Nixon's ex-WH counsel John Dean laid out 6 striking parallels between Mueller report and Watergate

originally posted by: Duderino
I think it's crazy that this has been in the news for about 8 hours now and there is still nothing about it on ATS. This is the very same WH counsel that was involved in the Watergate scandal and that did the cover-up work for Nixon. He is a convicted felon, and the only reason he is a felon is because he got caught being a fixer for Nixon, doing the same things he talks of this administration doing.

Takes one to know one kind of a thing.

John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon and the star witness in the Watergate hearings, told Congress on Monday that the former special counsel Robert Mueller's report is to President Donald Trump what the Watergate roadmap was to Nixon.

businessinsider.com

If you open the article, you will find many points, topic by topic, bullet point by bullet point. Here are some:

The parallels he drew involved: attempts to shut down the investigations; the firing of FBI director James Comey and the Saturday Night Massacre; Dean's and former White House counsel Don McGahn's refusal to carry out the president's orders; efforts to exert control over the investigations; attempts to limit the disclosure of evidence; and dangling pardons to influence witness testimony.

Nixon's words were "strikingly like those uttered by President Trump," he added. "Nixon said, 'And, ah, because these people are playing for keeps ... they should call the FBI and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case, period. And that destroys the case.'"

When Cox refused a White House ultimatum seeking to limit access to the infamous secret White House tapes, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and resigned. Cox was ultimately fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork. But the public backlash to Cox's ouster was so great that Nixon had to appoint Leon Jaworski as the new special prosecutor.

"In short, the firing of FBI Director Comey, like Nixon's effort to curtail the Watergate investigation, resulted in the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller," Dean testified.

Much more in the article, and I don't want to quote too much, but the comparisons are very effective once you get down to the bottom when the similarities are made with how McGahn was ordered not to comply and Dean's own situation.

Or how Nixon also used the pardon powers as leverage in order to influence cooperation, the same way Trump did.

How many are old enough to see history repeat itself?

What a farce you posted...There's one glaring difference you obviously refuse to disclose...

Nixon was trying to hide a crime...Trump was not...Nixon wanted to nix a legal investigation into a crime...Trump wanted to stop an illegal investigation in which there was no crime committed but was created to destroy his presidency (a political coup)...

There was no obstruction of justice since there was no justice involved...

I applaud Trump for wanting to 'obstruct' a crime in progress against the American people ...

Failure to post this side of the transaction makes your post an intentional lie...A continuing lie to take down the President after the Special Council stated President Trump was not guilty of the crime they tried to frame him for...

And that's called sedition...This is a seditious article...

a reply to: Lumenari

Ah... right.
It wasn't the Russians.

Must be blissful where you are.

a reply to: carewemust

No news agency EVER pays for interviews. No they are not on CNN payroll.
That is just another absurd claim from this crowd.

Here's my view. Any President that has an investigation launched against them would probably act in the same way. Mainly because they're all probably criminals in one way or another.

In the end, I feel like this is more a critique of the US voting populace as a whole than it is a critique of Trump.

a reply to: xuenchen

Fingers crossed right?

Its going to take some sigils like that and a magic potion.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Here's my view. Any President that has an investigation launched against them would probably act in the same way. Mainly because they're all probably criminals in one way or another.

In the end, I feel like this is more a critique of the US voting populace as a whole than it is a critique of Trump.

I think Its worse than that; Any President that has an investigation launched against them would probably act in the same way. Mainly because if they didnt they would be actively allowing their political opostion to walk them out the door. Criminal or not a President in this situation is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't fight back.

And we wonder why we never get any one worth voting for running for high office.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's one "parallel" that's actually a Tangent..

Nixon did fire the Special Prosecutor, Trump didn't 😎

Not for lack of trying though.
From the Mueller report. Page 325.

The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel Overview In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides , sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached , McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President ' s direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting , the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed .

Evidence I. The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported that in June 2017 , the President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire the Special Counsel. 777 According to the article, "[a]mid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation. " 778 The article further reported that " [a]fter receiving the president's order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel ... refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel , saying he would quit instead." 779 The article stated that the president "ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive." 780 After the article was published, the President

a reply to: DanDanDat

Too bad this has nothing to do with political opponents.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Let's look at the Presidents that have had these types of investigations launched against them. Nixon was guilty of his charged crimes. Clinton is shady as f**k. And Trump has ties to the mob.

Even if Clinton and Trump were innocent of the crimes they were originally investigated for, they're not innocent men.

The only Presidents I can think of that might not have any skeletons hiding in their closet are Ford and Carter.

Politics attracts the corrupt element of our society. Mainly because we keep electing those people to positions of power.

The next day, the Washington Post reported on the same event but added that McGahn had not told the President directly that he intended to resign rather than carry out the directive to have the Special Counsel terminated .782 In that respect , the Post story clarified the Times story, which could be read to suggest thatMcGahn had told the President of his intention to quit, causing the President to back down from the order to have the Special Counsel fired. 2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports On January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn 's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to tire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest. 784 McGahn's attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President's personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement. 785 McGahn 's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed. 786 Accordingly, McGahn's attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some 787 other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President ' s request to dispute the story. Hicks recalled relaying to the President that one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn ' s attorney about the issue. 788 781 Sophie Tatum & Kara Scannell, Trump denies he called for Mueller's firing, CNN (Jan. 26, 2018); Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit, New York Times (Jan. 25, 2018). 782 The Post article stated, "Despite internal objections, Trump decided to assert that Mueller had unacceptable conflicts of interest and moved to remove him from his position. . . . In response, McGahn said he would not remain at the White House if Trump went through with the move.... McGahn did not deliver his resignation threat directly to Trump but was serious about his threat to leave.

a reply to: Iscool

Nixon was trying to hide a crime...Trump was not.

Hmmmmm. Really?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Clinton didn't. He wasn't happy but he let the investigation proceed at its own pace.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Exactly. Obama would have let an investigation like this run its course in all likelihood as well. And if Obama acted and did the same things Trump has, it would look incredibly shady and people would jump all over it.

People should be at least be honest about their biases, it's about party for a lot of people and not the truth.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

Too bad this has nothing to do with political opponents.

As an independent that's exactly as I see the last three years of this issue. All actions have been steeped in those involved doing what was best for their personal political expedience.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I wasn't attempting to make the case that past presidents where innocent or guilty of crimes and/or ethical shenanigans. Just that our current level of acceptical political intreage turns off upstanding citizens (because who wants such s job) and so we are left with the bottom off the barrel.

To me that's a bigger problem than having criminal/unethical minded people as presidents. The latter is a symptom of the former.

Another good interview from NPR (not a conservative news outlet) where they interviewe American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, legal analyst, reoccurring NPR contributor and professor at the George Washington University Law SchoolJonathan Turley.

NPR Link

I apologize that they do not have the interview transcript up yet so I can not quote it. You can listen to the interview at the link and in a few hours the transcript will be at the link as well.

The topic relates to Justice Department handing over Russia probe evidence to the House.

The Law Scholar's opinion is that the Trump DOJ is moving much more quickly in complying with congretional requests for documentation related to the Trump/Russia investigation than is historical precedent in situation where Congress seeks to provide oversight to past presidential administrations. An example he gives is the much longer length of time the Obama administration took in handing over documents relating to the "fast and furious" issue. He does temper his opinion by acknowledging that this Trump issue isn't over yet so things could change.

He also gives his legal opinion that the obstruction charges are week in this case; that the McGahn assertion, that he felt Trump was seeking to fire Bob Mueller, is the best evidence of obstruction; but that because the firing never happened and because the Trump admin can put forth a believable counter narrative to those events; it will be difficult to successfully use it as evidence of obstruction.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

Too bad this has nothing to do with political opponents.

ahahahahaha
Mkay
Whatever you say lady

Aaahhhahahahaha
You dont even understand congress role in this event.
Ahahahaha

It is ONLY political.

a reply to: Duderino

I can lay out 6 striking parallels between a horse and a zebra. Do you think that means that a zebra could win the Kentucky Derby?

originally posted by: DanDanDat

He also gives his legal opinion that the obstruction charges are week in this case; that the McGahn assertion, that he felt Trump was seeking to fire Bob Mueller, is the best evidence of obstruction; but that because the firing never happened and because the Trump admin can put forth a believable counter narrative to those events; it will be difficult to successfully use it as evidence of obstruction.

perhaps that, coupled with the fact that Trump had the legal right to fire Mueller, although he didn't.

When asked what portion of Mueller's inquiry was not able to happen due to Trump's interference, the crickets are deafening.

originally posted by: ghaleon12
a reply to: Sillyolme

Exactly. Obama would have let an investigation like this run its course in all likelihood as well.

So one of the least transparent administrations in a long time would have let his dirty laundry be plastered all over the news and would have stood quietly by as people leaked said laundry non stop and never lifted a finger to stop it.


Please mate whatever you are smoking pass it along.