This week Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings into PDJT’s conduct as President. The fact that the entire Russia conspiracy investigation was without predication does not seem to bother the Chairman. In order to “educate” the public and to cover up the malfeasance of the Obama administration, Nadler brought in convicted felon John Dean to give the public some historical context from the Watergate years.
The outcome of the Mueller investigation was that PDJT and his campaign were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. This covered the campaign and PDJT’s subsequent actions as President. Of course, this infuriated the Democrats who will stoop to anything to oust Trump from the Presidency.
The Democrats have been trying to re-litigate the whole investigation. In order to smear the President, they called in John Dean as the ghost of Watergate past to cast aspirations on PDJT. Dean, who was White House counsel for President Nixon during the Watergate era, drew “parallels” between the scandal that led to President Nixon’s resignation and special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the hoax that was the Russian government ties to the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If the public knew about all the times that Dean changed his story during Watergate, he would have been a discredited witness, factual or otherwise, before he ever set foot in the hearing room. During Watergate career prosecutors had argued against using Dean in any hearing or trial. But, I digress.
Dean tried to equate Comey’s firing with the so-called Saturday Night Massacre by President Nixon when he fired the AG, the DAG and the Special Prosecutor. The problem here is that Andrew McCabe has testified to Congress that Comey’s firing had no effect on any investigations. Comey was a loose cannon who had discredited the good people of the FBI with his various shenanigans. The Democrats had wanted him fired during 2016.
Rep. Lou Gohmert (R-TX) pointed out the real parallel.
“There are similarities, you are right, with regard to Watergate, as you alluded to. In both, an administration was seeking to illegally spy on another candidate. In both, people were hired to gather evidence that could be used against a candidate.
In Watergate, the Committee to Re-Elect the President hired burglars to break into the Democratic headquarters. In Watergate, administration officials tried to find ways to use federal dollars to pay for their criminal spying.
In Russiagate, members of the federal government used the intel, DOJ, and FBI communities to attempt to defeat a presidential candidate, and when that failed, to have him removed from office. In Russiagate, the Clinton campaign and the FBI paid a foreign agent to collude with agents to produce opposition research that turned out [to be] completely false–as the Mueller report indicated–that could be used to commit a fraud upon the FISA court to get warrants to spy on an opposition campaign.”
Did the Democrats really want to bring out these similarities? The fact that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign is public knowledge. The source of the predication for this spying is under mountains of suspicion. Why would the Democrats hold a hearing where these facts would once again be brought in front of the public?
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) continued to dismantle the hearings when he delved into Deans’ economic interests in impeachment proceedings. Gaetz had entered into the record Dean’s 2005 essay titled, “George W. Bush as the New Richard Nixon. Both Wiretapped Illegally and Impeachably.” Dean was then helpful to Gaetz when he added that he had also written a book about the W Bush years called “Worse Than Watergate.”
Gaetz then hammered home the point that Dean has made considerable sums of money by writing about Presidents who he thinks should be impeached. Of course, he has never written about Democratic Presidents who have engaged in potentially impeachable offenses.
Perhaps the most interesting quote was from Mr. Dean himself. Some four hours into the hearing, Congressman Louie Correa (D-CA) sympathetically asked Dean why he came in to testify. Dean answered,
“Congressman, when I worked for Mr. Nixon, I was really never worried about what the outcome would be and how it would be resolved. I’ve got to tell you that from the day Mr. Trump was nominated and I was following a separate set of polls of The Los Angeles Times as well as the Monmouth polls, and it looks clear to these pollsters that Mr. Trump had a very good chance of winning and I began developing a knot in my stomach that sits there to this day. So I’m trying to deal with that in the best way I can to try to tell people, these are troubled times. And we should go through these processes and sort them out. So anything I can do to add to the process I’m more than willing.” (emphasis added).
At least Dean did not try to dissemble. John Dean broadcast to the world his antipathy towards PDJT. On the day that Trump was nominated, Dean became physically ill over the idea of Trump being President. As Jonathan Moseley over at American Thinker noted,
And the Democrats thought it was a good idea to have this man testify? Just who is running the show for the Democrats? This sounds like something their new media darling AOC would orchestrate.
The question has to be asked. Just how many and how serious were all the wrongdoings that the Obama administration participated in with the spying that was going on? Perhaps Hillary Clinton’s rant after the Commander-in-Chief forum about “we will all hang” has more credibility than one might first think.
