WASHINGTON, April 7, 2017 — In June 1972, five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate business and hotel complex. After an investigation by the FBI, it was revealed that the men were paid by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President—in this case, Richard Nixon.
The ensuing scandal led to Nixon’s resignation and jail sentences for those involved. Does this have anything to do with the current Susan Rice unmasking charges?
The Watergate scandal created what many called a “constitutional crisis.” Representatives of the president broke in to the other party’s headquarters to obtain private documents relating to their strategy in the coming election. Once the perps were caught, Nixon and his closest advisors at the highest levels of government attempted to cover up the incident.
Nixon defeated liberal Democrat George McGovern with more than 60 percent of the vote, compared to McGovern’s 38 percent. Even with that crushing landslide, by July 1973, there was mounting evidence that the president’s staff and perhaps even the president himself were involved in the break-in and subsequent coverup.
Eventually, about 50 people were charged in the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Most notable were H.R. Halderman, White House Chief of Staff; John Ehrlichman, Chief Advisor for Domestic Affairs; John Mitchell, the U.S. Attorney General; and John Dean, White House Counsel.
A singing group called The Creep wrote a song about these four. Listening to it will give you a good feel for the public mood in mid- to late-1973, and perhaps sense the similarities to the current political situation in Washington.
The most current information indicates that former President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice unmasked (revealed) names of American citizens who were incidentally mentioned in legal wiretaps of Russian officials in the U.S. Among the unmasked was Republican candidate for the presidency, Donald Trump, along with members of his staff.
That unmasking—likely illegal if only due to its wide dissemination to pro-Democrat members of the media—appears to have led to more surveillance of candidate Trump as well as President-elect Trump and his staff. It is as if a sitting president and his closest advisors had broken into the records of his opponent. It also appears that there may be an ongoing coverup. That sounds eerily familiar.
A coverup of a criminal incident occurs when statements by those suspected of wrongdoing are revealed to have been deceptive. The coverup is thus a concerted series of statements and actions deployed in an attempt to conceal the truth. When the truth is discovered, the accused typically changes the story in an attempt to evade the consequences. But ultimately, the first sign of a coverup is a lie.
Rice has a demonstrated history of deceptive behavior to the American public. She has told us in the past that the Benghazi attack was motivated by an amateur video; that Beau Bergdahl was an honorable soldier; and that Syria had shipped all its chemical weapons outside of the country. Even as the apparently deliberate subversion of the Trump team by Obama administration figures is gradually revealed, Rice has told PBS that she had no knowledge of Trump or any of his staff’s conversations being incidentally collected as part of a wider intelligence-gathering operation.
More mysterious, as all the Trump-Russian Connection rumors and innuendo were trumpeted by the media, key Obama intelligence Czars John Brennan, Director of the CIA; James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; and James Comey, Director of the FBI, have all stated there was no surveillance of Trump or any of his staff.
Since it now appears that there was some surveillance, perhaps considerable surveillance, is it possible that these important and highly connected Obama officials are being less than truthful?
Congress has committees both in the House and in the Senate, whose task is to investigate matters of this nature. They also have a responsibility to the American people to oversee the Executive Branch, part of what otherwise is known as the American system of checks and balances.
These Congressional committees will almost certainly order those potentially involved in illegal intelligence sharing to testify before those committees. The ultimate goal of such hearings is to find out the truth about any “break-in” to gather information on candidate Trump and his team, especially if that information was to be used for political purposes, perhaps even benefiting the post-White House ambitions of a currently sitting president like Barack Obama.
Recall that at first, the Watergate break-in seemed relatively minor and was shrugged off by almost everyone in official Washington. Then it was discovered that there was much more to the story than initially appeared.
Through tough questioning conducted by the appropriate Senate committees, the truth about Watergate and its subsequent cover-up eventually emerged, although the process took a considerable amount of time. In the end, the guilty were convicted, leading to the resignation of a sitting president, and yes, to that song about Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean.
The question today: Will there be a song about Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Rice?