General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTom Brokaw is an asshole. Just said on Andrea Mitchel's show there is not enough grounds for
impeachment

onetexan
(13,913 posts)dalton99a
(88,308 posts)In 2016 he said that Hillary was sick and she should to to a hospital and see a neurologist
onetexan
(13,913 posts)Yak
brush
(59,653 posts)Farmer-Rick
(11,734 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,854 posts)Haven't there been enough reasons for him to be impeached by now?!
maxsolomon
(36,391 posts)Not enough grounds YET? Politically?
Were there any qualifiers on that judgment?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)of clarity that there was with Nixon and the tapes.
maxsolomon
(36,391 posts)People sure knee jerk around here.
crickets
(26,158 posts)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
(76,682 posts)I found the OP questionable. I appreciate an accurate account of what he said.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Kingofalldems
(39,541 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,649 posts)The Wielding Truth
(11,428 posts)Brokaw is a %*&^*^.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2019, 02:42 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.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)evidence.
Ain't that the truth.
eleny
(46,170 posts)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
(1,812 posts)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
(92,762 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,844 posts)he does say the offer WAS Quid Pro Quo
Jarqui
(10,626 posts)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
(138,845 posts)DeterDeter
(76 posts)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
(40,430 posts)Brokaw is an asshole.
Ferrets are Cool
(22,129 posts)TidalWave46
(2,061 posts)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
(17,582 posts)I'm sure he was just as concerned back then.
maxsolomon
(36,391 posts)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
(17,582 posts)However, it all stems from a bj. And the republicons also went on here say to pursue the inquiry!
stopbush
(24,689 posts)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
(53,061 posts)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
(54,770 posts)So, there is a lot of clarity for him on that.
crickets
(26,158 posts)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
(98,490 posts)so it is just another worthless opinion that won't even buy ya a cup of coffee
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)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.
FormerDittoHead
(5,156 posts)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...