Allow me to spell it out for you, Hollywood. The direction this has been going and continues to go is that Obama era DOJ/FBI officials spied on the Trump campaign and went so far, apparently, as to plant human assets inside the campaign. If proven to be the case, do you not agree that is 100% fucked up?
One of the liberal memes going around these days is that Trump is some kind of monster threat to democracy. As usual, the thinking couldn't be more wrong. Trump was duly elected by the people. The threat to democracy lies in what the fucks at the Obama DOJ and FBI did. In that way, in my opinion, Watergate pales in comparison. Time will tell.
Okay.
This morning, it occurred to me that when you stated "Watergate will pale" referred to the depth of the malfeasance, and not the eventual consequences.
Okay.
Back in the day, leading up to the Clinton impeachment, Clinton supporters' best argument was that what Clinton did did not come anywhere near to what Nixon did in the lead up to Watergate.
I would agree.
I would also agree that shoplifting doesn't come anywhere near the level as murder.
That doesn't mean shoplifting isn't a crime.
That all said, I would say that the Republicans made a political mistake strategically, impeaching Clinton with zero support from the other side of the aisle.
But that isn't this discussion.
The degree of malfeasance in what happened here as opposed to Watergate is and always forever will be a partisan debate - and might I say, a partisan debate for ultra-partisans who have nothing better to do than to continually jerk each other off.
With regard to possible consequence, there is no comparison.
Had Clinton won, this probably would have been a much bigger deal.
But she didn't.
Nixon was functionally removed from power.
So were his senior staffers (along with being imprisoned).
There is nobody to be removed from power in this situation.
They are all already out of power.
So tell me...how can the consequential outcome of what happened here make Watergate pale in comparison?
