Posted on 05/24/2009 10:00:02 PM PDT by re_tail20
Probably because the truth of the matter was that a low-level break in was not a big deal.
The Washington Post just lied it out of all proportion to make it a big deal, exactly like the MSM did with Obambi last year.
The President of the United States offers hush money to cover-up a political burglary financed by a secret fund controlled by the Attorney General of the U.S., and you don't think this was a big deal?
I believe that SIXTY-FIVE people were convicted of felonies, most of them lawyers, and you don't think this was a big deal?
The President apparently obstructed justice by intentionally erasing 18 minutes of taped evidence, and you don't think this was a big deal?
Yeah at the height of commie shenanigans when every liberal graduate and his brother were going into the field of prosecution.
NYT were releasing the Pentagon Papers and the journalistic field was twisting truth to the tune of millions of people being slaughtered in SE Asia as a result of them lying about the Tet offensive.
As far as erasing the tapes, many journalists have wondered why Nixon didn't just destroy the tapes completely. Truth is, he was too honest. He should have done it under Executive privilege. Most of what they revealed was that he cussed. That more than anything else ended up "outraging" the American people.
I don't think there was any prosecutorial misconduct involved. Most of the convicted pled guilty and were quite clearly guilty of conspiring together to obstruct justice.
What outcome of Watergate would you have preferred?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.