When do we start calling this a 'cover-up' by the Obama White House?

[bigtree]

43. the more I consider the impact of such a 'scandal' that I'm positing

. . . the more I'm convinced that it would be devastating for the party.

I'm not sure how I'd consider my own interest in defending against the political impact; I'm more sure about how I'd regard the actual issues involved.

I was on surer ground defending Clinton against charges for an affair that I couldn't have cared less about.

I'm definitely certain about my reaction (in my teens) to the Watergate scandal.

I want to post something here that I think is a good measure and analysis of how we might regard the impact of a prosecution or investigation of a presidency on the party - this one positing on the impact on the nation (not the same as on the party, I know) of a prosecution of Nixon for crimes stemming from an attempt by Nixon to dig up dirt on his political opponents -chilling, but less consequential, in many ways, than outright obstruction of a Senate investigation onto the CIA, if that's what's proven or even investigated here.

I can understand President Obama's or Democratic legislator's or official's reluctance to open the party to something like that. I can also understand rank-and-file Democrats' concern about that impact on the party. Would that be my primary concern? I don't know.


Anyway, this is a memorandum prepared for the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworksi, on the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

(the decision to pardon Nixon was reportedly made by Ford without asking the advice of the Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had the legal responsibility to prosecute the case)

Note the second image with the arguments in favor of a prosecution . . . I'm in that school of thought.

TO: Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor
DATE: August 9, 1974
FROM: Carl B Feldbaum & Peter M. Kreindler
SUBJECT: Factors to be Considered in Deciding Whether to Prosecute Richard M. Nixon for Obstruction of Justice





fwiw