“History is repeating itself, and with a vengeance,” John Dean told the judiciary committee, drawing a parallel between Watergate, which brought down Richard Nixon, and “Russiagate,” which has bedeviled Donald Trump.

But what strikes this veteran of Nixon’s White House is not the similarities but the stark differences.

Watergate began with an actual crime, a midnight break-in at the offices of the DNC in June 1972 to wiretap phones and filch files, followed by a cover-up that spread into the inner circles of the White House.

Three years after FBI Director James Comey began the investigation of Trump, however, the final report of his successor, Robert Mueller, found there had been no conspiracy, no collusion and no underlying crime.

How can Trump be guilty of covering up a crime the special counsel says he did not commit?

And the balance of power today in D.C. is not as lopsided as it was in 1973 and 1974.

During Watergate, Nixon had little support in a city where the elites, the press, the Democratic Congress and the liberal bureaucracy labored in earnest to destroy him. Nixon had few of what Pat Moynihan called “second and third echelons of advocacy.”

Contrast this with Trump, a massive presence on social media, whose tweets, daily interactions with the national press and rallies keep his enemies constantly responding to his attacks rather than making their case.

Trump interrupts their storytelling. And behind Trump is a host of defenders at Fox News and some of the top radio talk show hosts in America.

There are pro-Trump websites that did not exist in Nixon’s time, home to populist and conservative columnists and commentators full of fight.

Leftists may still dominate mainstream media. But their unconcealed hatred of Trump and the one-sided character of their coverage has cost them much of the credibility they had half a century ago.

The media are seen as militant partisans masquerading as journalists.

Consider the respective calendars.

Two years after the Watergate break-in, Nixon was near the end, about to be impeached by the House with conviction possible in the Senate.

Three years into Russiagate, 3 in 4 House Democrats do not want their caucus to take up impeachment. Many of these Democrats, especially moderates from swing districts, do not want to cast a vote to either bring down or exonerate the president.

Assume the House did take up impeachment. Would all the Democrats vote aye? Does anyone think a Republican Senate would deliver the needed 20 votes to provide a two-thirds majority to convict and remove him?

For a Republican Senate to split asunder and vote to expel its own Republican president who is supported by the vast majority of the party would be suicidal. It could cost the GOP both houses of Congress and the White House in 2020. Why would Republicans not prefer to unite and fight to the end, just as Senate Democrats did during the Clinton impeachment?

Trump’s support in the Republican caucus in the Senate today is rock solid. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is herself opposed to impeachment hearings in the House, considering them ruinous to her party’s hopes of maintaining control in 2020.

When Dean went before the Watergate committee of Sen. Sam Ervin in 1973, all five days of his testimony were carried live on ABC, CBS and NBC.

When Dean appeared Monday, the three cable news networks swiftly dropped coverage of the judiciary committee hearings to report on a helicopter crash in midtown Manhattan. Dean’s testimony could be seen on C-SPAN3.

Much of America is bored by the repetitive, nonstop media attacks on Trump, and look on the back-and-forth between left and right not as a “constitutional crisis” but as a savage battle between parties and partisans.

The impeachers who seek to bring down Trump face other problems.

Now that Mueller has spent two years and found no evidence of a Trump-Putin conspiracy to hack the emails of the DNC and Clinton campaign, questions have arisen as to what the evidence was that caused the FBI to launch its unprecedented investigation of a presidential campaign and a newly elected president.

Did an anti-Trump cabal at the apex of the FBI and U.S. security agencies work with foreign intelligence, including former British spy Christopher Steele, to destroy Trump?

The political dynamic of Trump’s taunts and defiance of the demands of committee chairs in a Democratic House, and the clamor for impeachment from the Democratic and media left are certain to produce more calls for hearings.

But if the impeachment hearings come, they will be seen for what they are: an attempted coup to overthrow a president by the losers of 2016 who are fearful they could lose again in 2020 and be out of power for four more years.

Russiagate is not Watergate, but there is this similarity:

Nixon and Trump are both the objects of a truly great hatred.

(46) comments

fnfn

Look, those awake saw trump try to obstruct justice and saw him chipping away at the rule of law with his opinion tweets.

jagman

While liberals fret constantly about Trump, everyone else is very happy he's our president. Here is an example of the enthusiasm that exists: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-trump-orlando-campaign-line-20190617-wzvk4htrnndyfj4xuun34tvqo4-story.html I don't remember anyone lining up two days ahead for any democrat.

hayduke2

Just like the sideshow at a circus.

jagman

No hay. He's the main show! The real sideshow is the motley collection of democrat candidates we have right now. And as for you comment below about lumping your ilk in with extremist left-wing position, consider that most and in some cases all of the current democrat presidential candidates support those positions I listed. Bernie even supports giving the right to vote to incarcerated convicted felons. Do you support that?

public-redux

jsk, I’ve found your mistake. You wrote that politicians had taken money from foreign lobbyists, which is illegal. But all your examples are of money coming from agents of foreigners. That is legal. And old news. Not sure why you thought it worth mentioning. And bipartisan to boot. Not sure why you named only Dems. Seems misleading. Is that what Fox did?

jagman

Liberals will continue to whine and moan about Trump. Trump will continue to troll lefty and trigger him/her to dig the hole deeper. Our economy will continue to be strong, unemployment will remain low. Foreign policy is always more difficult to predict but we have some "wins" and, at worst, a few stalemates. Trump will be re-elected in 2020. All the regular people will enjoy watching the libs fret and fume for another 4 years. Good fun!

hayduke2

regular people [lol][lol][lol] As if having a different viewpoint or perspective makes you not-regular. Get over yourself.

jagman

Regular people don't support open borders, at-birth abortion, denial of free speech on campus and social media (unless it is liberal speech), reparations, free college, free healthcare, eliminating air travel, no more beef, eliminating our energy industry, and I could go on. Liberals support most, if not all, the above. So yes, there is definitely a difference between progressives (who have taken over the dem party) and everyone else. And for the record, I am enjoying s strong America, the strong economy and all that entails. You should try it sometime.

hayduke2

Aww, the old lumping of everyone into one category. Most, if not all you list, is fear politics, outright lies or politically inspired garbage. As for your your last line, I have and will continue to enjoy it and the free speech and idea generation that goes alon with with it. Again, get over your self-rightous proclamations and sterotyping.

jsklinelga

Jagman I will not be as blunt as you but I agree with much of what you said. People were shocked that I said President Trump was not guilty of a crime. Did Donald Trump scheme and execute a plan to enlist the help of a foreign government to influence the election. No. That is what is considered collusion.But we know for absolute fact the DNC did. It would be nice, after millions of dollars and years of intense investigation to let this die but it is the Democrats only hope. If they keep this up I will wager "credibility" that it is going to backfire in their face. All the major Democrats, Schumer, Pelosi, Warner ,etc. have taken foreign lobbying money.from Russia, Ukraine,Saudi Arabia, China, Mexico. This does not even include the Clinton Foundation. if a 30 mil, 2 year investigation was launched against the Clinton Foundation the Democratic party would be shattered. What about Hunter Biden? The best thing the democrats could do is Moveon. But impeachment is their only hope and that is truly sad.

public-redux

“All the major Democrats, Schumer, Pelosi, Warner ,etc. have taken foreign lobbying money.from Russia, Ukraine,Saudi Arabia, China, Mexico.“ Could you document this, please?

public-redux

I ask because, if true, they could all be charged with crimes and we could be rid of them.

jsklinelga

public-redux Your good at research. Let us see if this surfaces more. I saw this posted on a segment of Fox new. Before you condemn Fox let us see if we hear more about this.

jsklinelga

public Here is one clip about Podesta Podesta -- whose firm represented at least a dozen foreign clients during the 2016 cycle -- was a major fundraiser for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the top 2016 recipient of money from foreign government lobbyists. Podesta said in an email that he has never been instructed by a foreign lobbying client to make donations to a U.S. campaign, and that he saw no ethical problem with foreign agents making political contributions. Just a hint that I am not off base

public-redux

Thank you for the compliment. Let me clarify: Did you see it on a news program of a Fox or an opinion program of a Fox? As for research, I googled some of the names you mentioned but came up with nothing. Your turn.

public-redux

Ah, I found it. An opinion piece by Steve Hilton, with no documentation. Steve Hilton. “There was much mirth among these groups when the FT reported that Hilton had suggested that maternity rights and all consumer rights legislation should be abolished to help revive the economy. Hilton even suggested that Britain should ignore EU labour rules on temporary workers, much to the annoyance of the No 10 permanent secretary, Jeremy Heywood. "Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law," one Whitehall source told the FT of a meeting in March to discuss the government's growth strategy. "Jeremy had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison." Hilton also suggested that Whitehall could do its bit to cut the fiscal deficit by abolishing hundreds of central government press officers and replacing them with a single person in each department who would blog. He also said that Jobcentres should be closed and replaced instead by community groups. One source who works close to Hilton said that many of David Cameron's team were startled by his proposal in opposition to buy cloudbursting technology to provide more sunshine.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jul/28/steve-hilton-policies-coalition-split

jsklinelga

public The initial piece was not an opinion piece. I saw the one by Steve Hilton but would not have given that credence. As I said, let us see where this leads.

public-redux

Jsk, So far you have not been able to document your claims, agreed? You have mentioned, without a citation, that a lobbying firm represented foreigners but not that “Schumer, Pelosi, Warner, etc.” took foreign money. Keep trying.

hayduke2

Please provide documentation of your claims. However, I certainly won't hold my breath.

hayduke2

Mueller himself and his investigation did not make any final call about whether these instances constituted obstruction of justice under the law. Attorney General Barr wrote in his summary of the report that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had "concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Trump was not charged with any crimes. The report itself, however, notably did not exonerate the president, saying that "while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Several sources including Mueller himself.

phydeaux994

The Mueller Investigation Report does a fine job of pointing out Trump Campaign “COLLUSION”. The Trump Tower DonJr, Jerrod and Paul proved that. Where is the Investigation Report that proves your “absolute fact”??? And what does the Clinton Foundation and Hunter Biden and “BillyBeer” Carter and Neal Bush have to do with Trump? Do you also actually believe that Trump doesn’t spend his mornings (when he’s not Tweeting) telling Beavis and Butthead how to run the Trump “EMPIRE” every day? And for Goodness Sake don’t cough while Trump is telling George how “FANTASTIC” his Financial Reports are. And that the Queen told him that his visit is the best time she’s ever had in her WHOLE LIFE!! Quit eating the PURPLE OOZE jsk!

Dwasserba

"...questions have arisen as to what the evidence was that caused the FBI to launch its unprecedented investigation of a presidential campaign and a newly elected president." Uhhh Lester interviewed Trump. We all have ears.

Dwasserba

We can read, thanks, Pat.

gary4books

Many peopel have examined all the facts made public and have come to conclusions. That is good enough, but we must remember that all the facts are not public knowledge. Until that happens, they may be wrong. As for the great hate of Mr. Trump - I can only think that many "hate the sin and not the sinner." As we should. It is difficult to wait for all the facts, because there is great effort to hide them. But those who wait will be closer to the truth.

sevenstones1000

Good god, Pat Buchanan. I thought he’d passed away years ago.

gary4books

Me too.

richardlyons

[beam]

BunnyLou

Spot on Pat. Blind hatred indeed.

Samanthapowers

Pot meet kettle

Comment deleted.
threecents

I don't get this hatred argument that keeps popping up. People accuse "the other side" of hating. Hating does not make you right or wrong. It looks to me like "both sides" can and do hate the other.

olefool

You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. And jsk, your comment shows just how blind you are.

KR999

But it's ok to be so blind with hatred that you can't face reality? Reality is Trump won, Clinton lost. Reality is Trump knows illegal aliens are a major problem for this country in many ways and he's trying to do something about it. Reality is other countries have taken advantage of our generosity for decades and Trump is trying to level the playing fields. Reality is our economy and employment rate is doing far better now under Trump than it ever did under Obama. And your blind hatred for Trump is preventing you from facing these realities.

bnick467

Sorry, but this author lost all credibility just four paragraphs in. No where in Robert Mueller's report did he say there was "no collusion", nor did he say that there was "no underlying crime". Mr. Mueller's report clearly said that the President obstructed justice, but since that wasn't the scope of his investigation he could not prosecute. But his report DID point out those instances of obstruction, giving the Congress and Senate a very clear picture of a President involved in behavior that would be considered "criminal" if not for the fact that the perpetrator were the current President. It is only the fact that the DOJ has given forth the opinion that a sitting President can't be indicted that keeps it from being a "crime".

hayduke2

bnick - [thumbup][thumbup]

jsklinelga

Resisting an investigation that you know will not uncover any wrongdoing is not a high crime and misdemeanor. But President Trump may have actually considered the resistance or "alleged" obstruction absolutely necessary. We know for a fact that the investigation politically ham strung the President and that "obstruction" was always the intent and the trap. Actually President Trump handled the intense government scrutiny and media deluge quite magnificently. How many DC politicians from either side of the aisle could escape charges from the scrutiny of a similar investigation. The real crime is always the cover-up. But in this case, cover-up what?

hayduke2

Trump Defense Syndrome on full display here. If an other president mirrored Trump's actions, I am sure the above post would be very different. This poster consistently shows he lives in an alternative facts world.

Samanthapowers

Facts and truth are their enemies. They scare the pants off the dumpster crowd.

public-redux

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has..." ~ Martin Luther

gary4books

What? Now that is a question I share with the writer. What? And who knew?

phydeaux994

Good Grief jsk, do you honestly believe that “The Donald” has done no WRONG! Mike Pence, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckleberry Sanders, Sean Hannity, Trump State TV Fox Propaganda Channel, Kim Jong Un, and now YOU!!

KR999

What wrong has he done? What laws has he broken? Can you back your answers up with proven facts? Or do you just have innuendo, rumors, and your own desire to believe what you want to believe?

phydeaux994

Good Grief KR999, do you honestly believe that “The Donald” has done no WRONG! Mike Pence, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckleberry Sanders, Sean Hannity, Trump State TV Fox Propaganda Channel, Kim Jong Un, jsk, and now YOU!!.....I can back up my answers with the Mueller Report and watching and reading the news every day. You ought to try that.

KR999

Yet you offer no facts to prove Trump has broken any laws. Just as I thought, baseless claims.

hayduke2

KR - what flavor of Kool-Aid do you prefer? You do believe what you want to believe and your posts reflect it. Would your comments be the same if the evil HRC won and did the same things Trump is doing? Be honest.

KR999

What flavor of Kool-Aid do I prefer, hayduke2? Seriously, you actually use that out dated, childish reference? Just how old are you? Ask me your questions if you ever decide to mature.

Ekascic

Look man - I don't want to get in on all of this insanity - but you don't have to prove yourself innocent - just not guilty. I'm a freaking atheist for chrissakes and I'll say nobody is innocent under god's eye. You have to prove his guilt - he doesn't have to prove his innocence!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.