home

40 Years Ago Today: Richard Nixon Resigns

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 07:12:08 PM EST
Tags: Richard Nixon (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Richard Nixon, the most unpopular president until George W. Bush, resigned from office 40 years ago today.

My favorite Richard Nixon article: Hunter Thompson's June 16, 1994 eulogy published in Rolling Stone, "He Was a Crook."

It was Richard Nixon who gave us the War on Drugs. Here's his speech on June 17, 1971. He also gave us the DEA, by executive order on July 1, 1973. [More...]

He was President when the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was enacted, assigning schedules to various drugs (with marijuana in Schedule I along with heroin, where it remains today.) In 1972, when the National Commission on Marihuana (sic) and Drug Abuse issued a report recommending criminal penalties not apply to personal marijuana use and small amounts of distribution, Nixon shelved the report. Here's an article on his infamous, bigoted taped comments about it.

And, of course, he was President when the National Guard shot and killed 4 students during a Vietnam War Protest at Kent State.

[Photo of Nixon at top is of a mask in the living room at Hunter Thompson's Owl Farm, taken by me in June, 2007.]

< Saturday Open Thread | Keeping Up With ISIS >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    40 Years Ago Today: Richard Nixon Resigns | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I loved that Hunter Thompson (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:06:48 PM EST
    article. It was brilliant. He didn't think much of Nixon, and neither did I.  And I liked his description of Kissinger.  He was correct in his comparison of WWII American vs Cambodian deaths.  Cambodia may be the most heavily bombed country in history.  Thompson was such a great writer, I'm sorry he's gone.

    While much of Richard Nixon's (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    sordid history relates to "Watergate" and other political transgressions and crimes,  the man should also be remembered, too, for his major personal flaws.  Specifically, his tax evasion schemes.

     A long story, short, he paid less than $6,000 on aggregate income of $790,000 for 1970, 71, and 72.   He used questionable interest deductions on his real estate (and took a $1.24 interest deduction on a department store bill) and charitable deductions for his vice presidential papers he had valued at $576,000.  

    Since Congress had given a deadline of July 1969 to transfer the documents, and that deadline for deed transfer was not met, it was discovered that the document was back-dated.  Ed Morgan, his aide, was found to have falsified documents and was sentenced to four months in jail.

     Nixon, was eventually re-audited by the IRS owing to the public outcry.  And, much of the vice presidential paper's deduction was disallowed as was some of the interest deductions.   Nixon paid the new tax bill, stating that "he was not a crook."

    Is This True? (none / 0) (#1)
    by RickyJim on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    I read the cited Hunter Thompson article.  It was new to me.  Among the unremitting hatred, bile and invective there was a specific charge:
    He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death.
    I would be interested if anyone has the facts about the comparison.  Also what did Nixon deny about the bombing "until the day of his death"?  Did Thompson also write "eulogies" about other US presidents?

    why don't you listen to some of Nixon's tapes (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:57:46 PM EST
    or just google Nixon war criminal

    The Guardian, 2013

    Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought

    In the course of his five-and-a-half-year presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars -- against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon's: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

    ...The Watergate that we wrote about in The Washington Post from 1972 to 1974 is not Watergate as we know it today. It was only a glimpse into something far worse. By the time he was forced to resign, Nixon had turned his White House, to a remarkable extent, into a criminal enterprise.

    The LBJ tapes: LBJ called his acts treasonous.

    Another writer:

    bq. The evidence of Nixon's sabotage of the 1968 Vietnam peace talks is now overwhelming - including diplomatic cable traffic and contemporaneous audiotapes of Johnson discussing the Republican promises to South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu of a better deal if he boycotted negotiations in Paris.

    Parent

    Wikipedia says that U.S. military fatalities (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:48:59 PM EST
    in W.W.II numbered around 407,000. (Way more than I had realized.) A quick Google search readily reveals studies suggesting the number of Cambodians killed by U.S. bombing during the Nixon Administration was almost twice that many.

    Parent
    What Jeralyn said. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:47:30 AM EST
    The White House tapes are conclusive. President Nixon was clearly an active participant in the Watergate cover-up, engaging in and encouraging criminal activity in the Oval Office.

    Parent
    If this is a reply to what I posted (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    or to the post that I responded to, then I don't understand your point.  Did you think I was suggesting otherwise?

    Parent
    No, it's not. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    Sorry. I meant it as a reply to Jeralyn's comment. Thanks for catching it.

    Parent
    Off Topic (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    How are you weather the storms ?

    Parent
    Weathering, I Meant to Write (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:11:43 AM EST


    Parent
    We were fine on Oahu. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    But the east side of the Big Island, not so much -- just like Nixon when he resigned. (Dubious comparison, to be sure, but I had to link the two somehow, so we don't get chastised for being OT.)

    ;-D

    Parent

    James Taylor nails it too (none / 0) (#2)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    with "Line 'Em Up"

    There (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:04:51 AM EST
    are two things that happened during the dreadful Nixon administration that I consider to be progressive. One is the 26th amendment to the Constitution lowering the voting age to 18.

    The other one is the ending of the draft.

    I wonder whether either of those could pass in today's political climate.

    Surprisingly, I have seen some writers and commentators who are considered to be on the "left", calling for a reinstitution of the draft.

    The logic, they express, is that the draft is an equalizer - and that the rich and powerful would not be so eager to start wars if their own kids were subject to being drafted and sent to fight them.

    I see it exactly in an opposite way.
    The draft, in my view, enabled the Vietnam war. It could not have gone on and on without the assurance of a steady supply of citizens who were forced to fight, flee or be incarcerated.

    The grip that the draft had on a whole generation cannot be overstated.

    The premise that, this time, the rich and connected would be forced to serve along side the less fortunate among us is pure poppycock. If anything, the divide between the rich and powerful and the rest of the country has intensified exponentially since that time.

    I cannot believe that it is people on the left who sometimes call for this nightmare to be revisited upon us.

    I suppose that my point is that good things can happen, progressive things can happen, during an administration known to be reactionary - just as reactionary and conservative things can happen during an administration deemed to be liberal and progressive.

    The draft wasn't abolished (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    completely, young men still have to register for it.

    As a matter of fact I just heard a PSA commercial on the radio about all the public benefits(not welfare) that a young man cannot be eligible for if he doesn't register for the draft.  From the SSS website:

    STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
    Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.

    CITIZENSHIP
    The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.

    FEDERAL JOB TRAINING
    The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offers programs that can train young men seeking vocational employment or enhancing their career. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. Only men born after December 31, 1959, are required to show proof of registration.

    FEDERAL JOBS
    A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.

    Your reasoning is 180 degrees backwards.  The draft was abolished as an active institution because it made going into another country that hadn't directly attacked America difficult, if not impossible to accomplish.

    An all-volunteer force, OTOH, was and is easy to send anywhere.  After all, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.(Not my sentiments, BTW).

    Parent

    The Left (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    Surprisingly, I have seen some writers and commentators who are considered to be on the "left", calling for a reinstitution of the draft.

    Which writers and commentators are you referring to?

    And who is considering them to be on the left?

    I find it amazing that in your ongoing diatribe against Obama that you use Nixon to once again show that Obama has no redeeming qualities. I guess you and PPJ have a lot in common.

    I should not be surprised. Soon you will point out that there are fascist dictators who did more good than Obama.

    Parent

    Thanks Lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by dk on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    That's a really interesting perspective regarding the draft. I admit that I've been somewhat sympathetic at times to those on the left who have floated the idea of reinstating the draft as a way to prevent the establishment from pushing wars, but perhaps you're right that it fails to reflect the reality of the past and the present. It's also interesting as those who seek to insult you and use a form of reverse-McCarthyite tactics in response to you kind of prove your point.

    Parent
    Question? (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    Who on the left has proposed a draft? I had not heard that.

    Parent
    Jeralyn wrote a post about it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:21:37 AM EST
    Here.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:46:34 AM EST
    Missed that post by Jeralyn, another winner by our host.

    IMO. for Rangel, it is a political move, a hat tip to his constituency.

    He has the luxury to pander, even if in principle he believes that the poor are getting f'ed without a draft, because the bill has zero chance of ever getting any votes.

    Parent

    Korean War combat veteran Rangel gets... (none / 0) (#34)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    ...about 90% or better of the vote each time, so I tend to believe his pushing that bill is a matter of principle rather than pander, or as he put it...

    "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    Wonder why he gets 90% of the vote?

    Could it be that he represents his constituents feelings?

    He is in a very luxurious position with his calling for a draft because he knows he is virtually alone on this.

    When a politician takes a stand that no one else will support but his constituents applaud his courage, it is a particular situation.

    Parent

    There are those who've urged ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    ... some sort of universal national service, of which military service can be considered a part. But I agree that nobody on the left is pushing for a reinstitution of the military draft. absent a compelling outside threat, I certainly would not advocate it. What's the point? We spend lavishly on the Pentagon as it is.

    Parent
    The argument that is given to me (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    Is that if everyone had skin in the game it is much harder to drag the US into combat situations.  The general population would become riled at those who love to beat the war drum. I agree too, this whole country's notion of military solutions would do a 180 degree turn around.

    Our military has become professional though.  They don't want anyone conscripted. That's a good thing, or a bad thing.

    I have a healthy respect for joint special operations.  They are capable of the highest caliber of action.  But in the hands of a corrupt President and administration, in their current form I would fear that organization.

    The American people must be very careful, very serious, about who they bequest such power.....and the likelihood of that reality is probably zero :)

    Parent

    The most public (none / 0) (#21)
    by dk on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    and high profile example I can think of is Charlie Rangel.

    Parent
    OH (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    I see, a bit of hyperbole on Lentinel's part:

    Rangel has submitted legislation to reinstate the military draft several times since January 2003 during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. In 2004, the House of Representatives voted down his measure by a 2-402 vote. He has said before introducing the bill that he indeed does not expect it to pass.

    Rangel is introducing a bill that he knows will not pass. That makes his position political rhetoric as his constituency is largely poor people of color.

    To be surprised by this is dishonest rhetoric on Lentinel's part, imo.


    Parent

    Just because you were wrong (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by dk on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    doesn't mean you have to insult Lentinel again.

    Parent
    Wrong? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    Wrong about what?

    Please explain

    To wonder and be surprised how anyone on the left would call for reinstatement of the draft, when the one person who has been bringing up the issue is only doing it to point out that poor black and hispanic people are over represented in the military, is rhetorical BS on lentinel's part.

    Or s/he believes that that natural selection is a good thing. More rich white people surviving and more poor people of color dying.


    Parent

    Two more (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    There  (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:04:51 AM MDT

    are two things that happened during the dreadful Nixon administration that I consider to be progressive

    OSHA and EPA. Oh, and a third: enforced desegregation of Southern schools.

    Of course the Republicans have been trying to de-fund those agencies ever since, but at least they exist.

    And let me tell you, it gripes my a$$ that that b@st@rd facilitated/enacted more far reaching progressive policies than our last two Democratic Presidents.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased as punch with the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" (not really far reaching, but still good) and I'm optimistic with the ACA (potential to be far-reaching but still too many without health care). I don't even care that my rates went up.

    But Nixon! Seriously? It's just galling in a way.


    Parent

    Sourcing the "They" on the 'Left'... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    ...would really be helpful in determining the validity of your argument.  And yes, I know how to use the Google, but not the same as reading the sources you are reading.

    Parent
    Some Nixon Administration (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:51:55 AM EST
    officials.  

    On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#11)
    by RickyJim on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan discussing Nixon on the Colbert Report last week.
    ...I think he would have gone done in history as one of the great presidents if you take a look at what he accomplished in his first term: he had detente with the Soviet Union, arms control, opened up China, saved Israel in the Yom Kippur War, brought the troops home from Vietnam, brought all the POWs home, left the provincial capitals in Saigon's hands. It was an extrordinary success but Watergate erased it all.
    And here is an assessment of his domestic accomplishments from a PBS program.

    Pat Buchanan may not (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    be the best  historian on Nixon.  Or legal advisor.  In that same Colbert show, he believed Nixon should have destroyed the tape evidence.  But, he is right, and as it should be,  whatever place he might be given, is erased by Watergate.  Just as Il Duce's overall record in Italy rightly and justly eclipses his railway prowess.  

    Nixon did his best to undermine the Constitution and almost succeeded.  For his careerist  perspective, there is the  example of Nixon's achievement with China for which he would have excoriated any Democrat for trying or doing.  And, accordingly, made earlier rapprochement with China politically untenable.  

     In my view, the Republican party, itself, did not pay a sufficient price for putting before the American people for so many years, a person of Nixon's character and integrity. The nature of the man should not have been surprising. The party should have gone down with him.  The Republican Party chairman, George HW Bush, stuck with Nixon to the bitter end long after several other Republican elected officials felt he should go.

     Ford, the unelected vice president (named by Nixon after Spiro Agnew pleaded nolo contendere to tax evasion stemming from bribery charges) and unelected president (upon Nixon's resignation) pardoned Nixon in advance.  On balance, in my opinion,  a disservice to the nation, and a curious component of the Watergate scandal.  Some Watergate individuals today.

    Parent

    It's an interesting question.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    Butterfield testified about the existence of the tapes a week before they were subpoenaed, and I believe Haldeman later interviewed stated that half urged destruction of tapes and half urged that destruction would be an impeachable offense. Ultimately Nixon decided that he thought the tapes would somehow be redeeming.

    There's a 3 hour discovery channel documentary that was really very good with interviews of just about all the main players.

    Parent

    Nixon could have said (1.25 / 4) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    all the hard drives crashed...

    lol

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    And I'm not a fan of Nixon. But all this beating of a very dead man while our current President shuts down the coal industry and attacks political opponents with the IRS strikes me has a tad bit hypocritical

    Parent

    This is a thread on Nixon's (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:57:11 AM EST
    resignation 40 years ago.  It is not unusual for discussions of historical events to involve those who are dead.   Apparently, it would be wrong to speak ill of any dead president; Andrew Jackson's translocation of  the Cherokees will require tip-toeing around, or, at least, a  companion discussion of Obama's alleged short-comings.

    Parent
    In the future (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    look at the thread header before making a comment here.

    Parent
    Did someone die and name (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    either of you Table Captain?

    Why no. They did not.

    But your attempt at speech control is interesting.

    Parent

    Uh, you were worried that I was protesting (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    too much in another thread, now, asking for reading comprehension is 'speech control'.

    I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

    Parent

    Table Captain? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    A response to you.  But, yes, please table your Obama bashing to another discussion.  You will surely be able to work it in to something--give the Pistorius thread a try.

    Parent
    Yes, Pulling a Cheney... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    ...would have kept him in office, then he could have refused to testify in front of Congress about the missing 5 million emails:

    The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007, during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.  Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.
    LINK


    Parent
    So many myths in a single post (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    Including yet another imaginary war.

    And I'm not a fan of Nixon. But all this beating of a very dead man while our current President shuts down the coal industry and attacks political opponents with the IRS strikes me has a tad bit hypocritical


    Parent
    Left out that this half and half discussion.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    occurred before the subpoena was issued for the tapes.

    Parent
    There is no evidence that ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    ... President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in advance, as part of a quid pro quo arrangement. In fact, there was really no upside at all for Ford here. Many of his most bitter critics at the time eventually came to accept that by pardoning his predecessor, Ford placed the country's long-term interests ahead of his own political aspirations. Indeed, it likely cost him the capability to win the presidency in his own right in 1976.

    Per Burdick v. U.S., a pardon must be accepted for it to be legally valid and binding. If it is rejected, it carries no legal weight and cannot be forced upon its subject. Further per Burdick, the issuance of a pardon carries with it the imputation of guilt on the part of the grantor, and its acceptance constitutes an admission of guilt on the part of the recipient. Therefore, by accepting Ford's pardon, Nixon legally admitted his full culpability for all things Watergate.

    The indictment and trial of former President Nixon would have consumed the country emotionally for the better part of five years, at a time when the American people's collective focus would've been far better spent elsewhere on more compelling matters. President Ford's action forced everyone to move on.

    And in retrospect and IMHO, the pardon of Richard Nixon was a most courageous act on Gerald Ford's part, because he undertook to do so in full knowledge and awareness that he would suffer enormous and potentially fatal political consequences as a result of his decision. But he went ahead and did it anyway.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That's arguable (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:13:20 PM EST
    Many of his most bitter critics at the time eventually came to accept that by pardoning his predecessor, Ford placed the country's long-term interests ahead of his own political aspirations.
    In my view, it set the stage for today's tendencies to "move on" rather than to hold accountable.

    Parent
    How exactly is it "arguable"? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:22 AM EST
    Among others, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy freely admitted that he reassessed his earlier harsh opinion about Gerald Ford's decision, and had since concluded otherwise. And so did Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, and I might even agree with you about our tendency to "move on." But your personal opinion is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the views expressed by others.

    Richard Nixon left the White House as a disgraced and humiliated man, his personal reputation in ruins. Yes, he could've been indicted and tried -- but then again, at what cost to a country ultimately that was still reeling from Vietnam, mired in a deep economic recession and suffering from double-digit inflation?

    The marvelous thing about hindsight is that it's most always 20 / 20 in its retrospective clarity. Given his times and the circumstances he faced, I believe that President Ford made a courageous decision to do what he thought best for the country at that moment, knowing that it would likely cost him dearly.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Doesn't Matter... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    ...in land where all men/women are equal under the law, you don't let someone get away with high crimes because they have a really important position and/or it's politically inconvenient.

    It set precedent IMO that allowed Bush & Co to operate with impunity, followed by Obama to a lessor degree, and will continue until someone is held accountable for their bad deeds, which include war crimes in which a lot of people are not on Earth that should be.

    For all the Constitution waving idiots elected in office, none see to understand the entire point, which is not having some megalomaniac Kings making it up as they go.

    Crimes we committed again the American public, and like all crimes, the perpetrator should have stood trial.  Isn't that 101 in the victim healing process ?  Who knows what may have come to light, that was and still is locked in the darkest recesses of the White House.  The only way we could have healed was public exposure of all crimes, and it just might have given us some insight on what needed to be corrected to avoid the Nixon redux, GWB.  Followed by the eaves dropper & drone extraordinaire, Obama.

    Children need shielding from the cold dark reality of politics, not grown a$$ people who elect their leaders.  We need the truth and the belief that no one is above the law IMO.  Now we have the CIA spying on Congress, lying about it, and that is