A List of “Worse Than Watergate” References

| December 2, 2019

What is going on in Washington, DC, is worse than Watergate?

Really? I guess it depends on your point of view.

Having sat through the Watergate hearings, which displaced everything else on TV back in Them There Olden Times of Antenna TV, and realizing before it all ended that Pres. Nixon had approved of and supported a felony by people on his staff, I fail to see the comparison now. Pres. Trump has not yet, as far as I can tell, committed a felony or even attempted to do so. I sometimes get the impression that he shoots from the hip, but so far, no real harm has been done. When he met up with Fatty Kim da T’ird in Hanoi, and ND:tBF wouldn’t budge an inch, he walked away from it. Right now, that Fat Basterd is back to his Pappy’s tricks of spooking the South by testing missiles. But there is still room for negotiation there.

However, in the narrow, angry, spoiled brat sore-loser minds of the Democrats, they gotta have something.

Here’s a long, long list of occurrences that were deemed far worse than Watergate, starting in 1973. What the Democrats are doing now isn’t mentioned but the article is datd 2018, before this nonsensical waste of tax money on hell-bent revenge came about.

Get some refreshments and read the whole thing, at the link below.


Some of these people weren’t even around when the Watergate hearings were going on.

Hey, Hillary lost, you idiots!!! Your shenanigans have cost people more than they could afford and that includes that monstrosity known as Obamacare. Those idiotic screaming sessions by your fans during the Kavanaugh hearings didn’t do anything but make you all look stupid. This is three years later and you’re still a bunch of sore losers and spoiled brats.

Maybe what we need is a good fistfight on the floor of one of the Houses, something like the following:

On February 22, 1902, John McLaurin, South Carolina’s junior senator, raced into the Senate Chamber and pronounced that state’s senior senator, Ben Tillman, guilty of “a willful, malicious, and deliberate lie.” Standing nearby, Tillman spun around and punched McLaurin squarely in the jaw. The chamber exploded in pandemonium as members struggled to separate both members of the South Carolina delegation. In a long moment, it was over, but not without stinging bruises both to bystanders and to the Senate’s sense of decorum. — https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm

A good knockdown, drag it out floor fight, using fists and canes? What’s not to like?

Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Congress sucks, Historical, Politics

Comments (72)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ninja says:


    • Comm Center Rat says:

      Long before the Chernobyl disaster I remember seeing a “Ted Kennedy Has Killed More People Than Nuclear Power” bumper sticker.

      • David says:

        Then there is the famous “Foreigners Unwanted”Lampoon issue, which had a spoof ad for a floating VW Beetle captioned “If Teddy had one of our cars, he’d be President today.” The Kennedies successfully sued to get all unsold copies yanked from sales….still probably the funniest Lampoon issue ever.

      • akpual says:

        Living right across the river from it at the time, the bumper sticker I found funny was” More people died in Ted Kennedy’s car than at Three Mile Island”. Still find it funny.

        • Slow Joe says:

          I would like to see a list of how many people have been killed by nuclear power.

          The Wiki list doesn’t even list the Three Mile Island incident.

          I am pretty sure the death toll in the US is zero.

          Even at Fuckushima, there is only one guy that actually died of radiation, and even that is disputed, but 15000 seem to have died due to the earthquake, unrelated to the nuclear plant.

  2. SFC D says:

    So what did we compare political douchebaggery to before Watergate?

  3. Martinjmpr says:

    The democrats are like Al Bundy dreaming about his great football play in high school:

    Trying to ease the pain of their current irrelevance by constantly reliving their one big achievement, their one shot of glory.

    It’s kind of sad, really.

  4. Perry Gaskill says:

    I started reading the Politico piece, but had to stop when it got to the quote from Arianna Huffington. Personally, I’d tend to not trust Arianna Huffington’s opinion on almost anything except for maybe the benefits of nap time. And even that would require extensive notes on the discussion followed by fact checking.

    It seems to me a big difference between Nixon and now, routinely ignored by political pundits, is that the Nixon impeachment happened both after Nixon’s first term and was largely bi-partisan. What the White House is currently faced with is a group of strident “Resistance” Democrats who decided to impeach Donald Trump before he even took office. And the potential damage that might cause to the political process apparently doesn’t matter to them.

    Watergate started as a simple crime story with the interesting question being: What kind of morons would want to burglarize a campaign office? What also tended to be annoying, as subsequent facts would reveal, was that there was no need for it. George McGovern’s campaign was doomed, and everybody knew it.

    In some ways, Nixon and his pals were doing the same thing a sleazy high-school football coach might do by running up the score against a weaker opponent purely for the purpose of humiliation.

  5. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Donald J. Trump is POTUS.
    Das Hildebeast lost.
    D-rats are still shitting themselves sideways and having shit fits like toddlers with soiled diapers.
    What will we see next? So far I’ve seen evidence that many career D-rat pols have had their fingers very deep in Ukrainian pudding but the mainstream DNC Pravda media will keep that swept under the rug as far as they can.
    Epstein did not kill himself.

    • 5th/77th FA says:

      Unlike Epstein, the demon rats ARE hanging themselves. Those same deep state bastards turned on Jimmuh Cartuh because their chosen, drunken, murderous trash from hell Teddy didn’t get the primary win in ’76. Jimmuh’s election was in part because so many Americans were fed up then with the career politicians. His administration never had a chance because ALL of the establishment was against him and he compounded the problems by trying to be Mr. Nice Guy. Strange how history repeats itself. The demon rats are pissed off and have wasted 3 years on bull sh^t because, again, a drunken, murderous piece of trash from hell didn’t get “her turn.”

      Phuque Them! Trump 2020

      Waiting on Sparkle Corn Uni Pony farting cotton candy to show using his empirical data to prove us all wrong in…

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        I was watching the local six O’clock TV News when a commercial for Tom Whatshisface came on and he was SO FULL OF Lars Commissar it wasn’t even funny, if that’s a sample of D-rat campaign propaganda to come then I’m sure that we’ll see the D-rats get themselves steamrollered next year!

        • Stacy0311 says:

          Styrene’s campaign seems to be “Y’all elected the wrong billionaire”

          • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

            What I find hilarious is that huge venues are standing room only with people lining up the day before President Trump appears anywhere while none of the D-rat candidates can even halfway fill a small high school gym or cafeteria!

    • Commie-Tsar says:

      And I went BALLS DEEP 4 BERNIE!!!

      • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

        Yeah, liberal snowflakes are all “NO, we do NOT want some rich old White Man with multiple houses, oh look, BERNIEEEEE…”

  6. AW1Ed says:

    When, not if, this latest gambit fails miserably, does anyone think the far left Dems are done?

    Yeah, me neither.

    • UpNorth says:

      The dems are all butt-hurt now, because President Trump left town for the NATO Summit, rather than go up on the Hill and let Jerry Nads Nadler try to question him for hours on end. And, Nasty Pelousi is telling all who will listen, IOW the media, that the dems never disrespect the president.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        ” And, Nasty Pelousi is telling all who will listen, IOW the media, that the dems never disrespect the president.”

        She might as well be proclaiming that Fire isn’t hot, water isn’t wet and shit doesn’t stink!!!

    • 26Limabeans says:

      They will resort to violence.
      You know, like the temper tantrum children
      they are. They need to be spanked.

  7. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    THAT is probably THE smartest thing you’ve ever said here!

  8. STSC(SW/SS) says:

    It would be nice to see someone like Chuck Todd get their clock cleaned on live TV after accusing someone like Senator John Kennedy of being a Putin stooge.

    I would send that person some coin for bail or a lawyer.

    • Toxic Deplorable Racist B Woodman says:

      I keep hoping for a good old fashioned knock down, drag out, ass kicking, fight on the Kongressional Klown Krew floor. Bare knuckles or canes, no matter to me. I want to Nadless lose his ‘nads. I want to see Adam get the Schiff knocked out of him. Nancy get Peloused. Schumer get UpChucked. “Decorum” be damned!

  9. Slow Joe says:

    You have to be extremely stupid to believe Tzar Putin would help teh Donald to win over the Hitlerbeast.

    • LC says:

      So, ah, the Senate report is wrong?

      And the US intelligence community is also wrong, with this finding backed even by Trump’s own DNI pick?

      But hey, we can’t trust our guys because of some ‘deep state’ nonsense, so let’s ask someone who might know firsthand – Vladimir Putin says he wanted Trump to win:

      But I guess all those people are ‘extremely stupid’. If only they’d just consulted TAH!

      • OWB says:

        Aw, gee. Putin might actually be telling the truth? Or not.

        Or, Putin wins either way. Had his opponent won, Putin would have had a colleague. When Trump won instead, the swamp created, and continues to foment, utter chaos. Putin likely sees that as incredibly good for him.

        Meanwhile, am I really supposed to care who appointed who and/or who voted for what? Seriously?? A whole lotta folks are wrong, especially when they are fed conclusions which were based on incorrect information. No, I don’t know which “facts” are correct and which are not. None of us may ever know. This mess is so convoluted that it may never be clear to anyone. Therein lies the true danger in all this.

        • LC says:

          So you’re choosing to believe the US intelligence community, and the US Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, and the former (and current) DNI, just to mention a few, aren’t a good enough set of sources to say, “Hey, maybe they’re right?”.

          What’s next, 9/11 conspiracy theories because despite all the investigations, experts and whatnot, maybe they were fed conclusions based on incorrect information? There’s a point sensible people reach where the evidence is overwhelming. Otherwise you turn into one of those flat-earth sorts.

          You don’t have to believe the conjecture that comes out of this, like guesses as to why, but the facts are pretty clear on what happened.

          • Poetrooper says:

            So, LC, you’re saying you swallow whole the reports of an intelligence bureaucracy hell-bent on it’s own preservation, and, under its previous leadership, neck-deep in an attempt to invalidate an election? There couldn’t possibly be any reason for a thoughtful person to have any doubts, now could there?

            As for Putin, what’s he supposed to say, “No I really wanted Hillary and did everything in my power to see her elected.”? Yeah that would be some smart geopolitics now wouldn’t it? Yeah, tell that to the guy you now badly need as your BFF, hmm?

            The facts are clear only when you choose to ignore the smudged images.

            Democrats and liberals are often accused of accusing their political enemies of their own liberal Democrat transgressions. When you taunt with 9/11 conspiracies, I’m reminded of how gullible you and those you follow have been regarding Trump and Russian collusion.

            • LC says:

              Yes, I ‘swallow’ the reports of the US intelligence agencies, our allied intelligence agencies, independent observers, and the GOP-lead Senate committee on intelligence over the evidence-free tweets of POTUS and evidence-free theories of his supporters.

              Why would I do anything else? Give me some solid evidence showing Putin wanted Clinton, or Ukraine was behind the 2016 hacks, or anything else in that vein, and I’ll read it. But so far, everything I’ve seen is laughably weak or false.

              Just to take one example, people like to talk about CrowdStrike, and claim it’s owned by Ukrainians, and then try to string together some words they don’t quite understand to convey something nefarious about a ‘server’, not understanding that there are lots of servers, and images are how digital forensics are done, and that Crowd Strike is an American company, and, ironically, is used by the GOP for cyber security. People who don’t get past the scary-sounding conspiratorial bits never get to realize it’s not true.

              • Perry Gaskill says:

                LC, I wrote a post that touched on this back during the Mueller investigation. To take your points in order:

                The main intelligence community report at the time was not unanimous in its conclusions about Russian involvement. Both the CIA and DNI agreed with the assessment, but the NSA did not.

                My own view is that the Russians had some involvement, but it never got to the point of directly influencing the election outcome, such as hacking the vote counts.

                Vladimir Putin had some good reasons for not wanting Hillary Clinton elected. A lot of that related to her actions as Secretary of State in which she apparently meddled in Russian internal politics to support Putin’s opponents during his own last election.

                The fact that Putin opposed Hillary is not the same as actively supporting Donald Trump to the point of collusion.

                The matter of Hillary’s email server is not a trivial issue. There are multiple indications that she installed it specifically to avoid FOIA transparency. Something which, by itself, is illegal. A reasonable person might also ask: if she had nothing to hide, why did she set it up in the first place?

                • LC says:

                  I’m aware that the consensus was not unanimous, but there was a consensus. I also think any focus on ‘directly’ influencing vote counts is misguided. Does that mean PSYOPS against Americans are fine, but electronic warfare is not? Or are both pretty bad?

                  I have some knowledge of computer security, too, and I’m abjectly horrified at how vulnerable our machines are. One of the worst series of headlines I recall was (to paraphrase, since I forget the exact details but I can look them up) how just two counties in FL were hacked, but no votes changed. Then a few days later it was 13 counties. Then it was three states.

                  On the topic of things I believe but can’t prove, I would not be surprised if voting results were changed -not attributing this to 2016, or Russia, or anyone, just a general comment- but there’s a very strong motivation to keep this information under wraps, as if it got out, it’d be a bad day for voter confidence in our government.

                  As for Hillary’s e-mail server, I’m confused why you’re mentioning it? I don’t view it as trivial, and wasn’t referring to it above – I was talking about the DNC ‘server’ (even though there were multiple servers), which one conservative theory posits were sent to Ukraine and mucked with by CrowdStrike, which gets labeled a Ukrainian company, in order to frame Russia.

                  Clinton(*) was a fool and should be in plenty of trouble for using personal e-mail for that shit.

                  (*) And so should all the Trump admin people who are also using private e-mail, regardless of whether it’s their own server or not.

                  • Perry Gaskill says:

                    In my own defense, there was no prior reference to the “server(s)” being specific to the DNC although the context now makes sense. I’ll also cheerfully admit that anytime anybody mentions “server(s)” and Hillary Clinton in the same comment that there’s a natural tendency, at least for me, to assume the discussion is about Hillary’s email server. Call it my own personal dog whistle.

              • OWB says:

                Is it OK with you that someone had a server in her home upon which classified information was passed without proper encryption? Where is it? I don’t know. But I do know that it stinks, whoever did it, whoever condoned it, and whoever dropped the ball on thoroughly investigating the entire mess. And, it looks from here like there is plenty of blame to go around – blame which could and should be shouldered by more than one political party and multiple agencies that we all expect to enforce cyber security. Without it, all of us a vulnerable.

                That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s simple fact.

                • LC says:

                  Why would I be OK with that? I believe if you go back far enough in the TAH archives, you’ll likely find my spitting hatred of Clinton showing in some choice words for her about that debacle.

                  I also recall saying that any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would’ve hacked that fast.

                  I loathe Clinton, and make no apologies for stupid Democrats or stupid Republicans.

          • OWB says:

            Hey! Maybe THEY (whoever they may be) ARE right! I don’t know simply because I am not willing to take on faith that any of “them” have the best interests of the country at heart. Some of “them” are right, of course. I don’t have a magic wand available this evening to discern which ones are and which ones are not.

            I do know that there are a bunch of true patriots still working on our behalf. Finding them is getting much more difficult than it was a few years/decades ago.

            “Splain something to me – how does my inability to generate credibility of official “A” or official “B” based upon who appointed them and/or who they voted for lead you to conclude that my next stop is 9-11 conspiracy theories? That makes no sense whatever.

            Of course one is less likely to draw an accurate conclusion when starting with faulty information. Doesn’t matter if you are talking about math equations, solar flares, weather, shoe size, or baking a cake. Why would anyone would expect it to work differently in politics or criminal investigations?

            Except that in this current “impeachment” inquiry, no one has come up with a crime. With Nixon, there was a for real crime that started the whole thing.

            • LC says:

              I don’t have a magic wand available this evening to discern which ones are and which ones are not.

              Sure, and neither do I.. but most of us are willing to lend credibility based on the degree of evidence offered. If you want to get philosophical, you have no absolute proof that the moon isn’t made of cheese.. but I’m willing to bet you’re fairly certain it’s not. And why? Because plenty of people who know about this stuff have told you it’s not true, and they know because they’ve been there, studied it, etc. Common sense also enters the equation, obviously.

              The same is true here. This isn’t official ‘A’ telling you something – it’s the culmination of work of thousands of people (more likely, tens of thousands, given allied efforts). Now, granted, that still doesn’t mean it’s true, since you can go to a Flat-Earth conference and finds tens (hopefully not hundreds) of people telling you the earth is flat… but the difference here is that there’s plenty of evidence to contradict that. There isn’t for these political issues at hand.

              If you choose to reject the conclusions of numerous intelligence services and other countries, all to try to believe the word of one POTUS who has a habit of being less than truthful, that’s your choice, but it’s a bit like choosing to believe the moon is made of cheese, despite NASA, the ESA, local astronomers and others telling you otherwise.

              And the next stop isn’t 9/11 conspiracy theories, but it’s truly not that far of one – whose to say those guys aren’t right? Well, the answer is, all the various agencies and individuals who have shown the mountains of evidence supporting the official story – the real events. The same principle applies here.

              Note that this has nothing to do with the current impeachment inquiry. You bring that up, but it’s entirely unrelated to establishing the facts of what happened in 2016.

              • OWB says:

                The simple application of a principle such as 1 + 1 = 2 is what I referenced above. Drawing the correct conclusion in ANY situation is based upon having the correct information in the beginning as well as applying logic along the way to a conclusion. If you start with the idea that 1 + 1 + 1 = 2 instead, then you WILL be wrong when you conclude that (1 + 1 + 1) divided by 2 = 1.

                Faulty information in the beginning almost guarantees a faulty conclusion even if you use the correct process to get there. The size of the pile of “evidence” doesn’t matter.

                In the case that you cite, 2 of 3 agencies agreeing upon something doesn’t really prove anything at all except that 2 of 3 groups of folks agree on something. The credibility of the conclusions for either the 2 agencies or the 1 agency still depend upon the validity of the original data.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        If anything, Vlad Putin will do whatever he can to undermine US drilling for oil, because if the Greenbeaners somehow get their way (God Forbid!), then fracking will cease in this country and the oil price per barrel will jump back up where it was when he seized control of Gazprom.
        Don’t believe me? He’s already said he won’t bother with fracking.

        • LC says:

          I’ve got no problem what ‘what if’ scenarios like this, and potential future plays.

          My issue is when people are dismissive of reams of evidence of what happened in 2016, all because they prefer an alternative explanation. In these very pages, plenty of people tell whiny liberals that they need to accept that Clinton lost. A similar thing needs to happen with ‘whiny conservatives’ that need to the mountain of evidence that shows Putin’s efforts were focused on a Trump win, not a Clinton one.

          • Poetrooper says:

            “I’ve got no problem what ‘what if’ scenarios like this, and potential future plays.”

            Then won’t you agree that the intelligence reports you cite deliver a product that seems counter-intuitive at best: Hillary, an alternative fuels source anti-fracker, would have been a far better American leader for Putin’s purposes than Trump, who was campaigning on a renascent American economy requiring increased domestic energy production? With Russia’s GDP totally dependent on fossil fuel exports, how does that compute in your mind?

            Please tell me how you square that with the holy writ you cite above that Putin was solidly in Trump’s corner? And please don’t lecture me on how I’m supposed to trust an entrenched bureaucracy that votes 95% plus Democrat. Even that Senate committee derives their intel from those “Deep State” sources.

            • LC says:

              No, there’s lots of different issues here – the first is, you’re putting forth a fact things that are pure conjecture, like the notion that Clinton would’ve been anti-fracking to the extent she’d reduce US oil exports. I’ve had a long distaste for Clinton because she’s a politician through and through – I think she’d tell the left that she’d do that, but it’s less clear she’d follow through. But again, this is conjecture of future actions, not a review of past ones.

              Second, you seem to think Putin has a singular focus on oil exports, and his support would be linked solely to the above conjecture, and not perhaps a strategic view that a Trump presidency could weaken our alliances & NATO, or just a personal dislike of Clinton for past offenses.

              Basically, you can argue that tomorrow POTUS would drop his pants and moon the French president, and that’s fine – you’re welcome to speculate on that. But you can’t tell me he did that today, when the facts show he didn’t.

              • Poetrooper says:

                “…you’re putting forth a fact things that are pure conjecture…” says LC, who in the very next sentence underpins his argument with, “I think.”

                Then you say, “Second, you seem to think Putin has a singular focus on oil exports…”

                Well no, “singular” is your descriptive, not mine–but yes I do happen to think that Putin’s politics are very much concerned with the driving force behind his nation’s economy, unlike American liberals who seem to think ours is unicorn-driven.

                Putin also had to weigh the Clintons’ past record of restricting the development of American natural resources (coal) so as to enhance the market for foreign producers (Riady) who were also big campaign contributors, making a Clinton presidency attractive to him. Remember, too, Hillary would have been shopping the world for second-term campaign contributions just as her spouse once did.

                You are accusing me of conjecture with a rebuttal rife with conjecture. And yet you have the temerity to disparage our good lawer friend for lack of cogent argument?


                • LC says:

                  “…you’re putting forth a fact things that are pure conjecture…” says LC, who in the very next sentence underpins his argument with, “I think.”

                  Yes, and then right after I said ‘I think’, I ended the paragraph with,’But again, this is conjecture of future actions, not a review of past ones.’.

                  In other words, I’m fine with conjecture. But that’s a different beast than established facts.

                  So I’m not accusing you of conjecture, I’m accusing you of basing your argument on conjecture. You want to spout-of “What if?” scenarios? Go nuts. I enjoy doing that as much as the next guy. You want to conflate those scenarios with established facts, then we have a disagreement.

                  • Poetrooper says:

                    Am I to assume you agree with me on Clinton and Putin then?

                    Established facts? I don’t share your faith in the intelligence bureaucracy being in the business of producing facts since for their entire existence they’ve been renowned for producing disinformation.

                    Go on to bed now–maybe when you wake up there will be a dime under your pillow.

      • rgr769 says:

        We see you are still drinking all the Progda Kool-Aid you can swallow. So those Putin controlled Macedonian content farmers swayed 63 million voters to vote for Trump. R-I-G-H-T.

        • LC says:

          I see once again that I’ve presented a bunch of evidence, and you’ve resorted to hyperbole and dismissive ‘kool-aid’ comments. Way to go, I’m totally swayed!

          Sometimes I wonder how you ever managed as a lawyer. Maybe it goes back to that old saying, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither are, pound the table.” You must’ve pounded lots of laws or tables, because your grasp of facts is tenuous at best.

          • Poetrooper says:

            Your argument weakens with your resorting to ad hominem attacks, LC, a typically liberal port in a storm.

            • LC says:

              My argument stands based on its original post; two very detailed reports, and even a quote from Putin himself. Rgr769 hasn’t offered any argument, he simply waves his hands in frustration and rants about ‘Progda’ kool-aid.

              In my entire time on TAH, I’m not sure I’ve seen him ever offer a substantive argument on anything. I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to mock him a little, given it seems it’s all he knows. None of that detracts from the original argument.

              • rgr769 says:

                Arguing with proglodyte zealots is a wasted effort, as one of my law profs pointed out when you were likely in grade school if not in diapers.

              • Poetrooper says:

                For the reasons I’ve already stated, your argument isn’t quite so persuasive as you seem to think. An entrenched intelligence bureaucracy, with a long-demonstrated, elitist, liberal ideology, illegally farms out opposition research to foreign intelligence services and you swallow the result unquestioningly?

                As I’ve previously stated, Putin has every reason in the world to tell Trump he was on his side all along. he’d be a fool not to and Putin is no fool.

                It will be interesting to see what develops from the ongoing DoJ investigations regarding your faith in your vaunted citations.

          • rgr769 says:

            Actually, I managed quite well. I regularly beat sophists like you in a courtroom. Usually, their research and understanding was superficial. The diligent frequently beat those that think they are intelligent.

  10. Thunderstixx says:

    I so totally agree with you !!!
    What has been said has been said !!!
    I can think of nothing better either !!!

  11. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    He did get his response to my comment on him deleted, he was one butthurt little snowflake!!!

  12. Former EM1/SS says:

    I recall sneaking out of the off-crew office very early for a couple of weeks to watch the Iran Contra hearings. Remember Ollie North? Most powerful and influential Lt Col ever. 🙂

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I remember that, the D-rats and their Pravda media lackeys were sniveling that Iran-Contra was going to be the end of the Reagan Administration just like the TARDOs do today about Russia, Ukraine and every other hoax they can pull out of their collective ass (pun intended)!