It's Not About Yesterday's Dean but it Might be About Obama's FBI

In 1974 Watergate’s John Dean, the Democrats put up a star witness who was nothing more than a paid shill against President Trump. Dean even admitted that he was not a “fact witness". 

This was all part of an effort by liberals to beat the dead horse of the Mueller report (at two different House hearings) and desperately try to brainwash the public into supporting impeachment. According to the Washington Post even some Democrats questioned the wisdom of calling up Dean: 

“Privately, several Democrats said they agreed with the GOP’s harsh assessment, wondering why Dean was called in the first place.”

To counter Dean and the other biased witnesses (who according to the Post were “former U.S. attorneys [with] television deals [who] have criticized Trump”), the Republicans only had one witness per hearing. It is worth highlighting that the Republican witnesses' testimonies were actually grounded in reality and scholarship. 

First the Heritage Foundation’s John Malcom testimony before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week:

Given the lack of clear evidence that the President acted with a corrupt intent, that many of the actions he undertook or contemplated undertaking were pursuant to powers clearly vested in him by Article II of the Constitution, the lack of a clear statement from Congress that the obstruction of justice statute that the Special Counsel relied upon applies to the President, and the inescapable danger that its application could interfere with the President’s ability to carry out his duties, Attorney General Barr acted properly in concluding that a prosecutable case of obstruction of justice against the President did not exist.

While Attorney General Barr did his job, Special Counsel Mueller did not.  As Malcolm details:

Under the regulations governing his appointment, it was the duty of the Special Counsel to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” The Attorney General would then have to determine, subject to notifying Congress, whether “any…prosecutable step” recommended by the Special Counsel was nullified because it is “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.”  By deciding “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” with respect to the allegations of obstruction of justice, Special Counsel Mueller failed to fulfill that duty.

In the other hearing before the House Intelligence Committee this week, former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy testified in a different direction and where the focus should be on the continuing investigation.   

Congress has been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly a half century because we understand that, on the one hand, they are essential for the protection of the nation, but on the other hand, they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

There are a number of possible explanations for the investigation into the Trump campaign and, unlike the Mueller investigation, which is done, we need to find out if the FBI and related institutions were attempting to destroy President Trump for political reasons.  As McCarthy testified:

There is reason to suspect that investigative judgments were made in some instances and by some actors for improper political motivations; there may also be innocent explanations, or explanations that involve a zeal to protect the country from a perceived threat that was well-intentioned but excessive under the circumstances. We do not know the answers to these questions but they should be answered. And to ask them is not to attack our institutions but to preserve them by showing the public that we know how to police ourselves.

Democrats are spinning their wheels, because Mueller’s report closed the book on collusion with Russia.  However, why this investigation was started in the first place and why it dragged on for so long is another story.  A story which does in fact warrant an investigation.