Elder Patriot| John Dean was White House Counsel for Richard Nixon during Watergate. The FBI had identified Dean as the “master manipulator of the cover-up” that eventually led to the forced resignation of President Nixon.
Dean was able to plead down to a single felony count in exchange for throwing Nixon under the bus. The official terminology was he became the “key witness for the prosecution.”
Today, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee kicked off their impeachment inquiry by having Dean appear as their first witness. Dean was intent on avoiding answering any questions about the Mueller Report with good reason – he has no first hand knowledge of its contents.
He was a prop. Nothing more.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) realized this and tore him a new one. Watch for yourself:
Rep. Gaetz: Mr. Dean, how many American presidents have you accused of being Richard Nixon?
Chairman Nadler (D-NY): Objection
Rep. Gaetz: Mr. Dean has made a cottage industry out of accusing presidents of acting like Richard Nixon, I would like to know how much money he makes based on making these accusations, exploiting them for his own economic benefit.
Do you have personal knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of a single material fact in the Mueller Report?
Dean: I’m not here as a fact witness. [But I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.]
Gaetz even called Dean the Ghost of Christmas Past. That got me to thinking, inlight of what we’ve witnessed over the past three years…
The longer you listen to this charade, the more likely you are to start wondering if Democrats were the ones who broke into those Watergate offices and, with the aid of a compliant FBI and mainstream media, chased the popular president from office.
Remember that Richard Nixon won a landslide electoral victory in 1972 and was driven from office by Democrats and the mainstream media less than two years later. They had been successful in driving his approval ratings below thirty percent.
That made Nixon a political liability to his party. Republican leaders felt compelled to ask for his resignation.
Nixon’s removal came not because his policies were rejected by the American people, the opposite was true, but because it became essential for the preservation of the status quo.
For a deeper understanding of the politics behind Nixon’s forced resignation, I recommend reading a short essay by Jon Marini that appeared in Imprimis an excerpt of which appears below.
To understand a political scandal fully, one must take into account all of the interests of those involved. The problem is that these interests are rarely revealed—which is precisely why it is so tempting for partisans, particularly if they are at a political disadvantage, to resort to scandal to attack their opponents. Many great scandals arise not as a means of exposing corruption, but as a means of attacking political foes while obscuring the political differences that are at issue. This is especially likely to occur in the aftermath of elections that threaten the authority of an established order. In such circumstances, scandal provides a way for defenders of the status quo to undermine the legitimacy of those who have been elected on a platform of challenging the status quo—diluting, as a consequence, the authority of the electorate.
Nixon didn’t have Twitter with which to defend himself back then. Nor was he supported by hundreds of citizens journalists who used the internet to protect his six.
Remember, there are trillions of dollars at stake.
The Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Wall Street, the multinational corporations, the international bankers who fund it all, and even foreign governments are not about to surrender their control over the exfiltration of America’s wealth without trying to remove the president who is putting the reins on their greed.