When we look back on the Watergate scandal, we heard them say that the cover-up was worse than the crime and I believe that is true. I do not think he knew about the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, but he did try to be loyal to his friends and he tried to cover it up. He was actually a very good president, however, because of the cover-up he did, his resignation was his only choice.
Over at the New York Post this week, Michael Goodwin has an excellent op-ed. He tells of how the FBI worked overtime in order to censor the story just before the 2020 election. This was plain election interference and the FBI is guilty of suppressing free speech. It is legal for a private company to censor any article or any person they want to. But, when the government, including the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon worked with all the Big Tech companies to censor conservatives, especially if it was about the Hunter Biden laptop. Then it becomes very illegal.
At first blush, the question would seem to have no relevance to the FBI’s use of Twitter and other social media platforms to censor reports on Biden family corruption. After all, the president in the fall of 2020 was Donald Trump.
But that’s exactly the point and a key element that makes the evolving scandal so distinct. It shows the FBI, the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, secretly working to defeat the sitting president of the United States and elect Joe Biden.
Recall that, under former Director James Comey’s band of dirty cops, the agency had done something similar in 2016. Then it spied on the Trump campaign and many top FBI leaders actively worked to flip the election to Hillary Clinton.
The key phrase in that last paragraph is, of course, “if enough people find out.” That’s where Goodwin gets to the second Watergate-era phrase that has since become infamous: “The coverup is worse than the crime.”
That’s because we are on the cusp of the coverup phase of what the FBI, and perhaps the CIA and others, did to influence the outcome of the 2020 election. Predictable denials of “nothing to see here” come despite clear proof agents interfered with the First Amendment rights of the American public, and not just on Twitter.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said agents warned him about “Russian disinformation” before the election. Those warnings came in weekly meetings FBI agents had in San Francisco with the Big Tech firms and some reportedly mentioned Hunter Biden. It remains an open question to what extent free speech was infringed on by government minders across the media landscape.
We’ve been talking about this here from the beginning, and Goodwin is correct. With every fresh batch of Twitter Files that emerges and no matter how high the mountain of evidence grows, the reaction in the MSM has been the same. On the rare instances when these data dumps are mentioned on any cable news network aside from Fox, the “coverage” is a very brief version of “nothing to see here.”
If we’re being honest, this treatment is no longer exclusive to Donald Trump. Pretty much any conservative or Republican candidate would receive the same treatment when facing off with any liberal or socialist Democrat. You probably noticed how quickly the “DeSantis Is The Devil” stories began showing up as soon as polls showed him leading Trump in a hypothetical primary matchup. They did the same thing to Tulsi Gabbard as soon as she no longer met the liberal purity test, though they loved her when she first emerged on the scene.