In 2016 he said that Hillary was sick and she should to to a hospital and see a neurologist
Not enough grounds YET? Politically?
Were there any qualifiers on that judgment?
of clarity that there was with Nixon and the tapes.
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.
Brokaw is a %*&^*^.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure he was just as concerned back then.
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.
However, it all stems from a bj. And the republicons also went on here say to pursue the inquiry!
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.
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?
So, there is a lot of clarity for him on that.
Thanks for that data point; it gives a little more context as to why he's flapping his mouth at all. $cha-ching$
so it is just another worthless opinion that won't even buy ya a cup of coffee
The case for impeachment hasnt been made publicly, yet. He hasnt seen the evidence that the people in the house have. Maybe hell change his mind once that happens.
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:
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...