Watergate (Scandal)
Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was
no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign,
and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While
historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he
took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members.
In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned.
His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have
committed” while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American
politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the
presidency.
The origins of the Watergate break-in lay in the hostile politics of the 1960s. By 1972, when Republican
President Richard Nixon (1913-1994) was running for reelection, the United States was embroiled in
the Vietnam War (1955-1975) and deeply divided internally. In such a harsh political climate, a forceful
presidential campaign seemed essential to the president and some his key advisers. Their aggressive tactics
included what turned out to be illegal espionage. In May 1972, as evidence would later show, members of
Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP) broke into the Democratic National
Committee’s Watergate headquarters, stole copies of top-secret documents and bugged the office’s phones.
The wiretaps failed to work properly, however, so on June 17 the group returned to the Watergate building. As
the prowlers were preparing to break into the office with a new microphone, a security guard noticed that they
had taped the building’s locks. The guard called the police, who arrived just in time to catch the spies redhanded. It was not immediately clear that the burglars were connected to the president, though suspicions
were raised when detectives found copies of the reelection committee’s White House phone number among
the burglars’ belongings. In August, Nixon gave a speech in which he swore that his White House staff was not
involved in the break-in. Most voters believed him, and in November the president was reelected in a
landslide.
WATERGATE: THE COVER-UP
It later came to light that Nixon was not being truthful. A few days after the break-in, for instance, he
arranged to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in “hush money” to the burglars. Then, he and his aides
hatched a plan to instruct the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to impede the FBI’s investigation of the crime.
This was a more serious crime than the break-in: It was an abuse of presidential power and a deliberate
obstruction of justice. Some of Nixon’s aides, including White House counsel John Dean, testified before a
grand jury about the president’s crimes; they also testified that Nixon had secretly taped every conversation
that took place in the Oval Office. If prosecutors could get their hands on those tapes, they would have proof of
the president’s guilt. Nixon struggled to protect the tapes during the summer and fall of 1973. His lawyers
argued that the president’s executive privilege allowed him to keep the tapes to himself, but Sirica, the Senate
committee and an independent special prosecutor named Archibald Cox were all determined to obtain them.
When Cox refused to stop demanding the tapes, Nixon ordered that he be fired, leading several Justice
Department officials to resign in protest. Eventually, Nixon agreed to surrender some—but not all—of the
tapes.
Early in 1974, the cover-up began to fall apart. On March 1, a grand jury appointed by a new special
prosecutor indicted seven of Nixon’s former aides on various charges related to the Watergate affair. The jury,
unsure if they could indict a sitting president, called Nixon an “unindicted co-conspirator.” In July, the Supreme
Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. While the president dragged his feet, the House of Representatives
voted to impeach him for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the
Constitution. Finally, on August 5, Nixon released the tapes, which provided undeniable evidence of his
complicity in the Watergate crimes. In the face of certain impeachment by the Senate, the president
resigned on August 8. Six weeks after the new president Gerald Ford (1913-2006) was sworn in, he
pardoned Nixon for any crimes he had committed while in office. Some of Nixon’s aides were not so lucky:
They were convicted of very serious offenses and sent to federal prison. Nixon himself never admitted to any
criminal wrongdoing, though he did acknowledge using poor judgment. His abuse of presidential power had
a negative effect on American political life, creating an atmosphere of cynicism and distrust. While
many Americans had been deeply dismayed by the outcomes of the Vietnam War, Watergate added
further disappointment in a national climate already soured by the difficulties and losses of the past
decade.
Why Hillary Clinton is sinking faster than the Titanic
By Wayne Allyn Root May 20, 2016 FoxNews.com
I’ve predicted publicly for a year now that Hillary Clinton, although a prohibitive favorite, still
may never become the Democratic Party’s nominee.
Don’t look now, but at this moment Hillary is still far from a sure thing to become the
Democratic standard-bearer. This week, she lost Oregon and barely squeaked by in
Kentucky. Bernie has now won 11 of the last 14 primaries and caucuses.
I ask Democrats, is this your nominee? The winner of your presidential nomination has lost
just shy of 80 percent of her races coming down the homestretch. If Hillary were a racehorse
with that record, she’d be sent home. Call me crazy but don't presumptive nominees usually
win about 80 percent of their races? This has to be the first time in history the leader of her
party has lost 80 percent of them. I'm not sure you call someone like that a "leader" or
"nominee." Usually you call someone like that..."loser!"
Hillary is certainly still the favorite -- if only because of the scam of superdelegates. The
Democratic nomination is basically rigged. Because of those superdelegates Hillary already
has the nomination locked up. But she appears to be crawling on her knees, over razor
blades, towards the finish line.
First, while she’s the clear-cut delegate winner and we all know that everyone loves a winner,
it’s gotta be downright frightening for Democrats that she still can’t put away a wild-eyed
radical socialist from Vermont who wants tax rates as high as 90 percent and would add an
estimated $18 trillion to the national debt.
Then, there’s the FBI. They are closing in. No matter how many times Hillary or her delusional
aides claim the investigation is only a “security inquiry” it doesn't change reality. FBI Director
Comey recently set them straight. Turns out the FBI doesn’t do “security inquiries.” Hillary is
the subject of a “criminal investigation.”
Then there’s that millstone hanging around Hillary’s neck -- Bill Clinton. Can you become
president when your husband’s past behavior with women raises more questions every day?
We’re about to find out. The stories about Bill’s reckless and possibly criminal behavior keep
popping out of the closet. For example, there’s the beautiful blonde “friend” who got $2 million
from the Clinton Global Initiative and another $800,000 in government contracts with Bill's
help. Don’t we all wish we had friends like that?
It’s already May and now the question is: Can Hillary crawl past the primary finish line? And if
she does, will she be so crippled for the general election that she becomes a sitting duck for
Donald Trump? Have you seen the latest polls? Last week the experts were shocked to see
Hillary tied with Trump. This week it got even worse. In the latest Fox News poll Trump leads
Hillary.
I have close friends in high Democratic Party circles. Trust me, they are beginning to panic.
They are starting to think about Plan B… and that doesn’t include either Hillary or Bernie
being their nominee. So let me lay out a very plausible scenario. What if Hillary’s approval
ratings slide continues? What if over the next 60 to 90 days she finds herself down by 5 to 7
points to Trump? What if she goes down by double digits? Would the panic become
hysteria?
What if the FBI recommends indicting Hillary over the email scandal -- my law enforcement
sources tell me this is a very real possibility. But it gets worse. Have you heard that Russia
claims to have 10,000 of Hillary's hacked emails? They say they will release them. If this is
the case, Hillary better stop worrying about the White House and start worrying about the Big
House.
Would President Obama allow the Justice Department to indict his former secretary of state? I
used to think “no.” But I now believe the answer to that question depends on only one factor -is Hillary beating Trump? Every Washington insider knows that Obama has no love or loyalty
for Hillary. I’m betting if Obama senses Hillary is a sinking Titanic -- and he still has time
before the convention -- he will throw her under the bus.
At this point, I would guess the president gives Hillary a choice that is no choice at all. Be
indicted, lose the presidential race, and risk a long jail term, or announce to the world that
your cough has become a real medical issue and you will have to decline the nomination,
then receive a presidential pardon.
That means all her delegates become free agents and a new nominee can be substituted at
the Democratic convention in July. I’ve always predicted Obama would prefer Joe Biden or
Elizabeth Warren as the nominee, or the combination of Biden/Warren. He may yet get his
wish. But this much I know:
Hillary is sinking faster than the Titanic.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Capitalist Evangelist, serial entrepreneur, conservative national media
commentator, and proud champion of the middle class. He is a former Libertarian vice
presidential nominee, now back to the GOP. Wayne's latest book is "The Power of
RELENTLESS" (Regenery 2015) He is a supporter of Donald Trump's presidential
campaign..
Hillary Clinton's 'emailgate' diced and sliced - Anthony Zurcher North America reporter - 12 August 2015
What's the deal with Hillary Clinton's emails?
Shortly before she was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton set up an email server at her home
in Chappaqua, NY. She then relied on this server for all her electronic correspondence - both work-related and
personal - during her four years in office. She did not use, or even activate, a state.gov email account, which
would have been hosted on servers owned and managed by the US government.
Why did she do it?
According to Mrs Clinton, the primary reason she set up her own email was for "convenience". During her 10
March press conference at the UN, she said that she preferred to carry only one smartphone with one email
address, rather than have two devices - one for work and one for personal affairs. At the time, according to
reports, government-issued Blackberry phones were unable to access multiple email accounts. "I thought using
one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way," she said. Sceptics have countered
that the real reason Mrs Clinton established her own email system was because it gave her total control over her
correspondence. With her email setup, she became the sole arbiter of what should and shouldn't be provided to
the government, made public via freedom of information requests or turned over to interested parties, such as
the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Was this against the law?
Probably not. Mrs Clinton's email system existed in a grey area of the law - and one that has been changed
several times since she left office. When she became secretary of state, the controlling interpretation of the
1950 Federal Records Act was that officials using personal email accounts must ensure that official
correspondence are turned over to the government. Ten months after she took office, a new regulation allowed
the use of private emails only if federal records were "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping
system". Mrs Clinton maintains that this requirement was satisfied because most of her emails from her
personal account went to, or were forwarded to, people with government accounts, so they were automatically
archived.
How many emails are we talking about?
According to Mrs Clinton, she sent or received 62,320 emails during her time as secretary of state. She, or her
lawyers, have determined about half of those - 30,490, roughly 55,000 pages, were official and have been
turned over to the State Department. Mrs Clinton said the other emails are private - relating to topics like her
daughter's wedding, her mother's funeral and "yoga routines". On Hillary Clinton's request, the State
Department released the first set of emails sent on her private account in May, with many relating to the 2012
attack on the US consulate in Benghazi,.
Have other politicians engaged in similar activities?
Mrs Clinton is far from alone. Other politicians and officials - both in federal and state governments sometimes have relied on personal email for official business. Colin Powell, secretary of state under President
George W Bush, told ABC he used a personal email account while in office, including to correspond with
foreign leaders. Outside of Washington, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush - a possible 2016 candidate for the
US presidency - relied on a private email address. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, also a Republican
presidential aspirant, faced questions over his staff's use of private email addresses when he was Milwaukee
County executive. Mrs Clinton differs from these examples not in manner but in extent - because she used her
personal email address exclusively. And, unlike Mr Bush and Mr Walker, her actions were governed by federal
law.
So why is this a controversy?
This has become a big deal - prompting Mrs Clinton's hastily assembled news conference and reports that she is
accelerating the launch of her presidential campaign - in large part because Mrs Clinton is asking the US public
to trust that she is complying with both the "letter and the spirit of the rules", in the words of her spokesperson,
Nick Merrill.. In addition, critics on both the left and the right have expressed concern that her reliance on a
"homebrew" email system made her communications more susceptible to hackers and foreign intelligence
services.
Exactly how secure was her email?
During her press conference, Mrs Clinton said that that there "were no security breaches" of her server and that
robust protections put in place "proved to be effective and secure". Independent cybersecurity analysts have
said that expert hackers can break into email servers without leaving any evidence, however. And commercially
available security systems are no match for government-protected systems - but even those aren't invulnerable,
as a November 2014 intrusion into the State Department's email system proved. She has repeatedly asserted
that no classified material was transmitted via her email account and that she sent only one email to a foreign
official - in the UK. But in July, the inspector general of the US intelligence community, Charles McCullough,
told Congress she had sent at least four messages that contained information derived from classified material.
Wait, the State Department was hacked?
Indeed, it was. According to sources cited by CNN, the November 2014 attack was the "worst ever" cyberattack
on a government agency , requiring department IT workers to shut down its entire unclassified email system for
a weekend. The US government suspects Russian hackers were behind the attack - and were also responsible
for similar efforts against the White House, postal service and other agencies.
Where does the story go from here?
Hillary Clinton's decision to release the entire private server to the FBI will likely advance its investigation into
the security of her email. There's an open question as to whether Mrs Clinton's personal emails even still exist.
During her press conference in March, she said she "chose not to keep my private personal emails". If she
deleted them, thanks to her email setup, they are likely gone for good. The State Department is now facing
lawsuits by media and government watchdog groups requesting access to Mrs Clinton's emails.
As for the political fallout, Mrs Clinton is still considered the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic
nomination. Since the story first broke, her standings in favorability polls has declined precipitously, indicating
that the controversy could be taking its toll on her campaign.