General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan you imagine what Watergate would have been like with Social Media?
People would have been ranting for over a year about how DOJ was intentionally not prosecuting anyone and Nixon was going to "get away with it".
Watergate break-in: 6/17/72
Grand Jury Indictments: 3/1/74
AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)Trump had so many scandals that we just moved on from plus people trusted the MSM back then including my conservative pro union grandparents.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,275 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Emile
(22,460 posts)brooklynite
(94,302 posts)Emile
(22,460 posts)brooklynite
(94,302 posts)I'm relying on the prosecutorial experience of DOJ to decide when the best time is to bring one or more charges to a Grand Jury, without consideration for what the blogosphere demands.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)That was a complex conspiracy case that also attracted significant media attention.
Can you remind us of the crime-to-indictment timeline in that case, and all of the defendants?
That would be peachy.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Now do Abscam.
This is really great. No Congressperson can be convicted of a crime in less time than it takes to serve their term. Is that what you believe?
Emile
(22,460 posts)for the first Republican president that will pardon him. Time is wasting!
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Brooklynite believes that advances in office and information technology have been worthless.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Why, yes, Brooklynite, you are correct.
With modern technology, the Watergate investigations could have proceeded much more rapidly and efficiently.
Or is your point that personal computers and the prevalence of electronic data has not resulted in any gain in efficiency?
Is that why everyone is still using IBM Selectric typewriters and wet copiers?
Because information technology, in your opinion, has not increased speed or efficiency one bit since the 1970's.
Can you imagine how much money we could all save by ditching this junk that doesn't let us gain any speed or efficiency?
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Excellent point.
beaglelover
(3,459 posts)Caliman73
(11,722 posts)if the media landscape back then were like today's. In fact, there are some people who posit that the media landscape of today is a direct response to what happened with Nixon. While he was not impeached or convicted of any crimes thanks to Ford's blanket pardon, he was forced to resign and is considered a "disgraced" politician because his story was at least to a large extent, accurately portrayed by the media at the time.
With today's hyper partisan (mainly from the Right) media, it might have been a different story and portrayed as a partisan political attack.
Roger Ailes and Pat Buchanan were part of Nixon's press management apparatus. They had discussed, with Nixon, creating something akin to GOPtv. Likely what became FOX News in the 1990's.
I know that the point of your post is to state that people are too impatient about Garland's DOJ not getting quick results, but I thought it important to also point out the aspect that hyper partisan media plays on how we interpret information.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Let's start with Senator Pete Williams. If time allows, I will do others. Senator Williams involvement in the conspiracy began in January 1979:
He was indicted in November 1980, and was the last of the bunch. Time magazine put it this way:
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,949028,00.html
How does your bullshit framing explain that?
Torchlight
(3,292 posts)But my own reading of those same tea-leaves leads me to guess Nixon's support would have been galvanized on and by social media, that his base would be instructed to cry witch-hunt, in turn leading many in leadership who come from battle-ground states to side with the loudest voices.
Like today.