John Dean at June 10, 2019 Congressional Testimony/Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call John Dean testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He began his testimony by saying he was not a fact witness. The media interpreted Dean’s opening remarks as an admission that his testimony was a poor substitute for testimony from fact witnesses. Accustomed to Google, some members of the media could not appreciate how instrumental context is to understanding facts. Facts are observations that most of us agree on. But understanding how we select or highlight facts to support or explain an argument requires context. Even the facts on Google are better understood in the context of advertising dollars.
Attorney General Bill Barr, nor anyone else, has questioned the facts uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. We accept, for example, that Donald Trump instructed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller. Barr’s explanation of that fact is that absent any proof of corrupt intent on Trump’s part; Trump was entitled to fire Comey. Those who dispute Barr’s explanation do so because they dispute the context.
Like those who dispute Barr’s explanation, John Dean’s testimony provided an alternative explanation to Barr’s and other Trump apologists. Trump’s attempt to have McGahn create a false document stating that Trump had not asked McGahn to fire Mueller shows corrupt intent. Dean confirmed that the same pattern of events occurred in Watergate. Nixon asked Dean, then the White House Counsel, to create a false report claiming no wrongdoing.
The context in which we select facts is necessary to understanding those facts. And despite the Google generation’s strange belief that explanations spoil, they don’t have a use-by date. What John Dean learned about the corrupt intent of one President is certainly relevant to understanding the corruption of a later President.
Attorney General Bill Barr, nor anyone else, has questioned the facts uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. We accept, for example, that Donald Trump instructed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller. Barr’s explanation of that fact is that absent any proof of corrupt intent on Trump’s part; Trump was entitled to fire Comey. Those who dispute Barr’s explanation do so because they dispute the context.
Like those who dispute Barr’s explanation, John Dean’s testimony provided an alternative explanation to Barr’s and other Trump apologists. Trump’s attempt to have McGahn create a false document stating that Trump had not asked McGahn to fire Mueller shows corrupt intent. Dean confirmed that the same pattern of events occurred in Watergate. Nixon asked Dean, then the White House Counsel, to create a false report claiming no wrongdoing.
The context in which we select facts is necessary to understanding those facts. And despite the Google generation’s strange belief that explanations spoil, they don’t have a use-by date. What John Dean learned about the corrupt intent of one President is certainly relevant to understanding the corruption of a later President.
The Washington Post; Wade , Wagner & DeBonis. After Detour to Watergate, House Democrats Gain Little Traction on Impeachment.
https://wapo.st/2IdQWFa
https://wapo.st/2IdQWFa
