John Dean’s “Worse Than Watergate” Game-show (UPDATED)

Sean Hannity Monologues, but he has Joe Concha on to discuss John Dean’s jump at monitory payoffs. Or, as the FEDERALIST puts it, “JOHN DEAN STARS IN ‘WORSE THAN WATERGATE!’“:

….It was in 1987 that Dean argued that Ronald Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal was worse than Watergate….. It was 2005, when Democrats were toying around with the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, that then-Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter presidential scholars, asking them about comments “by Richard Nixon’s lawyer John Dean that Bush is ‘the first president to admit to an impeachable offense’.”…….

Concha ends the interview (what little of it there is) with just how crazy the Left is.

More from the FEDERALIST:

John W. Dean likes to refer to himself as a “Nixon historian” these days, which is more or less like calling Willie Cicci the “chronicler” of the Corleone family saga.

Politico reports that House Judiciary Committee is preparing to call the “Watergate star witness and former Nixon White House counsel” to testify about the Mueller report, in “an effort to draw public attention” to the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The word “star,” often used to describe Dean, is, at best, a poetic truth. His expertise on the issue of impeachment, long sought by liberals, was acquired by helping plan one of the most infamous scandals in American political history, snitching on everyone who conspired with him and then cashing in on the fallout for the next 47 years.

It’s what someone in Cicci’s line of work might call a “racket.” Good work if you can get it.

As White House counsel, Dean had known about the eavesdropping that ended the Nixon presidency even before Nixon did. He was not some innocent man swept up in the ugly currents of history. Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert accused Dean of not only being “at the center of the criminality” but also withholding crucial evidence while plea bargaining his way out of trouble.

There’s no evidence that Dean agreed to be a whistleblower because of a tortured conscience or because he wanted to preserve law and order or even because he was attempting to save the Nixon presidency, as he likes to claim. There is evidence, however, that he turned to the Feds when Nixon refused to promise him immunity from prosecution.

[….]

Was Dean on Nixon’s list? Well, no doubt he was reviled by the White House once he turned on the president. Anyone who’s read about Watergate, though, is likely aware that the non-fictional Dean was sent the infamous Enemies List back in 1971.

Did he heroically run to the Justice Department? Did he leak it the news to the media?  No, his office wrote a confidential memo detailing how the list could utilize “available federal machinery,” like tax audits from the IRS, “to screw our political enemies.” It was Dean who, after Nixon suggested that if he wins a second term the White House should target the president’s enemies more aggressively, responded, “That’s an exciting prospect.”

I’ve seen Dean get away with bragging about how he warned Nixon that there was “a cancer on the presidency” on numerous occasions. As the audiotape of the incidentshows, Dean was referring to a political threat to Nixon, not an ethical one that threatened the office. Here he is, making the claim—while conspiracy mongering about the Russia investigation—to CNN’s Jake Tapper, who gets a kick out of the idea that Trump believes Dean, who was convicted of obstruction of justice and disbarred, might be the “villain” in this story. He was surely one of them.

Dean is a useful guest for a media that hasn’t been able to stop making insipid Watergate comparisons since Watergate itself. For Democrats, and only Democrats, Dean also serves much the same purpose he did in government. A consummate yes man.

It was in 1987 that Dean argued that Ronald Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal was worse than Watergate. Much much worse, in fact. “The Iran-contra inquiries involve matters of national security,” Dean explained at the time. “Watergate, on the other hand, involved the political security of Richard Nixon. These are Major League matters versus Little League.”

It was 2005, when Democrats were toying around with the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, that then-Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter presidential scholars, asking them about comments “by Richard Nixon’s lawyer John Dean that Bush is ‘the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.’”

Dean’s quote was heavily leaned on at time. Hey, if the “star” witness of Watergate says impeachment is on the table, aren’t we compelled to listen? Dean, in fact, had written an entire book—“Worse than Watergate”—making the case that both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached for lying to Congress…………

Rep. Devin Nunes Details Failings In The Mueller Report

(Via FOX NEWS) House Intelligence Committee holds a hearing on “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1.” Robert Anderson, Stephanie Douglas, & Andrew McCarthy testify.

The reason for posting the above lengthy video is because THE EPOCH TIMES has an excellent article detailing Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) work on the flaws in Mueller Report. Here are some excerpts from what should be read in whole:

As an example, Nunes brought up the Trump Tower meeting that took place on June 9, 2016, and highlighted the fact that Fusion GPS, which employed Christopher Steele, was actually working for Russians in the Prevezon case at the same time that they were working for the Clinton campaign. Nunes asked the Democrat witnesses if they were aware of this potential conflict. Notably, neither Anderson nor Douglas had knowledge of Fusion’s dual roles.

“So you have Glenn Simpson, who’s working not only for the Clinton campaign, to dirty up Trump. He’s also working for the Russians to dirty up anybody who doesn’t oppose the Magnitsky Act. He’s meeting with all those individuals. Now you, as former counterintelligence people, would that raise any flags to you at all? That a Clinton campaign operative arm is working for these same Russians – happen to be the same Russians that are meeting at Trump Tower, offering supposed dirt?”

Douglas answered, saying: “I think it’s not in a vacuum. It’s not just about President Trump’s campaign or Secretary Clinton’s campaign. It’s about the context to [inaudible] information. Regardless of whose campaign it was, if there were significant concerns or things that we thought that could raise to that, I think it absolutely would be worth looking at.”

Nunes responded saying that the Mueller report “doesn’t talk about Fusion GPS at all, even though of all their questionable contacts with the Russians.” Fusion GPS employees, including co-founder Glenn Simpson, invoked their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the House Intelligence Committee when questioned about these matters.

[….]

The Epoch Times recently published an article detailing the ways in which the Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by lawyers working under Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on the president.

Sections of the report were selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals and apparent misrepresentations. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn; a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report; and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

There are also troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader, that are only now coming forth.

More recently, it has been reported that important details regarding Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, were left out of the Mueller report. Kilimnik reportedly served as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the State Department and “informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.” The Mueller team, for reasons unknown, omitted those details from its report.

Nunes laid forth some crucial non-findings that undercut long-standing narratives and claims of collusion.

Contents of Mueller Report

Nunes, who referred to the Mueller report as “the Mueller dossier,” noted that it “either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing.” Nunes then provided a specific list:

  • “Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians.
  • No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  • No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  • No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  • And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.”

Notably, Mueller found no evidence of collusion on the part of the Trump campaign and made no conclusion regarding obstruction, leaving the matter up to Attorney General Bill Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for a legal decision.

Barr recently addressed the obstruction issue, noting that Mueller took into account the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted and also included “a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision” on obstruction.

Notably, the DOJ and the special counsel’s office released a joint statementfollowing some public confusion on the matter resulting from Mueller’s May 29, 2019, press conference:

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice.”

“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”

During Mueller’s somewhat confusing press conference, many interpreted Mueller’s comments to mean that the OLC opinion was the singular issue. In the joint statement, both Muller and the DOJ stated that there would be no conclusion on obstruction even without the OLC opinion.

Barr, who said he believed Mueller could have reached a conclusion on obstruction, said that both he and Rosenstein didn’t agree with much of the legal analysis contained in the report.

During a recent interview with CBS News, Barr pointed out that, in order for the determination of a crime, the DOJ would have had to prove corrupt intent, noting that “the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately, and refusing to correct the record.”

Nunes, who was far more blunt in his assessment, said that the real purpose of the Mueller report “was to help Democrats impeach the president in the absence of any evidence of collusion.” Thus, Nunes noted, the report includes:

  • “A long litany of ordinary contacts between Trump associates and Russians, as if a certain number of contacts indicate a conspiracy even if no conversations actually created or even discussed a conspiracy.
  • Excerpts from a voicemail from Trump attorney John Dowd that the Mueller team selectively edited to make it seem threatening and nefarious.
  • No comment on the close relationship between Democrat operatives at Fusion GPS and multiple Russians who participated in the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower. In fact, no comment on Fusion GPS at all.
  • No useful information on figures who played key roles in the investigation such as Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, or Christopher Steele.
  • No useful information about the many irregularities that marred the FBI’s Russia investigation.”

Nunes also observed how the Mueller report went to lengths to cite “dozens of articles from the reporters and publications that were most responsible for perpetuating the Russia hoax.” Nunes then described how this, in turn, provided a feedback loop for Democrat claims of obstruction:

“[I]ntelligence leakers spin a false story to the media, the media publishes the story, Mueller cites the story, and the media and the Democrats then fake outrage at Mueller’s findings.”

Nunes closed his prepared remarks with sharp criticism of the mainstream media, noting “the media have abandoned their traditional watchdog role and instead have become the mouthpiece of a cabal of intelligence leakers.”………

Reaction from House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes and House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadows on ‘Hannity.’

Mueller vs. Starr & Barr

Larry Elder is in his prime on 870 and his growing affiliates. (If I had time I would do excerpts like this for an 870AM YouTube channel to grow their listener base.) Larry plays competing report outcomes by Robert Mueller and Ken Starr. John Eastman weighs in as well, and as usual, he is correct… I add Bill Barr at the end saying the same thing Mark Levin, John Eastman, Andy McCarthy, and others have been saying. But as usual, CNN and the MSM are way behind the curve… in fact they are off the track all together.

Fear of Barr (Strassel)

HUGH HEWITT reads Kimberly Strassel’s column, earlier today:

A little POWRLINE intro please: The Democrats’ hysteria over Attorney General William Barr is directly proportional to their fear of the damage they fear he might do, Kim Strassel explains in her Wall Street Journal Potomac Watch column HERE:

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.

“This is the end of my Presidency. I’m ‘effed'” (Trump)

Larry Elder goes over the media’s portrayal of Trump saying he is fucked: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” AS IF Trump was meaning connections between he and Russia were about to be found out were the reason driving his exclamation.

Larry reads through some headlines and then dives into the full quote.

  • Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

He then plays some Lawrence “socialist” O’Donnell to continue the point. The Sage finishes with an analogy to Trump being accused of saying “there are good Nazis and bad Nazis,” so-to-speak.

Mueller Report Doesn’t Fit The Narrative

Steven Crowder breaks down exactly how the Mueller Report blew up in the Democrats’ and media’s smug faces!