJ concluded a tepid investigation by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party">sending a Friday letter</a> to Congress concluding no crimes had been committed, but two years later the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative/justice-department-settles-with-conservative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY">agency apologized</a>.  The scandal left a scar for conservatives. Now Democrats want to give the IRS <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-inflation-reduction-act-would-allow-irs-to-hire-up-to-87000-new-employees-raise-taxes-report">87,000 new agents</a>.
In 2016, President Obama’s DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf">relied</a> on a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case">Democrat opposition research document</a> to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil President Trump’s campaign as part of operation “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/crossfire-hurricane">Crossfire Hurricane</a>.” The allegation was that members of the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russian government to gain an electoral advantage. The investigation produced the appointment of a special counsel, countless false revelations in the media, and no evidence of collusion by President Trump. However, a lead FBI agent working on the investigation, Peter Strzok, was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html">removed from Robert Mueller’s team and fired</a> over text messages revealing substantial bias against Trump. FBI attorney <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane">Kevin Clinesmith also </a><a href="https://www.justice.gov/about#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Department,and%20to%20protect%20civil%20rights.">pleaded</a><a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane"> guilty</a> to making a false statement about altering an email relied upon to obtain a FISA warrant. We recently learned that Hillary Clinton allegedly <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html">approved</a> planting a false story to feed the narrative and the worst dirty trick in political history came full circle. 
On Monday, President Biden’s attorney general obtained a search warrant and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-biden-ag-merrick-garland-admits-he-personally-approved-trump-search-warrant">personally approved</a> a raid on the home of Biden’s presumptive opponent for president in 2024, former President Trump. The unprecedented action apparently involves a records dispute with the National Archives and a search for documents related to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-scoffs-at-hoax-report-fbis-mar-a-lago-raid-sought-nuclear-docs">nuclear weapons</a>. However, even after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-biden-ag-merrick-garland-admits-he-personally-approved-trump-search-warrant">Merrick Garland&#8217;s public statement</a>, little is still known. President Trump isn’t an ordinary citizen. The raid is a disturbing show of force that follows a Democratic pattern of leveraging government power to attack political adversaries. “What can they do to me?” Republicans are left to contemplate.
I’m a former prosecutor who worked on Capitol Hill during the IRS and Russia scandals. The lack of transparency and true accountability for the government’s targeting of political opponents cracked the foundation of our democracy by undermining the institutions of government designed by the Founders to prevent that very thing. The FBI raid on President Trump’s home has blown the crack into a hole because it smacks of political targeting once again — even Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/andrew-cuomo-doj-must-immediately-explain-the-reason-for-its-raid">Andrew Cuomo</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/andrew-yang-warns-raid-could-backfire-and-help-trump-new-host-of-the-view-agrees">Andrew Yang</a> agree. 74 million Americans currently have much less trust in their government than they did on Sunday night, and that should concern all Americans.
Chuck Flint is an attorney and former U.S. Senate chief of staff. He was previously an Assistant State Attorney in Florida prior to working on Capitol Hill. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Daily Wire.

FBI Raid316x9

Cracked Foundation: How The FBI Raid On Trump’s Home Undermines National Trust

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

In the latest 5-minute video for PragerU, radio host and columnist Hugh Hewitt breaks down the real and little-known history of Watergate, the most famous political scandal in U.S. history. 
Even though many people know Watergate involved an illegal break-in, says Hewitt, if you were to ask most any person to try and explain the scandal, they’d likely draw a blank. But what most people don’t know, he argues, is that Watergate was “first and foremost” part of a political war between a Republican president and the mainstream media. 
Hewitt offers three reasons for why the media had it out for President Richard Nixon: The elites despised him, and the Washington, D.C., press corps were members of the elite; Nixon was a staunch anti-communist at a time media types believed the communism threat was “overblown”; and Nixon refused to abandon South Vietnam in the war against communism at a time when media types were anti-war. 
So why did the Watergate scandal blow up the way that it did? Hewitt argues that had Nixon’s people simply owned up to its role in the scandal, the whole ordeal may have just blown over. But because Nixon failed to mount an effective response, the scandal grew from minor to major. 
“Three men made sure of that,” argues Hewitt. “A publicity-seeking judge” named John Sirica, a &#8220;vengeful&#8221; FBI official named Mark Felt, and “a partisan special prosecutor” named Archibald Cox. 
“Suspecting a vast conspiracy, Sirica threatened the burglars with lifetime prison sentences if they didn’t rat out the people who authorized the crime,” says Hewitt. 
Meanwhile, the FBI official “thought that he deserved to become head of the FBI” and started leaking tips to Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward after Nixon overlooked him for the position. “Meeting secretly, he told them where to look and what questions to ask. Without him, the duo would have gotten nowhere,” Hewitt says. 
“With Sirica applying pressure from the bench and Felt from inside the FBI, the White House defenses began to weaken, then crack, and then shatter,” says Hewitt. Then once Cox appointed Democratic lawyers to investigate the Nixon administration, the president effectively found himself in political quicksand from which he could not escape. 
“When it emerged that many of Nixon’s private conversations were recorded, his fate was sealed. Citing executive privilege, he tried to keep the tapes from Sirica and Congress. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled against the president,” he says. 
Less than a month later, Nixon resigned — the only U.S. president to ever do so.
&#8220;The media had its victory, and a newfound sense of power. The country has not been the same since,&#8221; says Hewitt. 
WATCH: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VgOGDAfSUZc" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Nixon Resigns

The Real Story Of ‘The Most Famous Political Scandal’ In U.S. History

Hugh Hewitt

On Thursday, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the current House impeachment mangers prosecuting the impeachment case against President Donald Trump in the Senate, opined that Trump&#8217;s conduct with respect to temporarily withholding the disbursement of foreign aid funding to Ukraine &#8220;puts even President Nixon to shame.&#8221; President Richard Nixon, of course, resigned in disgrace following the commencement of House impeachment proceedings against him due to his involvement in the infamous Watergate scandal.
&#8220;Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Thursday accused President Trump of putting his own personal interests above national security and American democracy and charged that Trump is the only president in history to violate his oath of office so flagrantly,&#8221; Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-impeachment-trial-arguments-trump-worse-than-nixon">reported</a>.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections — prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct and rightly so,” the New York Democrat said on the Senate floor, as noted by the outlet.
Reaching a crescendo, Nadler then made his <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-impeachment-trial-live-updates-democrats-make-constitutional/story?id=68480275">stunning comparison</a>: &#8220;This presidential stonewalling of Congress is unprecedented in the 238-year history of our constitutional republic. It puts even President Nixon to shame. Taken together, the articles and the evidence conclusively establish that President Trump has placed his own personal political interests first. He has placed them above our national security, above our free and fair elections, and above our system of checks and balances. This conduct is not America first, it is Donald Trump first.&#8221;
The video can be seen <a href="https://www.politico.com/video/2020/01/23/nadler-trumps-alleged-misconduct-puts-even-president-nixon-to-shame-069461">here, at Politico</a>.
Earlier today, The Daily Wire&#8217;s Hank Berrien <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-accuses-gop-senators-of-cover-up-now-he-may-lose-one-gop-swing-senator">reported</a> that earlier this week at the outset of the Senate impeachment trial, Nadler irked infamously moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) with his inflammatory rhetoric about Senate complicity in an alleged White House cover-up.
&#8220;On Tuesday night, [Nadler], speaking before the Senate as it considers the impeachment of President Trump, stated that senators who voted against allowing additional witnesses who were not called upon by the House were guilty in abetting a White House cover up,&#8221; Berrien reported. &#8220;Those comments angered a senator who is largely considered to be a swing vote on the decision, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She reportedly took great offense to Nadler’s remarks, allegedly snapping, &#8216;I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.'&#8221;
Nadler&#8217;s incendiary rhetoric from earlier in the week <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-accuses-gop-senators-of-cover-up-now-he-may-lose-one-gop-swing-senator">included the following</a>:
<blockquote>I’m struck by what we have heard from the president’s counsel so far tonight. They complain about process but they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the president. They insist that the president has done nothing wrong.  But they refuse to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses; they will not permit the American people to hear form the witnesses, and they lie. And lie, and lie, and lie … the president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the House or the Senate or to a court. Obviously this is ridiculous; it’s been flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea. It’s embarrassing; the president’s counsels will talk about this today.</blockquote>

Jerry Nadler

Jerry Nadler: Trump’s Conduct ‘Puts Even President Nixon To Shame’

Impeachment

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a constitutional attorney by training, had the following piece yesterday at the <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/trumps-ukraine-money-holdup-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-breach-of-the-law/">New York Post</a>.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) this week found that President Trump violated the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) when he <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/trump-broke-law-by-freezing-aid-to-ukraine-government-watchdog/" data-reader-unique-id="36">delayed $215 million in foreign aid to Ukraine</a>. “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the GAO bureaucrats said.
Cue the ritual hue and cry from the left. The same folks who publicly flirted with impeachment justifications like “quid pro quo” and bribery before settling on amorphous “abuse of power” and nonsensical “obstruction of Congress” charges have now glommed on to the GAO’s finding with alacrity. There’s even been some talk of drafting a new article of impeachment based on it.
They should curb their enthusiasm. First, Trump likely did not violate the ICA. Second, even if he did breach it, that law itself comes with its own remedy baked in — and it is a far less draconian remedy than impeachment.
Congress passed the ICA to counter its belief that Richard Nixon abused his executive branch powers by impounding duly appropriated funds — a presidential custom stretching back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. The ICA allows for a president to formally request that Congress rescind appropriated funds; Congress then has 45 days to approve the president’s request. The GAO alleges that Trump flouted this process, and, in turn, his Article II constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
To be sure, expressly directing a subordinate to violate federal law is inconsistent with the Take Care clause. But the president also has other obligations under Article II of the Constitution. The very first clause of Article II vests the president with “the executive Power.” The doling out of foreign aid is an integral part of conducting foreign affairs, and, according to a 2001 Yale Law Journal article by legal scholars Saikrishna Prakash and Michael Ramsey, 18th-century English common law — which helped form the Framers’ thinking — had an “ordinary &#8230; meaning of executive power” that “included foreign affairs power.”
Similarly, in the 1936 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the justices describe the president as “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations — a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.”
Democrats might argue that Congress’ plenary power of the purse, coupled with the statutory grounding of the ICA, might override the president’s foreign-affairs power. That is, at best, a highly contestable claim. But it is certainly not new impeachment grist for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — not least because the drafters of the ICA were savvy enough to provide for a self-contained remedy.
<a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/trumps-ukraine-money-holdup-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-breach-of-the-law/">Read the rest here.</a>
&nbsp;
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">&#8216;Obstruction Of Congress&#8217; Is An Utterly Ridiculous Impeachment Charge</a>.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">There Is One Terrific Impeachment Defense That The White House Is Not Making</a>.

President Donald Trump

Hammer At The ‘New York Post’: Trump’s Alleged Impoundment Of Ukraine Money Doesn’t Make For An Impeachable Offense

Charles Schumer

Constitution

Nancy Pelosi

Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday, Jim McGovern (D-MA) claimed that &#8220;we are here because the facts compel us to be here.&#8221;
What idiots does he imagine us to be? I mean this in all seriousness. Anyone who believes we arrived at impeachment due to facts has been hiding in a cave or is insane, regardless of political leanings. If this were about facts, impeachment would be nowhere on the horizon.
In late 1973, the House Judiciary Committee opened an impeachment process after President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of the independent special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in, Archibald Cox. Cox had issued a subpoena demanding copies of taped conversations in the Oval Office, which, he believed, might reveal Nixon’s involvement in Watergate and the subsequent cover-up. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general both refused the order to fire Cox and resigned in protest. U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork was then sworn in as attorney general and obeyed the order, but said he did so only in order to avoid a long succession of resignations which would leave the Justice Department “crippled” and in chaos.
It was obvious that a crime had taken place, and it was equally obvious that the president was trying to cover up his involvement. Indeed, Cox’s suspicion was borne out — the tapes revealed that the president had tried to halt the Watergate investigation on frivolous national security grounds. The House resolution to authorize the impeachment inquiry passed 410-4, obviously including overwhelming Republican support.
Bill Clinton went through impeachment in 1998–1999 because the independent counsel appointed at the time, Ken Starr, produced a report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing that Clinton had committed both perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton’s law license was suspended for five years due to the conclusions of the Starr Report. So once again, it was obvious that the president had committed a crime. The House vote was 258-176, with 31 Democrats voting in favor.
In neither case was anyone willing to state that he “was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” as Tim Morrison, the departing Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, told the House Intelligence Committee yesterday.
We are here because partisans have wanted to reverse the 2016 election since the day Trump was elected, and the House takeover in 2018 was driven by leftists who demanded we &#8220;impeach the mother******&#8221; regardless of any justification. They believed the Mueller investigation would deliver the needed grounds, but — quite unlike the efforts of Cox and Starr — Mueller’s report exonerated the president. Dissatisfied House Democrats ran to hold hearings in any case, trying to pull a guilty verdict from the innocence found in the report.
It is no coincidence that those tremendously important, momentous hearings suddenly came to an end after the Ukraine phone call came to light — as no special counsel has officially ruled the Ukraine call similarly devoid of criminal conduct, the call offers a better pretense for the same pitchforks and torches.
And this is why the Democrats never demanded a special counsel or any independent, nonpartisan legal investigation regarding the Ukraine phone call and any hint of quid pro quo that might have been behind it. There is simply no time left if Democrats are to use the call to either remove Trump from office or destroy his re-election prospects before the 2020 election. That is why Democrats have bypassed all semblance of fairness, instead rushing to hold closed-door hearings and launch an impeachment proceeding far too early in the process.
Make no mistake: Were it not Ukraine, Democrats would have found another excuse to impeach. They had to, as impeachment was the goal. And we all already know this — no matter your political preferences or voting patterns, this much should be obvious to all.
This sort of move — to come up with the verdict first, and then find the purported crime to justify it — has ample historical precedent. The Salem Witch Trials are certainly an apt model, but Stalin’s Show Trials have a greater written record. It was Stalin’s head of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, who bragged that he could make any innocent man into a convicted criminal: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
That is why we are here. Despite McGovern’s protestations to the contrary, we are not so stupid as to believe this is about justice.
&nbsp;
Rabbi Yaakov Menken is the Managing Director of the <a href="https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572711800204000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH11EKLvI-K343cUV437YwCbens2g">Coalition for Jewish Values</a>.

House impeachment vote

MENKEN: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

Democratic Party

U.S. House of Representatives

I was reflecting this week on my brief stint, many years ago, as a newspaperman. It was a job I loved. I signed on not too many years after the Watergate scandal, and journalists were still flush with heroic ideas about themselves. Woodward and Bernstein — and all reporters by extension — had toppled a corrupt presidency and saved the republic and the Constitution from the kind of behind-the-scenes government tyranny dramatized in such thriller films as &#8220;The Parallax View&#8221; and &#8220;Three Days of the Condor&#8221;.
So we took ourselves very seriously. We felt we mattered. If you didn&#8217;t believe us, you just had to go see the film &#8220;All the President&#8217;s Men.&#8221; Robert Redford played one of us. How much more could matter than that?
I look back now and the whole thing seems a sham, a self-congratulatory illusion created by leftists in both the news media and in Hollywood.
Recently, reading Mark Levin&#8217;s &#8220;Unfreedom of the Press&#8221;, I was reminded that, before reporters went on their great crusade against Richard Nixon, they had overlooked a whole lot of corruption in the Democrat presidents who preceded him.
Levin tells how John F. Kennedy, with the knowledge of his brother and Attorney General Robert, nudged the IRS into auditing conservative groups. With Kennedy&#8217;s approval, the FBI was also employed to investigate those the administration disliked, including Martin Luther King Jr. Lyndon Baines Johnson would later increase the politically motivated auditing and spying. None of this was uncovered until later on.
Ben Bradlee — the editor of the Washington Post, where Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story — was well aware of his pal Kennedy&#8217;s misuse of the tax and investigative agencies. Not only did he not report it, he allowed himself and his paper to be manipulated by information JFK had wrongly obtained.
This totally changes the Watergate narrative. Nixon&#8217;s dirty tricks and enemy lists may have been creepy and wrong, but the press exposure of these misdemeanors came after years of ignoring similar and worse malfeasance by Democrat administrations.
That changes what Watergate means. That transforms it from a heroic crusade into a political hit job, Democrat hackery masquerading as nobility. The press turned a blind eye to the corruption of JFK and LBJ, then raced to overturn the election of a man they despised — despised in part because he battled the Communism many of them had espoused.
What is it Karl Marx said: History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce?
Journalism today is a corrupt shadow of even its biased former self. Competition, cutbacks and desperate attempts to appease a dwindling audience have turned former newspapers like the New York Times into little better than college rags run by starry-eyed leftist children and answerable to an audience that demands to have their prejudices confirmed.
As a result, the reportage on the Donald Trump administration has been a two and a half year hit job. The constant, breathless reporting of the incipient end of the administration — this is a tipping point, the walls are closing in, the president will be impeached! — has been nothing but the out-loud infantile fantasies of under-read underage make-believe radicals who are not equipped to do the job they are paid to do.
As Obama aide Ben Rhodes told a weirdly sympathetic Times reporter: &#8220;The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That&#8217;s a sea change. They literally know nothing.&#8221;
Like the Nixon takedown, the attacks on Trump come after years of turning a blind eye to the corruption of a Democrat. Obama&#8217;s IRS campaign against the Tea Party? His lies about Benghazi? His Fast and Furious fiasco? His shutdown of a massive drug investigation to appease Iran? No big deal. Obama was, as almost every mainstream outlet has declared, &#8220;scandal free.&#8221;
And yet unlike during the Watergate years, a virtual army of conservative bloggers, podcasters and talk show hosts have given voice to the opposition. As a result, the only actual scandal that is close to being exposed is the possible misuse of federal agents and spies by Barack Obama in an underhanded attempt to keep his opponents out of office.
This time, &#8220;Watergate&#8221; may have backfired. This time, perhaps, we will be able to say: History repeats itself, once as leftist deception, and once as the truth.

‘Watergate’ Doesn’t Mean What the Press Thinks It Means

Media Bias

New York Times

Washington Post

The headline in the Atlantic read: &#8220;<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/">Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon</a>.&#8221; The story told how the National Archives had released a tape of then-California Governor Reagan speaking to President Nixon on the phone in October 1971. Reagan had called the president after a vote in the United Nation had recognized the savage mass murderers of Communist China rather than the remnant of civilized China in Taiwan. To celebrate the vote, the delegates from Tanzania had danced — possibly barefoot, I’m not sure.
Reagan was well and truly annoyed that the U.N. — a &#8220;kangaroo court&#8221; filled with &#8220;bums&#8221; as he called it with a precision and accuracy admirable in a mere politician — had given the Communists this sort of legitimacy.
&#8220;Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,&#8221; he said. &#8220;To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!&#8221; Nixon laughed and called the vote, &#8220;the tail wagging the dog.&#8221;
Now to be honest, such revelations have never bothered me much. Private conversations are private. Anger is anger. We all say nasty stuff when we&#8217;re P.O.&#8217;d and we all tailor it to the people we&#8217;re angry at. One of the very few times anyone ever hurled a racial slur at me was after a teenaged fist fight when I had gotten the upper hand. I didn&#8217;t take it personally. If the positions had been reversed, I&#8217;d have probably said the same — or something anyway.
But let&#8217;s for a moment adopt the lunatic puritanism of our present age. Let&#8217;s, for a moment, assume that this off-hand remark was proof of some larger philosophical racism on Reagan&#8217;s part. What then?
In terms of accomplishment, Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents this country has ever produced. The left has brought the considerable power of its media dominance and myth-making dishonesty to bear to erase this fact from the history books, but the fact remains. Reagan pulled the economy out of a hellish graveyard spin and set it on course for a quarter century of unparalleled prosperity. Single women and African Americans benefitted most from the turnaround.
With the left decrying his foreign policy as war-mongering idiocy, he transformed his vision of the Cold War into reality: &#8220;We win; they lose.&#8221; In doing so, he toppled the Soviet slave state and gave hundreds of millions a chance to experience freedom. His eight-year tenure in office was so successful it bound even his Democrat opponents to its small government principles. Only when the insane financial jiggery-pokery of fools like Barney Frank finally managed to crash the economy did we allow leftist Barack Obama to Make America Crap Again.
So if Reagan was a racist — or more of a racist than others in his time — what then? Should we put Eastern Europe back under the Soviet heel? Should we strip the created wealth of 25 years from the American economy? Does a moment of off-hand ugliness lessen the greatness of his administration or the rightness of his policies?
Of course not. It does not damage his legacy any more than recent revelations of shocking sexual malfeasance damage the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. That&#8217;s what a legacy is, after all: it&#8217;s what we leave behind when we and all our human flaws are gone.
The Atlantic article about the Reagan call tries to make a connection to Donald Trump. Leftists have worked and slaved over a hot propaganda machine to make everything Trump says sound as if it&#8217;s racist when it&#8217;s clearly not. They have disgraced themselves by cheapening this serious accusation for their purposes — as they have done with virtually every powerful Republican, including Rudy Giuliani, whose policies as New York City mayor saved thousands of black lives, and decent, unprejudiced men like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.
Trump&#8217;s sound economic policies have helped Americans of all colors, as would his immigration policies, if the Democrats would stop obstructing them. So even if — and this is a big if — Trump has said something racially untoward, what then?
Should we then replace him with another leftist clown like Obama, who may use wiser words but deliver far more foolish and destructive policies?

KLAVAN: If Reagan Was Racist — What Then?

Racism

For the next eight days, the world will reflect upon the historic Apollo 11 mission, when America entered the history books by putting the first man on the moon — the first bold step into the final frontier of space exploration. Fortunately, Americans in 1969 never heard President Nixon speak these words in reference to the three astronauts who risked their lives to accomplish this historic feat: &#8220;there is no hope for their recovery.&#8221;
Despite the intense preparation, nobody knew for sure if the Apollo 11 mission would be successful. Anticipating the worst-case scenario, President Nixon asked his speechwriter, William Safire, to prepare a speech if the three astronauts — Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins — perished during their voyage from the Earth to the moon. Fortunately, that speech was never spoken publicly and has since remained a relic of a future-that-never-was at the Nixon Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California.
&#8220;Entitled &#8216;IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER,&#8217; Nixon&#8217;s speech would address Armstrong and Aldrin&#8217;s widows, as well as the nation,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/science/apollo-11-secret-nixon-speech-armstrong-aldrin">Fox News</a>.
Here is the humble, appropriately somber, speech that President Nixon thankfully never delivered in full:
<blockquote>Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.
These two men are laying down their lives in mankind&#8217;s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.
They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.
In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly to the brotherhood of man.
In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.
Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man&#8217;s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.
For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.</blockquote>
As noted by <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/apollo-11-anniversary-nixon-speech-death-died-moon-1449506">Newsweek</a>, the speech from President Nixon remained largely forgotten until 30 years after the event of Apollo 11.
&#8220;The cautionary write up wasn&#8217;t revealed until nearly 30 years after the event when Safire, during a 1999 interview with &#8216;Meet the Press,&#8217; explained the protocol was for Nixon to first contact the astronaut&#8217;s wives before addressing the public,&#8221; reports the outlet. &#8220;Safire said he delivered the speech to then Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman two days before Apollo 11&#8217;s moon landing.&#8221;
To learn more about the Apollo 11 mission, subscribe to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/apollo-11-what-we-saw/id1471188269">“Apollo 11: What We Saw.”</a>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8O-zKaaNkGg" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

READ IT: Nixon’s Speech If Apollo 11 Failed

It is a wonder why media outlets bring on guests who are the absolute worst authorities on a particular subject to comment on that subject. One major example is bringing on Dan Rather to talk about media ethics.
CNN on Thursday invited on guest John Dean. Dean, for our younger readers, served as White House counsel for President Richard Nixon. The FBI <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110722012105/http:/www.watergate.info/burglary/fbi-files1.pdf">called him</a> the &#8220;master manipulator of the cover-up&#8221; surrounding the Watergate scandal. He pleaded guilty and spent time in prison. He was disbarred and now spends his days criticizing President Donald Trump (he also didn&#8217;t like President George W. Bush).
Despite all this &#8211; or perhaps because of all this &#8211; CNN invited Dean on to discuss Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s report on the Trump campaign&#8217;s alleged collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Spoiler alert: There was no collusion. As I wrote yesterday, the media is now running with the narrative that Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46179/if-you-didnt-know-any-better-youd-think-mueller-ashe-schow">obstructed the investigation</a> into the nonexistent crime, and therefore should be impeached anyway.
Dean did exactly as he was expected: He insisted the Mueller report was &#8220;more damning&#8221; to Trump than the Watergate report &#8211; which led to Nixon&#8217;s resignation &#8211; was to Nixon. He also said it was more damning than the Iran Contra report was to President Ronald Reagan and Ken Starr&#8217;s report on President Bill Clinton&#8217;s affairs.
&#8220;I looked on my shelf for the Senate Watergate Committee report, I looked at the Iran Contra report. I also looked at the Ken Starr report,&#8221; Dean said on &#8220;The Lead,&#8221; hosted by Jake Tapper.
Dean added: &#8220;This report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a president. This is really a devastating report.&#8221;
Is it though? The other reports actually found information relating to their central premise. Mueller&#8217;s report concluded: &#8220;The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.&#8221;
Mueller punted on the obstruction issue, which as I wrote yesterday, is meaningless considering there was no collusion. The president cannot obstruct a counterintelligence investigation because it&#8217;s done on his behalf, and he cannot obstruct an investigation into a nonexistent crime. Him tweeting about how unfair the &#8220;witch hunt&#8221; was is only obstruction in the minds of those who already hate Trump.
Dean, of course, is one of the people who saw obstruction in the Mueller report.
&#8220;As far as obstruction goes, this is clear obstruction,&#8221; Dean said. &#8220;The obstruction statute is an endeavor statute, as well as an actual overt action. If you endeavor to obstruct &#8212; and there is much evidence here of endeavor &#8212; you&#8217;ve violated the obstruction statute.&#8221;
Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro &#8211; who is a licensed attorney that has not been disbarred &#8211; wrote in response to the obstruction claims:
<blockquote>
The President does have First Amendment rights. To suggest that public criticism of Robert Mueller or public praise of Paul Manafort amounts to criminal obstruction of justice requires an extraordinarily broad reading of obstruction of justice statutes.
</blockquote>
In response to a Daily Wire inquiry, a CNN spokesperson said Dean was invited on because &#8220;He&#8217;s an expert on WH malfeasance &#8212; with historical knowledge of the WH, President Nixon, and presidential scandals.&#8221;

Felon Who Helped Nixon Cover Up Wrongdoing Claims Mueller Report ‘More Damning’ Than Watergate, Iran Contra, Starr Reports

Robert Mueller

Menu