Home | About | Donate

As PBS Did With Nixon, Bill Moyers Calls for Primetime Airing of Trump Impeachment Hearings

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/08/pbs-did-nixon-bill-moyers-calls-primetime-airing-trump-impeachment-hearings


Right on Bill. Let my people free from the fear and loathing of this crook.

We must take all of the other crooks that enabled him at the same time.


The “Democratic” impeachment of trump is narrowly focused on the “Ukraine phone-call and quid pro quo”. If we had an opposition that had some integrity and “vigor”, AKA Moxie, stones, gumption, etc, etc, and even some R’Cons - if any exist - that are appalled by the pathological trump regime and its trashing of oaths, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as International Law. diminishing our nation with every breath he takes and every idiot extremist tweet!

Beside the Ukraine, there is the undoing of moral compass and International Law in Syria by trump. Regardless what one thinks of the why we are there, the CInC has made US allies doubt our reliability and honor, as well as the rationale for continued war while allowing the invasion of Syria by the Turks under Erdogan via another tweet stupidity conflict of interest! - another racist leader obsessed with the Kurdish fight for recognition as a people with inherent rights in the historic homeland areas of Kurdistan!.

The cluster-farce of trumps decision-making, and his utterly destructive reign in all areas of presidential leadership is an abomination no nation should tolerate - certainly not their political :leaders"! Impeachment and criminal prosecution should be pursued with the utmost vigor and dedication from now until after he is defeated and ready for prison!!


As much as I admire Bill Moyers (and his literally dozens of Emmys, hence his “legendary” status) it is a different PBS than the one that existed in the early 70s. This current version is more corporatized and more likely to avoid any “controversy” in dealing with airing the impeachment hearings of this odious traitor in the White House. It is worth remembering that as early as 1976 PBS was already being accused of failing to live up to the requirements of its broadcast charter. The current Petroleum Broadcasting Service is much more concerned with offending their big money donors or getting Congress mad at them. I gave up on “The News Hour” many years ago when I saw that the “Usual Suspects” were the ones whose views were most often sought in the interviews.


What did it for me was enduring night after night of the tag team of not-yet PM of Israel, B. Netanyahu, and the odious, self-described “counterterrorism expert,” Michael Ledeen. My brain fog cleared up eventually, and I’ve never looked back.


I agree with most of what’s said in the above posts. As much as I respect Bill Moyers, I’m not sure he understands how partisan PBS and other networks have become. If this were to happen (airing the impeachment), I would expect the networks to push back against the proceedings, using their “newscasters” to explain to the public on a daily bases that they didn’t just here and see what they did, or explain it’s not as bad as they think it is, and that Trump is being railroaded by the democrats.


I also think that it is misleading to call this a “quid pro quo” matter. Actually, it looks more like extortion. Just more proof of Trumpo the Klown’s abject criminality.


PBS died from fright at the Republicans blocking their funding many years ago.


Re Trump’s tax returns –
NY State passed legislation to permit them to pass them along to any
of the Congressional Committees –

May 2019 -

New York Passes Bill Giving Congress a Way to Get Trump’s State Tax Returns

Tax officials would be authorized to hand over his state returns to any one of three congressional committees, opening a new front in a heated battle.
ALBANY — New York State lawmakers on Wednesday gave their final approval to a bill that would clear a path for Congress to obtain President Trump’s state tax returns, injecting another element into a tortuous battle over the president’s refusal to release his taxes.
The returns — filed in New York, the president’s home state and business headquarters — would likely contain much of the same information as the contested federal returns, though it remained unclear whether those congressional committees would use such new power in their investigations.

The Legislature’s actions put the state in a bit of uncharted legal territory; Mr. Trump has said that he is ready to take the fight over his federal tax returns to the Supreme Court, and it seems likely that he would seek to contest New York’s maneuver.


July 2019

The one Democrat who can get Trump’s state tax returns doesn’t want to. That’s infuriated the left.

Ways and Means chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., is taking a pass on a new N.Y. law allowing him to obtain info on the president’s finances.
So far, the only Democrat able to use the law wants nothing to do with it.

It’s just one of a series of decisions that have landed House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., in hot water with those on the left who feel the longtime lawmaker hasn’t done nearly enough to obtain the president’s tax returns.
After the New York law passed, Judd Legum, a liberal journalist, tweeted that it looks as if “House Democrats don’t actually want Trump’s tax returns” and “are doing pretty much everything possible to make sure they don’t get them before November 2020.” And the liberal resistance group Stand Up America demanded that Neal seek the president’s state returns, saying that “any further delay is an injustice to the American people.”

Anyone know anything more?

Nixon’s tax returns helped the public understand he was without doubt a crook.


THIS may tell a more likely story re the Donald’s tax returns – ?

Any opinions on whether this more likely?

# The real reason House Democrats have turned down Donald Trump’s
New York State tax returns

Here’s the thing. There are only two possibilities here. One is that House Democrats are hapless paralyzed idiots who don’t want to win; this is certainly the narrative that’s being pushed by the media at large, as well as the pitchfork brigade on social media. The other possibility is that House Democrats know something that the public and the media don’t. Hint: it’s the latter. In fact it’s not even difficult to logically parse why House Democrats would need to avoid taking New York State up on its offer in order to win the larger battle on Trump’s taxes.

House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal is the one who is refusing to ask New York for Donald Trump’s state tax returns, according to Bloomberg. But this is the same guy who is aggressively pursuing legal action to obtain Trump’s federal tax returns. Does anyone really believe that Neal simply can’t be bothered to take a freebie from New York for no good reason?

1 Like

Perhaps it’s a reaction to three years of willful (and ongoing) mayhem, but if DT is impeached and indicted, he should not be allowed to remain in the U.S. - nor his “Cabinet” enablers.


I would be quite surprised if the impeachment hearings were not televised live on C-SPAN.
And I would think they would be repeated later the same day.

Also a question I haven’t heard asked yet. Will people like Mulvaney and Giuliani be required to testify at the senate trial?

1 Like

The definition of “Prime Time” is radically different today than it was during the days of Watergate. Even if PBS, NPR, NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN and C-SPAN all carried gavel-to-gavel coverage, would it have the same audience penetration today that the Watergate hearings had 45 years ago? Would all of the networks mentioned agree to carry, gavel-to-gavel? We have been flooded with listening and viewing options. This begs the question of who would ultimately watch or listen to the proceedings, who will not, and if anyone’s opinion of our national crisis will change when all is said and done.

Huh, ReconFire, of course Bill Moyers understands the lousiness of what PBS has become (although The Durrells in Corfu and Poldark have been wonderful beyond belief). Moyers is trying to bring about a PBS return to its news excellence in the past, don’t you get that? I confess to irritation with the popular pasttime of always going after the messenger. Where is that coming from? Trump?

Oh yeah, as anyone here will tell you, I’m a big Trump fan. /s
Apparently you didn’t comprehend the rest of my post above. Without replacing the anchors on PBS, something Moyers doesn’t have the power to do - having them convince the viewers that what their seeing during the impeachment hearings isn’t that bad, or not illegal, and Trump’s not guilty, will not be beneficial. And that’s exactly what will happen with the hosts on PBS now. It’s not Moyers PBS anymore, and would take a complete housecleaning, top to bottom, to bring it back in Moyers image. A nice thought, but not going to happen just by airing the impeachment. If Moyers would be the only commentator, yes, I could live with that, if not, no.


So, ReconFire, you’re a communications consultant adept in every small detail of TV presentation?

It seems to me that Moyers wanted to see a return to full impeachment hearings at PBS–simple as that. His way of making a point? Not really a good excuse for becoming snarky about the man, him, Moyers since the practicality of his proposal was your subject, not his?

Trumpzi behavior (Tourette’s Syndrome?) can easily infect even persons opposed to Trump. I felt you took a cheap shot at Moyers but am not ambitious enough to go back and look at your original post. Was it memorable? You are no doubt correct in saying I didn’t comprehend parts of it since I can’t recall it, must not have wanted to read it. Could you please make an effort in the future to be more interesting?

Your response in quite confusing considering my above posts.
Am I a communications consultant? I certainly don’t consider myself one, though I guess everyone who views TV content, and has an opinion on that content is, by your apparent definition.
I have no idea how you rate my comment disagreeing with Moyers to air the impeachment on PBS, with reasons for my disagreement, as snarky towards Moyer, as I stated above I have a lot of respect for Moyer. Perhaps you believe people should never disagree with the opinions of people you place in high regard. Again as I stated above, if Moyer were to be the only commenting host of the airing, I would have no problem with that, I know he would be fair and honest, any of the others, no so much.
You will need to take your projection of “Trumpzi behavior”, and use it on someone else, that doesn’t work with me. And lastly I don’t post my comments (my opinions) here for your entertainment, if you find them uninteresting, don’t read them, problem solved.

Bill Moyers needs to educate himself on what PBS WORLD is. For one, in most areas, it is broadcast over the airwaves for free, I watch it almost every day, over the air, for free.

Also, WORLD is not where programs are sent to die, many regular programs are re-broadcast on it at different hours, like PBS Newshour, BBC World News, Nightly Business Report, Amanpour & Co, etc., as well as some other news broadcasts from around the world not available on standard PBS. I watch WORLD more than the standard PBS for that reason, it doesn’t conflict with the major news broadcasts I may want to watch as well as carrying numerous programs not on standard PBS.

While I agree that they should re-broadcast the hearings during prime-time on standard PBS as not all areas have all four of the PBS broadcast channels available over the air, I would say before getting lippy and badmouthing WORLD, a part of PBS, Bill Moyers should do his homework.

Hi Recon –

In 1974, there was still something left of PBS which fortunately brought the
Hearings to the public LIVE during the day – and in the evenings – which
also forced the other networks to compete with airing the Hearings during
the day – but with commercials.

I’ve never been happy with Moyers – he lurks – not exactly the way John Dean
does, but somewhat similarly. Never felt he was an asset to PBS in the sense
of getting anyone up off the couch to do anything.

Neither have I ever heard Moyers tell the reality of what was happening to PBS by
attacks from the GOP/right wing/Elites to destroy it. What we have always needed
in that regard is a licensing system where every American who can afford it buys in,
but the licensing supports the concept of a “people’s” news network. Those who
can’t afford to buy in are covered by government for costs to also be subscribers.
And Moyers was often part of the “Beg-A-Thon” mentality at the network.

Always quite sure that both Moyers and Dean know a lot more than they can tell
even now –

In John Dean’s case he at least knows that there were duplicates made of every
tape recording – thus the missing parts of Nixon’s tapes exist somewhere … unless
Trump has had them burned?

Recall Moyers is a Texan, close to LBJ –
As Pierre Salinger told it (and at least one other whose name I can’t recall at moment)…
in their days in the LBJ White House, Pierre and Moyers (at the least) recognized that
LBJ was psychotic – clinically psychotic. When Salinger could, he told the truth of it.
Moyers never has.

1 Like

Hey Greenwich,
I remember the airing in 1974, and without question, todays PBS is an entirely different animal. I’ve always respected Moyers as a journalist, as far as journalists go, but do admit when he was popular, the industry was sliding into the abyss, perhaps he was just following the pack at a slower rate. Wasn’t he LBJ’s speech writer?
Years ago I read a book about the Nixon tapes, so long ago I don’t recall the title or author, but a theory was put forward by the author about the erased time on the tapes, that it was about JFK’s assassination, not the Watergate break-ins. The author explained that Nixon was the liaison for the WH with the CIA after Castro took over Cuba, at the end of the Ike administration, and had come in contact with some of the WG Plumbers, when they were training to take over Cuba and take out Castro. Of course none of this is verifiable, so who knows whether this author knew something, or was pulling theories out of thin air.