Bob Woodward has lost all credibility

[Trumpocalypse]

Now he is nothing more than a right wing FAUX news hack: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bob-woodward-comey-firing-is-not-yet-watergate-not-a-clear-crime/

[bettyellen]

1. Could you add some relevant paragraphs to your OP?

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. He is technically correct, evidence is coming though, and THEN it will STILL not be like

Watergate, Watergate was DOMESTIC spying, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse.

[LenaBaby61]

3. Bob Woodward has lost all credibility.

I always thought he was a thuglican

[Generic Brad]

8. That was obvious when he shilled for invading Iraq

His writings during the Bush Jr years were blatant Republican propaganda. He made a name for himself with Watergate, but he squandered his credibility over the past 17 years. I no longer have the same level of respect I had for him when I was a young man.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. I disagree. Nixon's actions in the Watergate matter weren't a crime, either, until

all the many threads had been followed, witnesses interviewed, and documents and secret tapes acquired. There's no crime until you have evidence that would support a finding, required by the law, that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While Trump's statements and actions are highly suspicious and absolutely require investigation, evidence sufficient to support a criminal charge isn't there yet. Or, if it is, it isn't public yet; who knows what the FBI has on him already? Woodward is cautious because he saw for himself how difficult it is to put together a complex case, especially against a president.

[elleng]

7. THANK YOU, Ocelot.

I'll breathe better now, seeing others with similar thoughts are speaking out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Seems like too many folks want to jump on anyone who even

advocates caution. This will be a very complex case, probably even more complicated than Watergate (which was a lot more than a "third-rate burglary&quot . Woodward and Bernstein spent many months tracking down the pieces of the story, and they also saw how very difficult it was to bring any kind of charges against a sitting president. In fact, because Nixon was a sitting president the grand jury indictments against his henchmen listed him as an "unindicted co-conspirator." When you are going up against a president, particularly one who is known to fight dirty, you have got to have your legal ducks in a row. The evidence has got to be absolutely solid.

We aren't at Watergate yet but that doesn't mean it won't be Watergate. It's just that a lot of things have to happen first.

[Wellstone ruled]

14. You just

summarized Watergate very well.

[marylandblue]

5. He sucked upnto Bush too

So he could get a book deal. Bernstein is the real hero of the pair. I think Woodward either went along for the ride or lost his mono.

[underpants]

9. Remember that Woodward had been in Naval Intelligence

I always thought it was sort of strange that someone would give up that career or not stay in that field and chose to be a lowly beat writer for the Washington Post. The Post, at the time, was really a small newspaper. Watergate lead to it becoming one of the dominate newspapers.

[pansypoo53219]

18. i just think of the movie 'dick'. i think they got him right in that movie.

[elleng]

6. 'Comey Firing Is Not Yet WatergateNot a Clear Crime

sounds correct to me. Takes time and EVIDENCE, as he, Bernstein, and all of us learned all those years ago. At the moment we have little, just lots of suspicion.

Doesn't do any of us any favors to call him and others similarly situated 'right wing FAUX news hacks,' just heats up the internet.

[still_one]

13. It isn't the actual firing that is a crime, it is that trump is actively interfering with an

active investigation

[cwydro]

15. I agree. nt

[LeftyMom]

11. His entire argument hinges on that "yet"

The president has every right to fire the FBI director at any point in his term, legally. Established norms say that he shouldn't, but norms do not have the force of law.

The Comey firing is only illegal if it was done to obstruct justice. Which seems likely, particularly because Trump's comments would make denial difficult, but proving it in an impeachment proceeding is another matter. Don't forget that even with all the chicanery around the Nixon administration (and there was a lot that gets lost in the narrative, particularly around money laundering) it was only the irrefutable evidence in the form of audio recordings that brought him down. The standard of evidence for impeachment is and should be very high- instability is worse for the country in the long term than bad leadership.

The solution is to keep digging, catch them in lies and inconsistencies, find crimes the lower level flunkies did and use the threat of prison to flip them, etc.

Watergate took THREE YEARS, during which time Nixon was doing Nixon shit all over the damn place. Trump has been in office four months and hasn't been able to name a post office. Find a paper bag and go breathe into it for a few minutes until you've settled down, because this is going to take some time.

[cwydro]

16. Exactly right.

Well said.

[WhiteTara]

12. He lost all credibility to me when he defended *co

lo these many years ago.

[Demsrule86]

17. You know what ...this doesn't change anyone's mind Trump is a crook and crazy to boot.