Watch: Room Cracks Up When Desperate Dem Witness Blames 'House Rules' for Refusal To Answer Question
In a display of how desperate Democrats are to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, the House Judiciary Committee summoned a known liar to provide testimony Monday regarding special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged lying and obstruction of justice in the Trump campaign.
That witness was notorious former White House counsel John Dean, who infamously played an integral role in Richard Nixon’s attempted cover-up of the Watergate scandal and who pleaded guilty thereafter to lying and obstruction of justice.
Republican committee member Jim Jordan of Ohio exposed how ridiculous it was to have Dean — a paid CNN contributor and staunch Trump critic — as a witness for the impeachment-obsessed Democrats.
When Jordan’s allotted time to question Dean began, the congressman read a selection of Dean’s anti-Trump tweets and ultimately settled on one in which Dean had said Trump was “incapable of accomplishing anything.”
Jordan read, “May 22, 2019, there was this: We are witnessing Trump’s massive cover-up of his criminal behavior. As POTUS he’s incapable of accomplishing anything.”
After Dean admitted to writing the tweet, Jordan focused on the part about Trump being “incapable of accomplishing anything” and used the opportunity to highlight a few of the president’s accomplishments. Jordan mentioned the gross domestic product, historically low unemployment rates, the release of hostages held by North Korea and the moving of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Jordan asked if any of those accomplishments had come to mind when Dean posted the tweet, and reiterated, “So, I’m just wondering, what you were thinking about when you said he’s incapable of accomplishing anything?”
“Mr. Jordan, I think that under the parliamentary rules of the House, I’m refrained from addressing a full answer to your question,” Dean replied with a bit of a smirk.
Laughter erupted from the audience in the hearing room at Dean’s response, perhaps in part out of partisan support for his refusal to answer Jordan’s question, but also perhaps out of surprise at the audacity of the response.
“You weren’t refrained in your tweets and your comments and the things you wrote,” Jordan said.
Dean replied, “My tweets are not subject to the parliamentary …” but he was cut-off by Jordan, who said, “They are subject to state of mind and the perspective you bring to this hearing.”
Jordan shifted gears, however, and caught Dean in a lie about advice he had provided to Lanny Davis, the attorney for disgraced former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
That was prior to Cohen’s controversial testimony in front of a different committee months earlier, using Dean’s remarks on a CNN program as evidence.
The congressman used his remaining time to criticize Democrats for refusing to look into the origins of the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
In all likelihood, Dean’s joke to avoid answering Jordan’s question about his anti-Trump tweets was in reference to the House rules of decorum and etiquette that may have been violated if Dean had replied honestly.
Regardless, the wisecrack came across as a cheap political move to avoid providing an answer that would have confirmed Jordan’s point: Dean is a biased witness who lacks credibility and had no business testifying before Congress about anything, much less about Trump.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
