The historical recap of Iran-Contra was, to Nicole Hammer's credit, a nice summary of the machinations of the Reagan regime. Where the logic starts to break down is comparing the process taken by Congress at the time with 'potential' processes during the on-going Trump investigations. Apples and oranges... Republicans control Congress and the White House, so any attempts to move forward with possible impeachment proceedings will require defections from the ruling party. We're already seeing cracks in the wall as evidenced by the number of Senators bolting away from Trumpcare. In the final analysis, Nicole does a great job explaining Iran-Contra, but falls short of connecting the dots to possible actions against the current administration.

All in all I thought it was a good article that was well written, but I'd have to agree that Iran-Contra is a pretty different situation than Watergate and the current administration. But again, I thought the author did a good job of explaining each situation with historical facts (that can be easily fact checked) and not pounding his opinion into the readers head.

A good recap of an event that has highlighted relations to the current investigations into the executive branch. The only concern that could be taken with this article is comparison of those convicted of a crime in the past with those being investigated in the present runs the risk of implying guilt to those whose verdict has not been reached. Otherwise a good reminder that history repeats itself.

The title of this article is a bit misleading. The article is much more about the Iran-Contra affair than the current administration. It gives a good but brief overview of past events that occurred under the Reagan administration. The comparison to today is off but the main focus of the article is centered around truthful information.

I would have to agree with Mike. There are definitely a lot of parallels, but Iran-Contra is very different than Watergate, and what's currently happening. Watergate was about an attempt to undermine the election process, and so are the current allegations.

It is a useful review of the constitutional tools we have at our disposal when it comes to addressing misuse of executive power. Sadly, the message is that the tools are insufficient for checking that power especially if there is a sympathetic executive that comes after the one that was corrupt. I think it is a useful little summary of recent and relevant political history.

As the author indicates, it was never obvious to what extent Reagan himself was involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy. If it *had* been obvious that he was directly involved (and if Reagan had been as unpopular with his own party as Trump or Nixon), there probably would have been much less room to avoid impeachment (although I also agree with others who suggest that impeachment is probably a more likely prospect when a President has violated his/her Constitutional duties for personal reasons rather than for ideological reasons).

Didn't really get the point they were trying to make. Seems like they were digging deep to find a reason to approve of this administration.

I think the premise of this article is flawed. The validity of the Russian claims aside, the fundamental difference between the Reagan scandal the article points to and Trump's alleged scandal with Russia is that it, possibly, led to his winning the office in the first place. Few people contend that any scandal should result in impeachment. However, it should be considered when it is related to elections. While the purpose of the Watergate break-in isn't obvious, it is safe to assume that it was campaign related, hence a more direct comp.

While well written, there are several contributing factors to the crisis that I'm assuming the author is choosing to ignore in order to prove their point. To not include all factors is to make a faulty analogy.

I think the article is well worded but I feel it was a bit unorganized. It was very informative especially on the Iran-Contra and provides a somewhat scary perspective as to just how powerful the executive branch can be. However I don't think this is an accurate comparison of scandals or administrations.

The author does an excellent job at highlighting the previous political scandals, and uses sufficient evidence to remind the public to watch President’s Trumps actions through a magnifying glass. I do wish the author would have drilled a bit deeper on our current administration, but all in all, a great review of the necessary checks and balances for our political system, especially when executive powers are overstepped.

This just seems like two completely different circumstances. Parallels are common with scandals leading to possible impeachments. just a filler article to appease the boss. What's even the message here? Even if they do find evidence of collusion don't even bother to try to impeach trump he can pardon his way out of it?

Very interesting read. The author does a great job at summarizing the Iran contra scandal and her argument that Trump's investigation will have the same result as Reagan's is (sadly) persuasive.

Good little history reminder for those who didn't live through what was a well thought up mission and coverup by the Raegan administration. I'm no fan of Trump but there is no evidence whatsoever leading anyone to believe he was involved in any way in any conspiracy or cover up. End of story. He benefitted by Putin's disdain of Hillary and Russia's attempt to corrupt our election process. Basically the things our country has done for decades and continues to do around the world. What goes around comes around.

The article is well documented and contains enough references to easily fact check all the major points brought forward by the author. Moreover, the main historical point of the discussion, the Iran-Contra scandal, is explained in order to give a good overview even to those unfamiliar to the historical period. At the same time, the author carefully draws a parallel between the two historical times without being biased. Overall the article is factual and lets the reader free to form his own viewpoint.

A good reminder that the founders gave the President certain powers to protect the office so that it can continue to serve the country.

Decent article. While I think its almost impossible to accurately compare different presidents in different time periods, this article does a good job of explaining what the goal is.

Good article - with interesting points. Iran-Contra is only a good example because of the extreme defensiveness of the GOP in combination with executive stonewalling. IMO this is similar to today's scenario with Trump - him and the GOP are on a defensive whilst trying to get their policies passed. I think throwing a faulty analogy at it because of different situations is faulty in and of itself - parallelisms can be drawn.

The author does a good job of briefly explaining the context and similarities between Iran-Contra and allegations of the Trump Administration's collusion with Russia. This is an important article because many on the left have been calling for impeachment since inauguration, grasping at unsubstantiated claims concerning Russia. This article highlights just how difficult it is to indict and impeach a president when the administration has access and power over much of the judicial system. The article bounced around from point to point, so I would have liked a clearer path/organization.