Tom Brokaw is an asshole. Just said on Andrea Mitchel's show there is not enough grounds for

[katmondoo]

impeachment

[onetexan]

1. Is he a republican?

[dalton99a]

5. He is a huge worshiper of Reagan

In 2016 he said that Hillary was sick and she should to to a hospital and see a neurologist

[onetexan]

38. OMG no wonder he endorses that book Hillbilly Elegy

Yak

[brush]

18. Yes, and so is Andrea "What about her emails" Mitchel.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. Not enough? How much more does he want and who is paying him to say that?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Exactly!

Haven't there been enough reasons for him to be impeached by now?!

[maxsolomon]

3. There had to be more to that statement.

Not enough grounds YET? Politically?

Were there any qualifiers on that judgment?

[grantcart]

25. That's not what I heard, what I heard is that he said that there wasn't the same level

of clarity that there was with Nixon and the tapes.

[maxsolomon]

29. Thanks.

People sure knee jerk around here.

[crickets]

33. Thanks for clarification, and I would add: ...yet. It's on the way and they all know it.

eta: Wait for it. The public hearings Repubs kept howling for are happening soon, and the saying "be careful what you wish for, you may get it" is about to bite them hard.

[H2O Man]

37. Thank you!

I found the OP questionable. I appreciate an accurate account of what he said.

[USALiberal]

4. I lose track of who we like and who we hate. Tweety, Moore, etc. nt

[Kingofalldems]

7. Looks like a slam on DU from here.

[bullwinkle428]

6. Thanks for your input, Comrade!

[The Wielding Truth]

8. Clinton was impeached for the meaning of is? Trump is a dangerous pathological liar.

Brokaw is a %*&^*^.

[gratuitous]

9. Okay Tom, let's approach this from the other side

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2019, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

What would it take for you to agree that there is grounds for impeachment? That is to say, what are you looking for, specifically? What more would you want? Clearly, the evidence so far of abuse of power and obstruction of justice (two of the articles being considered against Nixon at the time of his resignation) isn't enough for you. Instead of saying "not enough," what would you say, prospectively, is enough? How much more do you need before you will concede that Trump has committed the constitutionally requisite high crimes and misdemeanors? We're about four weeks in to the impeachment inquiry, and the direction looks pretty damning for Trump, but obviously not damning enough for your tastes. So what do you need to see, Tom? Because it's coming.

[yonder]

23. +1.

[Yavin4]

26. Trump has to switch his party affiliation to Democrat, and then there will be enough

evidence.

[TheRealNorth]

28. Lol

Ain't that the truth.

[eleny]

10. Open hearings haven't started yet

I doubt he has knowledge of all that's been said in the recent closed door depositions.

So, like they say about opinions. They're like assholes - everyone has one.

[ritapria]

11. Tom Brokaw is a Jerk

10 counts of Obstruction of Justice , kidnapping children from their parents , Witholding military aid from a key ally in exchange for gathering dirt on a political opponent , Massive violations of the Emoluments clause , Charlottesville , Offering pardons to immigrantion officers if they violate the law …………...Tom really loves those Trump Tax Cuts , the Country be damned

[uponit7771]

12. Brokaw is in protection mode

[NewJeffCT]

13. Sondland has changed his story now

he does say the offer WAS Quid Pro Quo

[Jarqui]

14. Aren't we at the evidence gathering stage?

Does the jury get to render a verdict before charges are figured out and the evidence and case is collected and presented?

Brokaw proves he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[spanone]

15. It's not up to pundits. Doesn't matter what any teevee people say.

[DeterDeter]

16. I remember when

He was boasting about basically acting as a liaison between the McCain campaign in 2008 and NBC (here is the link that I found: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/arts/television/30brok.html).

He shouldn't even be on MSNBC or NBC anymore after the harassment allegation, but we know from the Ronan Farrow book how NBC should not be trusted to handle those matters responsibly.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Correct

Brokaw is an asshole.

[Ferrets are Cool]

19. Just a Dan Rather wannabe. nt

[TidalWave46]

21. Brokaw is respected by a lot of people.

This isn't the worst thing out there. Open hearings will start soon. Someone like Brokaw changing his mind along the way isn't that bad for us. Yes, he should understand that the bar has been reached. That doesn't mean it won't be a huge positive if he changes his tune in the middle of open hearings.

[MagickMuffin]

22. What was his thoughts on Clinton being impeached for a BJ?

I'm sure he was just as concerned back then.

[maxsolomon]

30. It was clear that he'd committed perjury. That's a crime.

That's what the Impeachment was for, officially. Unofficially? It was for being Bill Clinton.

Trump's High Crimes are vastly more consequential that Clinton's or Nixon's, but it's a more complicated to understand. Especially when America is significantly more stupid than in 1974.

It involves Latin, after all.

[MagickMuffin]

32. While I understand why they decided to impeach because he lied

However, it all stems from a bj. And the republicons also went on here say to pursue the inquiry!

[stopbush]

24. To clarify, Brokaw said that there is not yet the kind of CRIMINAL evidence

revealed about tRump that was revealed about Nixon, who he said clearly broke the law.

Of course - as all of the experts have pointed out - a president need not commit a crime to be impeached, and tRump has certainly committed crimes. Either Brokaw is playing stupid or is stupid.

[grantcart]

27. What I heard him say was that there wasn't the same level of clarity as there was with

Nixon and the tapes with Nixon clearly articulating a crime that everyone could hear him say in his own words.

Was there something I missed?

Do you have a link to the clip?

[Hoyt]

31. I bet that's not what he meant. Besides, he's promoting his book on the Impeachment of Nixon.

So, there is a lot of clarity for him on that.

[crickets]

34. "he's promoting his book on the Impeachment of Nixon"

Thanks for that data point; it gives a little more context as to why he's flapping his mouth at all. $cha-ching$

[still_one]

35. That isn't for HIM to determine. THAT IS FOR CONGRESS, and HE ISN'T and elected member of Congress

so it is just another worthless opinion that won't even buy ya a cup of coffee

[Skidmore]

36. And how does he know?

[hughee99]

39. He doesn't. Isn't that sort of the point?

The case for impeachment hasn’t been made publicly, yet. He hasn’t seen the evidence that the people in the house have. Maybe he’ll change his mind once that happens.

[FormerDittoHead]

40. The right wing is all over the king of liberal politics Tom Brokaw saying Trump is innocent...

I spend 3 fucking minutes on a right wing TV show and then I had to go chasing this bullshit down.

AVOID RIGHT WING MEDIA!

Brokaw has it so fucking wrong.

If you look at his interview:

https://www.today.com/video/tom-brokaw-talks-impeachment-and-fall-of-richard-nixon-his-new-book-72241221688

He says the democrats today don't have the "clarity" or the smoking gun that they with Nixon, rather, he goes on, the Democrats don't have "the goods" on this President"...

1) BROKAW MUST HAVE AMNESIA.

I was only a teenager at the time, but I remember MONTHS AND MONTHS of hearings. Nixon didn't prevent any of his people from testifying in front of Congress (Senate).

It should be realized that it was only DAYS after the tapes were finally listened to that Nixon lost all his support on "the hill" BUT by that point Nixon was no worse off than he was the day before, as it was the HEARINGS that made things very clear to even this teenagers.

2) BROKAW MUST NOT BE PAYING ATTENTION.

Just that redacted "summary" of that phone call is "the goods". Everything else paints a 3D HD picture...