Nixon's crime has been reduced to a footnote in the Progressive Book of Ethics.
Posted on 05/13/2024 9:18:10 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
John Dean, former President Nixon’s White House counsel, said in an interview Saturday that the New York hush money criminal trial against former President Trump is “very powerful” ahead of highly anticipated testimony this week from Trump’s ex-fixer Michael Cohen.
Dean said in a CNN interview that he has read the transcripts from the trial and thinks the prosecution has laid out a compelling case that can stand alone, independent from Cohen’s testimony.
“It’s a very powerful case the government has put on in New York,” he said. “They have really filled in so many of the blanks, and they have built such a structure that Michael Cohen can come in and testify.”
“And he’s largely corroborated already, with either other witnesses … who don’t necessarily have an axe to grind, as well as documents,” Dean continued. “So they have laid a real foundation for this coming week.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“John Dean: Hush money case against Trump ‘very powerful’” Yes, especially the part where Horse Face admits that it never happened in a signed statement.
Yeah, yeah. I’ve heard it a thousand times - it’s total BS.
“Know your enemy” means understanding the enemy’s strategy and learning their secrets.
Repeating their stupid predictable propaganda tells us nothing about their strategy we don’t already know. Their strategy is to deceive us by spreading as many disgusting lies as possible and getting as wide an audience as possible for their propaganda.
All you are doing is helping them spread their lies and giving them access to audiences they would not otherwise reach.
What enemy secrets are you discovering? What are you revealing about their strategy? Nothing we don’t already know.
John Dean is the enemy and he wants us to believe the case against Trump is legitimate - “very powerful” - which is a lie. The case against Trump is totally without merit. You can’t learn anything useful from reading John Dean’s lies.
You can learn from people like Turley or VDH or other smart analysts who understand and can expose the true nature of these lawfare attacks on Trump and MAGA. FReepers should be reading and discussing the truth - not helping spread the lies.
so you want people here to only be able to read and comment on stuff we already agree with?
Like they do in Duhmmieland?
Maybe you can ask JimRob to censor articles you don’t agree with? Would that be better, do you think?
That’s the explanation I have come to believe.
Here is what I have concluded about the origin of the Watergate break-in:
Maureen “Mo” Kane (later Dean) shared an apartment with a woman, Heidi Rikan, who ran a call-girl operation out of the Columbia Plaza Apartments near the Watergate office of the DNC. The “black books” in the desk of DNC secretary Ida “Maxie” Wells supposedly contained the names of prominent members of both the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as various dignitaries and athletes. They also contained the names and addresses of Mo Dean and her mother, Irene, and a later version of one of the books contained John Dean’s White House telephone number. John Dean found out about the operation and the black books from Mo Dean through her conversations with her apartment mate, and John presumably orchestrated the Watergate break-in to retrieve the books or at least copy the material in them. He was primarily interested in seeing if any names matched those on the White House roster. Although there have been rumors and speculation about the extent of Mo Dean’s involvement, there has been no documented evidence that Mo Dean was one of the call girls, even though she had a past history of partying and traveling with Heidi Rinkan.
Says the guy who desire to hush up his own sex scandal brought down the president who trusted him.
I think it is very valuable to re-visit events in history and re-evaluate our knowledge of the event.
At the time of the break-in we were fed a media version. Watergate was actually the take-down of Nixon and we were all fooled. We have been fooled about many events over the years, e.g., Chappaquiddick, TWA800,Lee Harvey Oswald, on and on.
Hard as they try to scrub the net and the history after 50 years some truth does leak out. Yes, Mo Dean apparently was a roommate of that party girl. There were (and are) many attractive girls on the Hill. At that time they would party at the Carousel Hotel in Ocean City where Bobby Baker arranged weekends for lobbyists and power people to mingle with 'gals from the hill' and politicians. (For you young folks, Baker was LBJ's fixer and enforcer and arranger.) Mary Jo Kopechne was a long time Democratic gal who worked on the Hill and vacationed with others on weekends. I've heard there were connections between her and Mo Dean but the net has been scrubbed.
I've long suspected that Chappaquiddick was a deep state operation to make sure Ted never made it back into the White House. They had botched the earlier assassinations and didn't want to risk another one so they figured a scandal would do the job.
When we re-visit historic events like these it's valuable. It helps us realize all the fake news we have been fed over the years. The same goes for listening to people we have a low opinion of. It allows us to re-evaluate their comments after some of the actual facts have seeped out.
“At the time of the break-in we were fed a media version. Watergate was actually the take-down of Nixon and we were all fooled. We have been fooled about many events over the years, e.g., Chappaquiddick, TWA800,Lee Harvey Oswald, on and on.”
No, we were NOT all fooled. I was fooled about none of those hoaxes, because from an early age (8-12) my parents were proactive about finding alternative news sources, and fully understood that the network news outlets were propaganda tools.
If you are serious about gathering enemy intel, try this: Imagine you are a spy for the good guys, and your job is to learn what the enemy is planning and anticipate their strategies.
The first thing you need to know is that there are two sets of information you can gather from the enemy; the things they want you to know and the things they do not want you to know.
That’s right. The enemy knows you are looking for intel on them, so of course they will try to take advantage by feeding you false intel disguised as real intel.
So as an intelligence gatherer for the good guys, your most important skill is being able to distinguish which enemy intel is the fake stuff they want you to hear, and which is the real secrets they don’t want you to k is about.
So wit that in mind, let me ask you: when an enemy spokesperson like John Dean goes on CNN and says the bogus immunity case against Trump is “very powerful” - which kind of intel do think he just revealed - real or fake? Is he stating what the enemy thinks, or what the enemy wants YOU to think the enemy thinks?
Three guesses, and the first two don’t count.
You people think think that by quoting what the enemy says on CNN you are gathering enemy intel - when actually, you are being fed counter-intelligence I formation and getting fooled into spreading for the enemy.
I can't figure out how you came to that conclusion based on what I posted.
Sorry, you’re right. I shouldn’t have said you people. I was still ranting about the people who say we need to listen to what our enemies are saying. Your comment was quite reasonable
Duh. That’s not what I am saying at all.
Such a good response. A gold star for you! It’s nice to see civility here on FR.
You are correct. You were ranting. I'll leave the 'why' for you to ponder.
No one on here, so far, has stated that we need to listen to what our enemies are saying. Usually that phrase also implies that we 'believe' what they are saying. Obviously you can see we don't.
What we are doing is DEBATING, or ARGUING, or COUNTERING the substance of an article. This is a DEBATE FORUM and it's not much of one if there is only one side to the debate, or one side to the source of all subjects to debate.
Very few people listen to things they already know, think, or have heard.
They will listen to contrary information so they can evaluate and even totally dismiss it. When this is done as a group, like here on the forum, I LEARN MORE by listening/reading the arguments from other posters.
That is why we post articles to debate that help expand our knowledge of the subject. We are separating the wheat from the chaff. Even those who don't make replies learn from those who do. Probably learn more. One cannot listen (and learn) while one is speaking or typing.
Even if it exposes you to counterfeit information, you gotta step outside the circle or your circle starts shrinking. Know what I mean, jelly bean ?
“What we are doing is DEBATING, or ARGUING, or COUNTERING the substance of an article.”
I’m tired of hearing the same justification for entertaining and discussing obvious lies.
What you are justifying is no different than justifying these fake news “debates” hosted and moderated by deceitful partisans who have no interest in running a real debate.
Two candidates taking turns talking is not a debate when one is obviously lying while the other is telling the truth, especially when the “moderator” is setting up softballs for the liar and sabotaging the truth-teller.
Your “debates” and discussions here on FR are no better when proven liars are given equal standing with truth tellers.
I don’t expect you to admit this -so just have a good day.
Is Dean suffering from dementia?
I remember the lamestream media going to a clearly diminished Barry Goldwater for quotes when he likely didn’t know the day or year.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhh was too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.