Michael Cohen and John Dean

As comparisons between Michael Cohen and John Dean have become unavoidable, it is worth remembering that many Republicans initially rejected Dean's disclosures -- the equivalent of calling him a "rat" -- until the revelations in the Nixon tapes made the conclusion inescapable.

William Safire, who had been Nixon's speechwriter, eventually broke with his president after realizing that Nixon had lied. Before that, however, when he had not yet heard the tapes, Safire published the following poem excoriating John Dean, based on Rudyard Kipling's "Gunga Din." (Note the final two paragraphs.)

 

Gunga Dean

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

JUNE 18, 1973

The New York Times Archives

WASHINGTON.

 

You may talk o’ Hunt and Liddy

When you're feelin’ gay and giddy

And you think you have th’ White House in your sights,

But when your side is achin'

To prove Nixon said “Go break in”

You need an aide who sat there at the heights.

 

Now in D.C.'s sunny clime

Where I, used to spend my time

A‐servin’ of the public, sight unseen,

Of all the crewcut crew

The straightest lace I knew

Was the man in charge of ethics, Gunga Dean.

 

He was “Dean! Dean! Dean!

“You smoothie of a lawyer, keep us clean!

“With your ardor never dampened

“We'll see rectitude’ is rampant

“For no scandal can deflect us, Gunga Dean.”

 

Nixon entered the campaign

And considered it insane

To concern himself with breakin’ any rules,

For a‐watchin’ the committee

And its forty‐million kitty

Was his counselor from all the finest schools.

 

But while leading lambs to slaughter

Came the shockin’ gate o’ water

And all the district fuzz began to fly.

To give him true reports.

Of any White House torts

Nixon wrongly chose an implicated guy.

 

It was “Dean! Dean! Dean!

“I want the deepest probe you've ever seen!

“Don't blow anybody's cover

“But try and soon discover

“If CREEP did anything illegal, Gunga Dean.”

 

For six long months Dean battled

(Nobody caught had tattled)

And kept sendin’ word he had the problem solved.

When the Oval Office queried

Dean would smile, and with eyes blearied,

Say: “No one in the White House was involved.”

 

Then McCord untied his knot

And the story went to pot

And the hunter was the hunted sudden‐ly;

Dean ran out hell‐for‐leather,

Said: “We were in it altogether,

“—And nobody makes a scapegoat out of me.”

 

Then it was “Dean! Dean! Dean!

“For your testimony we are very keen!

“Point the finger, show who's sleazy,

“And we'll see the judge goes easy.

“Here's your chance to cop a plea, Gunga Dean.”

 

“Thanks, but I'll not need ya.

“I've got contacts in the media

“Who'll print my leaks until the price has risen.

“I'll use them for my ends,

“‘According to Dean's friends,’

“For the likes of me does not belong in prison.”

 

He would sing out any tune

To hear Sirica say “immune”

(“No less than forty times I've made the scene!”)

Justice balked, but Senate crumbled,

To Ervin's saving arms he tumbled,

And now they cannot jail you, Gunga Dean.

 

So it's Dean! Dean! Dean!

Smear your leader, save your skin and vent your spleen!

Though the Fifth Amendment aids you,

By the TV that parades you—

You will never drag down Nixon, Gunga Dean.

 

Yes, it's Dean! Dean! Dean!

Star of everybody's television screen.

You will claim that you obeyed,

But the truth is you betrayed

A far better man than you are, Gunga Dean!

Comments

[anon]

The salient, basic and common sense difference between Nixon and Trump, and the role of Dean, that radical leftists can't seem to fathom is this: first, Trump waived the executive and attorney client (to the extent applicable) privileges as to McGhan (the proper analog to Dean, who was instructed to keep quiet) (btw, bizarrely, the left excoriates Trump for these waivers!) and second, the forces of good raided the offices of Cohen and seized everything (why bother with niceties, when it comes to bringing down Trump, anything goes).

In the never ending quest to invalidate the last election, anything, literally anything goes. The mediocrity of the left in particular relish this no holds barred mudfest.

[anon]

It should also be noted that, after Nixon (and briefly, Ford) the country swept in a breath of fresh air and impeccable competence: Jimmy Carter.

After one term, Reagan was elected for two, followed by Bush, for a total of 12 years.

Clinton then won by a plurality, narrowly beating Bush, mainly because of Perot. But, scholars that you all are, you know: Clinton was no leftist. "The era of big Gov't is over ..." "End welfare as we know it ..." "Sister Souljah" the crime bill, the "super predator" argument, on and on and on. The incoherent left doesn't know history, it distorts it and twists it and defies its own principles, again and again, in a bare naked lust for power, not justice.

[Doug Richmond]

You raid offices when you fear the destruction of evidence pursuant to the "nicety" of a search warrant approved by a federal judge after vetting within the DOJ given that it was a lawyer's offices that were being searched. And it is tough to be critical of the government when Cohen pleads guilty to multiple felonies.

[When you dont have the facts or the law...]

Not only a search warrant approved by an independent federal judge, but a no-knock warrant due to a demonstrated potential for immediate evidence destruction. Calling this action, pursuant to the rule of law and subject to checks and balances, a " never ending quest to invalidate the last election" and a "no holds barred mudfest" does a disservice to the men and women who dedicate their lives and careers in public service.

But by all means, keep pounding the table.

[anon]

Funny how leftists accept the argument that the government is always correct, when it is the "other" that is being taken down.

Above, issue is taken with one point: the issuance of search warrants on Cohen's offices and the comment "why bother with niceties?". Ok, that sole focus is significant in and of itself. And, as for emotional appeals, who could do better than this: "[don't you dare to do] a disservice to the men and women who dedicate their lives and careers in public service [law enforcement]." Wow. Let's remember that comment in EVERY context, shall we?

As to the raiding of an attorney's office to obtain evidence of putative crimes by his client (campaign violations? cite the case, please), one would do well to learn the law, and the facts here, instead of pounding the table.

Oh well, never mind. Let's accept the assertions above: search warrants are always "scrutinized" by reluctant judges who spend ample time studying them with deep care for the accused, and the raid on Cohen's office was based on "a demonstrated potential for immediate evidence destruction" ("demonstrated" after a full and fair hearing, of course). Best of all (or worst of all, depending on your view), let's stipulate that coercing guilty pleas to campaign violations in the quest to invalidate the last election (using the hammer of liability on unrelated matters) means it is "tough to be critical of the government" in all respects related to the Cohen matter. (Please, before you say those pleas were "validated" by the court, study the plea agreement itself.)

And, let's ignore the fact that Cohen is represented by Lanny Davis, who CNBC reports "says his client would not accept a pardon from President Trump." That sounds like a real good, true defense lawyer!

Well, all this being stipulated, one supposes most on this site will believe the assertions above make the case for the warrant, and one supposes these commenters will also believe that all of those tricky legal "niceties" were followed in obtaining it, in every respect.

So?

[Doug Richmond]

I don't accept that the government is always correct. Here, however, the government has been proven correct by Cohen's guilty plea, including pleading guilty to one count of bank fraud and three counts of tax evasion.

[anon]

1. As many legal scholars have noted, Cohen's plea doesn't establish that the charges were "proved correct." I would think you would know better than that, and, use a bit of common sense. If you could bargain down potentially decades in prison to a few years ...?

2. The counts that you mention were the lever on the campaign financing charges, IMHO and in the opinion of many others experts in campaign finance law.

3. YOu really need to read the plea agreement, listen to the statement read by the US Attorney for the SDNY after the plea, and compare with the allocution.

4. As to what you may think you know, let's take a simple test. CNN reported, on July 27 "Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting." The left press ran with this story, full speed ahead.

True or false?

According to various sources:

Cohen attorney Lanny Davis said Wednesday night:

“So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand or even after?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Davis.

“No, he does not,” replied Davis. "Well, I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation. We were not the source of the story. And the question of a criminal investigation, the advice we were given, those of us dealing with the media is that we could not do anything other than stay silent.”

So, when you go off on the "certainty" that Cohen's guilty plea "proved correct" the campaign finance charges (which I notice you didn't mention, perhaps wisely), if you believe that Lanny Davis is doing just a great job (and motivated purely to protect Cohen), that there were and are no ulterior motives in any of this to undo the results of the last election by bringing T down, etc., then so be it.

Just remember, saying it don't make it so. I think it is fair to say that reasonable minds might differ on your stance.

And, again, whether you feel that impeachment by any means necessary, or prosecution, is justified, based on what you know or think you know at this point, or not, let's not pretend that everything being done doesn't raise ANY concerns for those interested in process.

Which brings us back full circle to my original point:

"The salient, basic and common sense difference between Nixon and Trump, and the role of Dean, that radical leftists can't seem to fathom is this: first, Trump waived the executive and attorney client (to the extent applicable) privileges as to McGhan (the proper analog to Dean, who was instructed to keep quiet) (btw, bizarrely, the left excoriates Trump for these waivers!) and second, the forces of good raided the offices of Cohen and seized everything."

THe point is that the information is in the hands of the prosecutors, and that comparing to the cover up in Watergate is totally inapt and inappropriate. I get that no leftist would praise the approach that T's original team took, and the openness with which McGhan approached the investigation.
I get that no leftist would ever pause to consider not only the propriety of seizing ALL of Cohen's files, but also the fact that, having seized the lawyers files, all of that information is "on the table" and known. I get that some bogus references to Watergate make leftists feel good, and that they are prepared to believe almost anything, so long as it inculpates the object of their loathing.

And, I relish statements by leftists about the need to devote unquestioning allegiance to the machinery of the espionage and law enforcement systems in this country. These statements, alone, are enough to convince any objective reader of the complete and utter lack of principles these folks are regularly evincing in this whole debacle.

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice]

If Donald John Trump was my client (cash retainer up front), he would have said, "I don't remember having sex with her 10 years ago." "Lots of people want their picture with me." I would have saved him 130K. His base cares more about clean lovely coal than getting spanked with a Forbes magazine.

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice]

What's also troubling is that Trump would retain such an amateur and not see it. Very poor judgment. Most ethical lawyers out of school for a couple of years know not to contact a complaining witness or victim. This is true for everything from car crashes to domestic violence and major felonies. If you are going to talk to anybody, hire a "prover" or investigator. Preferably a moonlighting copper.