Now That the Democrats Have Heard Testimony from John Dean, Why Don't the Republicans Call Monica Lewinsky ?

PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS THE ENEMY AND FIGHTS BACK. BizPac Review gave us a few reminders of the presidential bite last Friday, reporting that : "President Trump blasted Comcast, MSNBC and CNN for pushing fake news about his UK visit and Mexico trade stand-off. President Trump torched media monopoly Comcast and left-wing cable news networks MSNBC and CNN for pushing fake news about his UK visit and the trade standoff with Mexico (which he won). Trump tweeted yesterday : 'Watched MSNBC this morning just to see what the opposition was saying about events of the past week. Such lies, almost everything they were saying was the opposite of the truth. Fake News! No wonder their ratings, along with CNN, are WAY DOWN. The hatred Comcast has is amazing!' " What was telling was the President's following tweet : "I know it is not at all 'Presidential' to hit back at the Corrupt Media, or people who work for the Corrupt Media, when they make false statements about me or the Trump Administration. Problem is, if you don’t hit back, people believe the Fake News is true. So we’ll hit back!” AND, when, as BizPac Review put it, "...the media also got egg on their faces when Mexico caved at the last-minute and pledged to stem the tsunami of illegal immigrants stampeding toward the United States," President Trump again bit hard : "@realDonaldTrump If President Obama made the deals that I have made, both at the Border and for the Economy, the Corrupt Media would be hailing them as Incredible, & a National Holiday would be immediately declared. With me, despite our record setting Economy and all that I have done, no credit!" NO CREDIT. That applies not only to President Trump's impressive achievements but to every American who opposes the aganda of the radical Progressive left of the Democrat Party. • • • AND, WHO DO THE DEMCORATS CALL TO TESTIFY? Give us strength, dear Lord. It was John Dean, Watergate's Democrat- colluding wonder boy. Any 2019 John Dean testimony is a mean and dirty trick, far greater than any dirty trick that brought down Richard Nixon. John Dean has NOTHING to say about obstruction of justice except that he helped to manufacture it out of thin air as he lent his treacherous helping hand to the 1973 Democrat witch hunt against another successful Republican President. • Fox News wrote on Saturday : "Last August, Trump had his own harsh words for Dean, who assisted with the Watergate coverup and pleaded guilty to obstruction before becoming a key prosecution witness. John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, testifying during a Senate Watergate hearing in 1973. The President tweeted, 'The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel [sic] Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Counsel, he must be a John Dean type ‘RAT,’....But I allowed him and all others to testify - I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide...' Partisan theatrics and high-profile witnesses, Republicans have charged, have distracted from Congress' legislative work. Jason Chaffetz, a former member of the Judiciary Committee and a Fox News contributor, has accused the committee's chairman, Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., of running a 'clown show.' Democrats, throughout the week, also are likely to lay the groundwork for an appearance from Mueller himself, despite his stated desire to avoid the spotlight.... Republicans have asserted that federal law protecting secretive grand-jury information would prevent Barr from turning over all of those documents, and Mueller himself has said he did not question Barr's "good faith" in his handling of the report's release. McGahn, who was referenced in the Mueller report frequently, also has defied subpoenas to provide documents and testify before the Judiciary Committee. The White House directed McGahn not to comply with requests for documents during his tenure there, saying he's legally immune from being compelled to testify about privileged discussions in the course of his official duties. Democrats have responded that McGahn waived that privilege by agreeing to speak to Mueller. Language in the resolution to be considered Tuesday would make it easier for committee chairmen to take the Trump administration to court....[allowing House committee chairmen to] take legal action to enforce subpoenas in the future without a vote of the full House, so long as they have approval from a five-person, bipartisan group in which Democrats have the majority. This coming Wednesday, the House Intelligence Committee has said it intends to review the counter-intelligence implications of the Russian meddling. Mueller said there was no proof of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia despite multiple efforts by Russians to involve the Trump campaign, but he said he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction....With Trump pledging that 'we're fighting all the subpoenas,' top Democrats have said they wanted to avoid repeated floor votes on contempt resolutions detracting from their legislative agenda. The procession of hearings and votes in the week ahead is designed in part to mollify anxious Democrats who have pushed Pelosi, D-Calif., to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. Pelosi so far has rejected that option, preferring a slower, more methodical approach to investigating the President, including the court fights and hearings. During a meeting with Nadler and other committee heads last week, Pelosi made the case that she would rather see Trump voted out of office and 'in prison' than merely impeached, according to multiple sources....Georgia Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, sent Nadler a letter Friday calling the upcoming hearing a 'mock- impeachment' hearing and warning Democrats to be civil when speaking of the President. Collins said in the letter that outside of impeachment proceedings, 'it is out of order for a member of Congress, in debate, to engage in personalities with the President or express an opinion, even a third party opinion, accusing the President of a crime. The rules are clear on this point.' " • • • DEMOCRAT HOUSE PUSHING PELOSI TOWARD IMPEACHMENT. It's not hard to figure out Nancy Pelosi's endgame. She wants President Trump, impeached, tossed out of the White House, then tried and convicted of crimes, and tossed into prison. BUT, she is being very careful as she traverses the road that she hopes will lead to her endgame. • TheHill reported on June 2 that : "Top House Democrats are treading carefully on the issue of impeaching President Trump, despite growing calls for action from the party's base and its crowded field of 2020 presidential candidates. Amid shouts of 'impeach' during comments at the California Democratic Party convention on Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped short of endorsing impeachment or signaling her intention to pursue it. The California Democrat instead spoke about what Trump could be 'covering up' and accused him of 'welcoming...the assault on our democracy.' She also vowed to continue various House investigations of Trump’s administration and businesses. 'This isn't about politics, it isn't about partisanship, Democrats versus Republicans, no,' Pelosi said. 'It's about patriotism, it's about the sanctity of the Constitution and it's about the future of our nation,' she added. 'We will go where the facts lead us. We will insist on the truth. We will build an ironclad case to act.' " • Poor Nancy -- she just cannot avoid talking in Newspeak. • And, the radical Progressive left of the Democrat Party is not happy. TheHill quoted House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who said that he believes Trump will be impeached “at some point," telling [CNN's Jake] Tapper, “What Nancy Pelosi is trying to do, and the rest of us in the House of Representatives, is to develop a process by which we can efficiently move on this issue so that when we get to a vote, it would be something that she calls ironclad, I call effective. And that is why we are trying to take our time and do this right.” Clyburn also told Tapper, according to TheHill, "that Democratic leadership is less concerned with the Republican-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote is needed to convict and remove a president from office, than with successfully convincing the public of the necessity of impeachment before the process can begin." • CNN and the radicla left Democrats are on the wrong side of public opinion on impeachment -- a recently released CNN poll released Sunday found that 54% of Americans oppose impeaching Trump, compared to 41% who support it. But, TheHill also quoted Republican Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who stressed on Sunday that : "A majority of Americans remain opposed to impeachment, saying the process 'polls right up there with skim milk among the American people.' Kennedy said that if Democrats have made up their minds to impeach Trump, continuing to debate about it was a waste of time. 'My advice to my Democratic friends is if you want to do it, go hard or go home,' Kennedy said on CBS’s 'Face the Nation' 'If you want to do it, go to Amazon online, buy a spine and do it....If you’re not going to do it, then let us get back to work,' he added." • TheHill says calls for impeachment "have grown increasingly common in the crowded Democratic presidential field as well. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) became the first candidate to call for it in April. Both Warren and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have said Mueller’s report and subsequent comments constituted an 'impeachment referral.' After Mueller’s public comments, Senators Cory Booker (D- N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also called for impeachment proceedings. Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), however, urged caution, saying last Thursday night that while he believes Trump has committed impeachable offenses, 'we have to go through the process. One of the problems with our politics today is we want to go out and tweet and immediately react, a race to judgment, and we need to be more strategic than that. I'm not saying we shouldn't follow this evidence where it leads, but I am saying we should bring the American people.' " • There is little question where House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler stands. TheHill said on June 3 that Nadler "...has jostled for weeks with the administration to secure more documents and witness testimony -- including that of special counsel Robert Mueller -- to guide probes into Russian election hacking and allegations that Trump obstructed Mueller’s investigation. But the efforts have come up largely empty in the face of the administration’s near-blanket refusal to honor those requests, leading to confrontations about holding administration officials for contempt, and raising the pressure on Democratic leaders to consider impeachment. The dynamics leave Nadler squeezed between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top leaders, who want to continue the investigations without invoking the Article I powers of impeachment, and a restive caucus that’s moving slowly but steadily toward the belief that they have no other choice. 'Obviously people are frustrated that we haven’t moved faster. And, frankly, I'm frustrated because we have been held up by the unprecedented action by the White House to deny our witnesses,' Nadler said Friday in a radio interview on WNYC. 'And we can only go so far, until we win in court, to get those witnesses.' Democrats’ court battles with the Trump administration, Nadler added, should wrap up 'hopefully in September, October.' ” TheHill added that : "Complicating Nadler’s dilemma, Mueller last week sought to dissuade Democrats from pursuing his appearance before Congress. 'The report is my testimony,' Mueller said, vowing not to discuss anything outside the confines of the document. 'I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter,' he said....The remarks have done nothing to assuage impatient Democrats hungry for the opportunity to have Mueller on the witness stand, where they intend to press him on countless questions still lingering around his report, most notably his decision not to bring obstruction of justice charges against the President....Nadler has been negotiating with Mueller’s team to get the special counsel to come to Capitol Hill voluntarily. Nadler had previous threatened to subpoena the special counsel to secure that testimony, but has not reiterated that message since Mueller spoke at DOJ last week....Nadler said Mueller will testify one way or another. 'We will have Mr. Mueller’s testimony. I think it's very important that he testify before the American people, even if he doesn't say anything beyond what he said there,' Nadler said. 'The attorney general and the President and others are lying all the time about what was in the report and it's very important that he, to the TV audience and to the American people...answer questions about it, even if there is no new information....Most people are not going to read the 448-page report....Before the Memorial Day recess, Nadler had privately made the case to Pelosi that it was time for Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump -- an entreaty that the Speaker firmly rejected. Speaking to WNYC, Nadler argued that impeachment by the House may still be necessary even though millions of voters will be rendering their verdict on Trump in November 2020. 'Well, impeachment is...there might still be a point to it. And that point is to say to future presidents, you cannot do this, to vindicate the Constitution, to say there are certain things that cannot be done. God willing, we have to defeat Trump....His reelection would be a national catastrophe." • • • REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE STAND FIRM WITH THE PRESIDENT. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said in late May that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's job is at risk : "Her job is very much at risk," Graham told Fox News. "Nancy Pelosi is riding a bucking, wild bronco called the Democratic caucus. Seventy percent of the Democratic base wants President Trump impeached. She knows that impeachment would be political suicide because there’s no reason to impeach the President. So she’s trying to keep the party intact. If she goes down the impeachment road, Republicans take back the House, we keep the Senate, President Trump gets reelected." • BizPac Review reported in late May that : "Less than 24 hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first held a meeting with the House Democrat Caucus about potentially impeaching President Donald Trump and then delivered a statement to the media accusing the president of engaging in a 'cover-up,' she folded like a lawn chair. Questioned...about why she hasn’t yet filed papers for impeachment, the House speaker first doubled down on her fact-free conspiracy theory that the president has been up to no good but then stated yet again that she’s just not ready for impeachment : “Let me be really very clear. The President’s behavior, in terms of his obstruction of justice, the things he’s doing, it’s clear. It’s in plain sight. It cannot be denied. Ignoring subpoenas, obstruction of justice. Yes, these could be impeachment offenses....I do think that impeachment is a very divisive place to go in our country, and we can get the facts to the American people through our investigation. It may take us to a place that is unavoidable in terms of impeachment or not. But we’re not at that place.” NOTE to Speaker Pelosi -- if presidential and DOJ refusal to honor congressional subpoenas is obstruction of justice and thus imepaxchable, President Obama and Eric Holder would have been impeached and removed form office long ago. • BizPAC Reivew, in the same article, reminded us that : "Despite what Pelosi’s radical base claims, the majority of Americas do not support impeachment. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll published at the start of the month [May] revealed that a 65% majority of Americans oppose impeaching the President. And according to Slate, 'Since Mueller’s report came out, seven [additional] national pollsters have asked whether Congress should launch impeachment proceedings against Trump. In every sample, a strong plurality -- and in most cases, a majority -- has said no.' These are the facts. The problem for Pelosi is she doesn’t represent the majority of the American people. She only represents a small contingent of liberal Democrats who reside in San Francisco, one of the most radically left-wing cities in the entire country. The congressional Democrat leader is effectively stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, she wants to appease her base by impeaching Trump. But on the other, she wants to appeal to the American people at large (who next year get to determine who’ll control the White House, House and Senate from 2021 through 2025) by working with him to accomplish something meaningful. But instead of taking a side, she’s trying to play both sides. And it doesn’t seem to be working." • • • PELOSI HAS NOT CHANGED HER POSITION ON IMPEACHMENT. Not even to support the radical Progressive left in her own House caucus. • TheHill reported on Tuesday morning that : "Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that House Democrats are 'not even close' to backing an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Pelosi was asked at an event in Washington, DC; if she would support launching impeachment proceedings if over half of her 235 Democratic members did. 'It’s not even close in our caucus,' Pelosi told the moderator, CNN’s Manu Raju. 'Why are we speculating on hypotheticals? What we’re doing is winning in court. We won a victory getting the documents from the Justice Department today for fear of further going to court.' " • TheHill said : "Pelosi faces mounting pressure from rank-and-file Democrats, some committee chairmen and even members of her own leadership team who are pushing for an impeachment inquiry. According to TheHill’s whip list, at least 56 House Democrats now support launching that inquiry -- a figure that’s more than doubled since former special counsel Robert Mueller held a news conference and said his team could not exonerate the President of obstruction. But pro-impeachment Democrats still represent fewer than one quarter of the total number of Pelosi’s caucus. The Speaker, who lived through former President Richard Nixon’s impeachment and served in Congress during former President Bill Clinton’s, has warned that moving to impeach Trump would rip the country apart. And senior Democrats say it could backfire politically as Democrats try to hold the House and take back the Senate and White House. 'There is nothing as divisive in our country, in my view, than impeachment,' Pelosi said on Tuesday. Instead, Pelosi said House Democrats would methodically continue their investigations into the Trump administration and his businesses. Once they have more evidence, Democrats will determine whether to move forward on impeachment. 'It's not off the table,' Pelosi said. 'I don't think you should impeach for political reasons and I don't think you should not impeach for political reasons. It's not about politics. It's not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about patriotism to our country. It's upholding the Constitution of the United States.' ” That last comment seems to be Speaker Pelosi's theme song so far. • And, Pelosi is right about winning one battle -- if that's what it was. Liberty Headlines reported on Monday that the Justice Department is going to "Hand Over Underlying Evidence for Mueller Report." Liberty Headlines republished a report by Sarah D. Wire of the Los Angeles Times : "WASHINGTON --- House Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the Justice Department to view underlying documents behind the redacted report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, partially defusing an impasse between Congress and the Trump administration. The Justice Department will begin providing the Mueller documents to the House Judiciary Committee on Monday and they will be available to all members of the panel, not just senior lawmakers, according to the committee chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). In a statement, Nadler said Justice would 'begin complying with our committee’s subpoena by opening Robert Mueller’s most important files to us, providing us with key evidence that the Special Counsel used to assess whether the President and others obstructed justice or were engaged in other misconduct.' The House is still expected to move forward with a vote Tuesday to authorize committee chairmen to pursue civil contempt through lawsuits aimed at enforcing subpoenas. The resolution names Attorney General William Barr, who has resisted until now providing lawmakers with an unredacted copy of Mueller’s final report or the underlying evidence Mueller used, and former White House Special Counsel Don McGahn, who has defied a subpoena and refused to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Tuesday’s vote, which is expected to pass, means the committee can pursue a lawsuit to enforce its subpoenas without the House having to hold another vote, and Nadler didn’t take that option off the table. 'If the Department proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything that we need, then there will be no need to take further steps. If important information is held back, then we will have no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies.' Republicans said the Justice Department decision shows it is cooperating with congressional oversight. 'Today’s good faith provision from the administration further debunks claims that the White House is stonewalling Congress,' said Representative Doug Collins, (R-Ga.), the top Republican on House Judiciary Committee. The committee has battled Barr for weeks over what underlying information would be released to Congress, and how many lawmakers would be able to see it. On May 8, the Committee voted to recommend that the House hold Barr in contempt of Congress....After a 22-month investigation, Mueller’s 448-page report was released to the public in redacted form in mid-April. The Judiciary committee quickly demanded to see materials that were blacked out because they relied on classified intelligence, grand jury evidence or other protected material. In his report, Mueller concluded that he had insufficient evidence to prove that officials in the Trump presidential campaign cooperated with a Kremlin-backed operation intended to sway the election, although he said they had welcomed the effort. Mueller outlined numerous cases where it appeared Trump sought to derail the investigation after he was elected. But Mueller said he did not consider bringing a charge of obstruction of justice because of Justice Department guidelines that bar charging a sitting President with a crime. In comments at the Justice Department on May 29, the former FBI director [Mueller] made clear that he had not exonerated the President, as Trump often claims. 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,' Mueller said. 'We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.' " • • • DEAR READERS, on April 19, CBS News reported that congressional Democrats declined an offer by Attorney General William Barr "to view a less redacted version of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as only 12 members of Congress would be able to read the report and could not discuss it with other members of Congress." CBS News said AG Barr made the offer to the House speaker, the Senate majority leader, the House and Senate minority leaders, the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. These members of Congress, as well as one staffer for each member, could review a less redacted version of the report in a reading room, but could not take the report out of that room or discuss it with other members of Congress." A letter signed by Speaker Pelosi stated : "Unfortunately, your proposed accommodation -- which among other things would prohibit discussion of the full report, even with other Committee Members -- is not acceptable....While the current proposal is not workable, we are open to discussing a reasonable accommodation with the Department that would protect law enforcement sensitive information while allowing Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties." The letter was signed by Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and the ranking members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Mark Warner. CBS News said Republicans objected to the letter. "Attorney General Barr has given unprecedented accommodations to Chairman Nadler, and it's unconscionable the chairman refuses receipt of information he's claimed for weeks Democrats are 'entitled to.' Who subpoenas a report and publicly refuses to read it in the same day?" a spokesperson for House Judiciary Republicans said in a statement. • The same day, April 19, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller report. And, many Republicans and conservative political analysts said that was all Nadler ever wanted -- to bait AG Barr with an impossible demand and then issue a subpoena. • Then, on May 22, Politico reported that the Justice Department "began offering access to a less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report to dozens of lawmakers on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees -- quadrupling the number of members who can review a more complete version of Mueller's findings on links between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. But it's unclear if Democrats on those panels will take them up on it." But, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said he's urging the Justice Department "to make the less-redacted report available to all members of the House 'to discharge their duties to form their own opinions on issues of oversight and impeachment.' Schiff, Pelosi and the other Democrats have, reported Politico : "...so far boycotted the Justice Department's offer. They've argued that the full report and underlying evidence should be made available to many more lawmakers so they can make informed decisions about efforts to investigate Trump. At least five of the six Republicans granted access have gone to view the report....the committee and Justice Department reached an unrelated agreement to begin obtaining elements of Mueller's underlying evidence. '[T]he agreement covers the production of twelve categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence documents -- it is silent on other matters, including review of the unredacted report.....The Department of Justice has accepted our offer of a first step towards compliance with our subpoena, and this week will begin turning over to the Committee twelve categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials as part of an initial rolling production,' Schiff said in a statement Wednesday morning. That initial production should be completed by the end of next week.'....The Justice Department also says in its filings that it will preserve the redactions in the version shared with Congress for Mueller’s grand jury material, which protected by federal rules. House Democrats have argued that the Justice Department should join them to ask a court for permission to release the grand jury material to Congress, contending that the restrictions could be waived for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees." • And, on Monday, June 10, House Democrats and the DOJ reached an agreement enabling House members to view underlying documents behind the [minimally] redacted Mueller report into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Justice Department will begin providing the Mueller documents to the House Judiciary Committee on Monday and they will be available to all members of the panel, not just senior lawmakers, said committee chairman Nadler. • Now, to end where we began our blog -- on John Dean being called to testify by the House's obsessed Democrats who cannot let go of the 2016 election, I note that in Fox News Opinions former US Attorney Joe DiGenova wrote on Tuesday : "As many have pointed out, Dean is a convicted felon who was disbarred following his criminal role in the Watergate scandal. More important for this farce of a hearing, though, is that Dean has absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the events in question. He’s no more qualified to testify about Russiagate than CNN’s Jim Acosta is to testify about real news. 'Clearly, I’m not here today as a fact witness,' Dean himself admitted. So why would the Democrats call this discredited buffoon away from the CNN studios? Obviously, Nadler called Dean to testify because he wants to use the 45-year-old stench of Watergate to revive a partisan conspiracy theory that President Trump committed criminal offenses, which was already decisively debunked in the Mueller report. Dean didn’t waste any time obliging them. He did what he was there for within moments of beginning his testimony, claiming, 'In many ways, the Mueller report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate roadmap … was to President Richard Nixon.' Of course, outside Dean’s fantasy land, there is no similarity. In Watergate, there were real underlying crimes. Operatives linked to the Nixon Campaign committed numerous felonies as they broke into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. After that, genuine obstruction of justice took place, committed in large part by the Democrats’ own star witness, then-White House Counsel John Dean, who physically destroyed evidence as part of the cover-up. In Russiagate, however, there was no underlying crime. There was only the Democrat fantasy, cooked up by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that the Trump Campaign had 'colluded' with Russians to steal the 2016 election. That was a lie, as the Mueller report conclusively established. There was also no obstruction of justice. Given that the President knew all along that he was innocent, nothing he did could possibly have constituted the 'corrupt intent' necessary for an obstruction charge. Attorney General Bill Barr made that clear and explained his reasoning to Congress and the American public in detail. That absence of criminality -- not any nonsense about the Justice Department’s rules against indicting sitting Presidents -- is why Robert Mueller didn’t recommend charging the President. As I've written before, nothing stopped Mueller from stating plainly, in his confidential report to the attorney general, that he thought there was sufficient evidence of criminal obstruction. To put this all in perspective, Russiagate has already gone on longer than the entire Watergate scandal, from the break-in all the way through to President Nixon’s resignation. We’ve been over the same ground again and again since 2016. The investigation is over, and it found that there was no collusion. It’s the equivalent of discovering, after two years of Watergate investigation, that no one had actually broken into the DNC and no evidence was destroyed in John Dean’s shredder." • MY SUGGESTION is that after John Dean testimony, the Republicans should call MONICA LEWINSKY. She knows far more about real presidential collusion and obstruction, related to real crimes, than John Dean ever will.