James Dean Essay, Research Paper
Even With Curie, Jordan, and Lewinsky….None of them were a Dean
There are many parallels that can be drawn between the impeachment of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Both involved the obstruction of justice and lying outright to the American public. But one thing that was omitted from the Clinton trial was a key f
ure who had the evidence that would clearly destroy the credibility of the President. The fact of the matter is that the Prosecutors in the Clinton Impeachment Trial had no John Dean. John Dean, a United States government official, was a White House co
sel to President Richard M. Nixon and a key figure in the Watergate scandal. Dean’s testimony during televised hearings in the US Senate implicated high-ranking White House officials in the 1972 Watergate break-in and wiretaps and asserted that Nixon wa
involved in efforts to cover up the scandal. Dean’s allegations played a key role in Nixon’s eventual resignation from the presidency. The Clinton Trial was based completely on circumstantial evidence and indecisive figures, which eventually led to the
pinions of the nation to rally behind him.
These two critical differences in public opinion due to the differences in the collaboration of evidence are what evidently may have led to the contrary outcome of both investigations. With the investigation into the dealings of President Clinton ther
was simply an abundance of circumstantial evidence. According to the article This Time There Was No John Dean , by James Q. Wilson, President Clinton never has to face a knowledgeable personal accuser…..No one close to Mr. Clinton told the public t
t the President lied or worked to keep the truth a secret. As a result of this, the public never had to deal with a reliable source out right accusing the President, a president that that accuser personally at one point supported, of lying to the nati
and the courts in an attempt to beat the system. The key players of the trial, which included the Presidents close friend Vernon Jordan and his secretary Curie, never gave into admitting downright that the president had in fact lied under oath or had
structed justice. Both players, in their own away, supported the Presidents exclamation of evidence. This in turn caused the public to question republican dealings with the matter.
In contrast, The most sensational testimony before the Ervin committee was that of former Nixon attorney John Dean. From June 25 to June 30, 1973, Dean directly implicated President Nixon in a conspiracy to cover up White House involvement in
the Watergate burglary. In particular, Dean recalled that Nixon had authorized a cover-up on June 21 and 23, 1972. The authorization was verbal, and Dean had no documents to prove his charge. Nixon denied authorizing a cover-up. It was Dean’s word again
the president’s until July 16, when White House staffer Alexander Butterfield revealed to the committee the existence of a secret taping system in the White House.
It was this type o evidence that was lacking in the trial of President Clinton. There was no downright proof that he committed obstruction of justice, simply heresy. the American people were aware of this, and as a result have not allowed the trial t
degrade their view of the president. In the Nixon trials, ironically, with the playing of the tape, Americas views and opinions of Nixon had been lamed. The public, with the Clinton trial, never had sufficient proof of these illegal deals, and thus de
ded that their president, who was taking them through one of the best economical periods of all time, was simply a victim of Republican fury.
Without a key witness like James Dean, that would lead the prosecutors to the most incriminating of evidences, the Republicans were of no luck. It would be impossible for them to convict a President without hard evidence, as there was with the
Nixon investigation. Without this evidence the people of our country still supported this man, who may have in fact beat the system.
Wilson, James Q – This Time There Was No John Dean