Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gaslit


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/2/2022 at 10:31 AM, W. Niederhut said:

I finally started watching the Gaslit series during the past week and, as of last night, I've caught up through the first six episodes.

Thanks to Ron Bulman for recommending this.  It's highly entertaining and well produced.

I had to go back and review what I remembered about Jim Hougan's book, Secret Agenda, to put the Gaslit screenplay in proper historical perspective.

E. Howard Hunt, unfortunately, remains a shadowy, peripheral character throughout the first six episodes.  Baldwin isn't even named.

(Martha Mitchell refers to Dorothy Hunt's plane crash in a mere two lines.)

They depict James McCord as slow-witted, clumsy, and inept-- without attempting to clarify his role in deliberately bungling the Watergate burglaries.

They also run with the standard Mark Felt = Deep Throat narrative.

This Gaslit drama is centered primarily on the Mitchells and the Deans, based on a podcast called Slow Burn.

The RNC sex party host who grabbed John Dean by the cajones in the hot tub was Kenneth Harry Dahlberg, (1917-2011) a WWII fighter ace and Nixon booster who made his fortune with Telex, a hearing aid manufacturer, and venture capitalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_H._Dahlberg

The most compelling characters in the show by far are not Martha and John Mitchell.

They are John and Maureen Dean and G. Gordon Liddy.

I don't know how close to reality the Mo Dean character is, but if not for her bolstering and encouraging ... John Dean would have never gone through with his whole criminal enterprise exposing testimony.

And Watergate would have gone nowhere were in not for John Dean.

Maureen Dean comes across as a courageous, tough, super smart and even decent moral values beauty.

Hard to watch an aging, almost always depressed and slightly drunk Martha Mitchell.

Sean Penn's portrayal as John Mitchell is amazing to me in that I literally forget that is really Sean Penn under all that superb makeup and padding job.

Yes, I don't buy the portrayal of McCord as a bungling screw up.

And did Liddy really kick the cr** out of McCord one time ( as the show depicts ) after he sensed McCord was wavering in his loyalty to his fellow perps?

Shea Whigham's portrayal of G. Gordon Liddy is of Emmy award winning caliber.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We watched the first two episodes then got off track with my wife helping/visiting her mom a couple of weekends and grandkids here the other two.  Watched two more episodes last night, going to watch two more tonight I think.  She thought it was only six total but I saw eight in an article on it. 

The lady playing Mo Dean, Betty Gilpin said she had read Dean's book A Womans View pf Watergate studying the part.

I had to chuckle at Hunt answering questions from the FBI guys.  "I can't remember, I don't know".  Almost laughing at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/2/2022 at 6:08 PM, Ron Bulman said:

We watched the first two episodes then got off track with my wife helping/visiting her mom a couple of weekends and grandkids here the other two.  Watched two more episodes last night, going to watch two more tonight I think.  She thought it was only six total but I saw eight in an article on it. 

The lady playing Mo Dean, Betty Gilpin said she had read Dean's book A Womans View pf Watergate studying the part.

I had to chuckle at Hunt answering questions from the FBI guys.  "I can't remember, I don't know".  Almost laughing at them.

Isn't that an incredible performance by Shea Whigham as G. Gordon Liddy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Forum newsflash... Jim Hougan just published this article at Who What Why...

Watergate’s Known Unknowns - WhoWhatWhy

 

So in other words, the investigation was a sham. We still don’t know what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2022 at 2:53 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Maureen Dean comes across as a courageous, tough, super smart and even decent moral values beauty.

I don't know Maureen Dean. But I do know that one of her closest confidants was Heidi Rikan, who was at the center of the DNC call girl ring. Mo uses Heidi's name in her own memoir, and Phil Stanford nails down the documentation of Heidi as the central Call Girl in his book "White House Call Girl." If information on the ring was what was inside Ida Maxey Welles' desk (and Eugenio Martinez did have the key to the Welles desk), then there were a LOT of reasons, personal ones, for John (and Mo!) to get inside that specific desk. There has always been pretty good speculation that Mo was involved in the ring (pre-John). Green Bay Packer Paul Hornug's ex-wife was involved, as well.  I cannot recommend Phil Stanford's book enough on this topic. But I figured the series would be some sort of heroic portrayal of the Deans. That's the mainstream myth that we keep returning to.

Now, that said, and once again, I'm not at all saying the Call Girl Ring was everyone's motivation for the break-in. I still believe there were several competing motivations - making it impossible to answer the "why" question because the why question depends on which character you're talking about. But the reasons the Deans and Magruder (tied to call girl "Candy Barr" of the same ring)had were not the reasons McCord had or the reasons Hunt had or the motivations for Liddy. The Cubans were fed other reasons to pique their motivations. Asking why they went in the second time is too simplistic without defining who "they" is in the question. therefore, please don'e interpret this as me saying it was all about the Call Girl Ring. For the Deans and Magruder, I think that was the chief motivation, whereas, for the others, I do not.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S.T. Patrick said:

I don't know Maureen Dean. But I do know that one of her closest confidants was Heidi Rikan, who was at the center of the DNC call girl ring. Mo uses Heidi's name in her own memoir, and Phil Stanford nails down the documentation of Heidi as the central Call Girl in his book "White House Call Girl." If information on the ring was what was inside Ida Maxey Welles' desk (and Eugenio Martinez did have the key to the Welles desk), then there were a LOT of reasons, personal ones, for John (and Mo!) to get inside that specific desk. There has always been pretty good speculation that Mo was involved in the ring (pre-John). Green Bay Packer Paul Hornug's ex-wife was involved, as well.  I cannot recommend Phil Stanford's book enough on this topic. But I figured the series would be some sort of heroic portrayal of the Deans. That's the mainstream myth that we keep returning to.

Now, that said, and once again, I'm not at all saying the Call Girl Ring was everyone's motivation for the break-in. I still believe there were several competing motivations - making it impossible to answer the "why" question because the why question depends on which character you're talking about. But the reasons the Deans and Magruder (tied to call girl "Candy Barr" of the same ring)had were not the reasons McCord had or the reasons Hunt had or the motivations for Liddy. The Cubans were fed other reasons to pique their motivations. Asking why they went in the second time is too simplistic without defining who "they" is in the question. therefore, please don'e interpret this as me saying it was all about the Call Girl Ring. For the Deans and Magruder, I think that was the chief motivation, whereas, for the others, I do not.     

I am sure that many women who choose to be "high class" call girls at some point in their lives could be highly intelligent.

Mo Dean was a stewardess? And later did some writing?

I'm a little confused regards your mention of John Dean and even Maureen Dean having "lots" of reasons to be concerned about a break-in to the Demo offices and especially Ida Maxey Welles' desk.

Was their concern about Mo Dean being exposed as part of the call girl ring and maybe John Dean as a customer of it? And they wanted the call girl ring info to be taken and their names protected from public exposure?

Obviously, with the break-in failing, the Plumbers didn't get this info.

And it seems that Maureen Dean's and John Dean's names were never publicly exposed as participants in the call girl ring except for the sources you mentioned?

John Dean was involved in enough dirty tricks shenanigans and was obviously a Nixon sycophant for a long time before Watergate to warrant challenging his later on truth exposing hero image.

Even so, without his testimony which ( more than any other ) opened the flood gates to the true corruption truth of Nixon and his entire staff, America would have been kept ignorant of that truth and continued to be ruled by that out-of-control constitution violating criminal gang.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

I'm a little confused regards your mention of John Dean and even Maureen Dean having "lots" of reasons to be concerned about a break-in to the Demo offices and especially Ida Maxey Welles' desk.

Was their concern about Mo Dean being exposed as part of the call girl ring and maybe John Dean as a customer of it? And they wanted the call girl ring info to be taken and their names protected from public exposure?

Obviously, with the break-in failing, the Plumbers didn't get this info.

And it seems that Maureen Dean's and John Dean's names were never publicly exposed as participants in the call girl ring except for the sources you mentioned?

 

 

All good questions and comments, Joe.

We can't specify their concern as they never stated that, but I believe the motivations of the Deans and Magruder to be in that desk. Was there evidence Mo was once part of it because Heidi, one of her best friends, was the central figure? No evidence, but is it highly unlikely? Guilt by association is far from proof, but it's some level of problematic for Mo. Was it that she wanted to extract the information about one of her best friends? I don't know. I never thought John was a... well... "john." I'm not sure I've ever seven seen speculation about that. My point was that she is tied to Rikan, so I don't believe her advocating to John to steer the cover-up admission away from the break-in and into the cover-up was completely a moral decision. That's what I was saying. I also never said she wasn't intelligent, nice, a good wife, or whatever else. I'm making no judgments on sex workers or friends of sex workers regarding intelligence, education, or occupational skills. While the ring was DNC-centric, I'm sure there were Republicans partaking, as well. That could have all been part of the motivation. Call girls and lobbyists are the only nonpartisans who still exist in the world, I think. (Yes, that's a joke.) As I said, I'm sure the motivations of all involved are multi-teared and multi-faceted.

I still have my suspicions about McCord's failure. No, he was not bumbling. I tend to side with those who believe he sabotaged it purposely, again, for his own motivations or for those of Helms. Shoffler and Russell are suspicious in this branch of the Watergate tree. I also don't believe McCord and Hunt were on the same page. Jefferson Morley (on an episode of my show that will release soon) said he doesn't believe McCord sabotaged it at all. He believes he just failed. I disagree, but I just started Jeff's book, so we'll see. I'm open to it, as I'm open to anything.

I'm not sure anyone was ever exposed as part of the call-girl ring except for the sources I mentioned. No one. Yet, Stanford has some good evidence, including pictures of Heidi's black books (names, numbers, etc). But when they didn't get into the desk, that was it for exposing anything publicly. Obviously, motivations are hard things to quantify unless there are statements. But we do have educated guesses as places to start, for now.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The book on Heidi and Mo, Whitehouse Call Girl is quite revealing, literally.  This show about Martha Mitchell is as well.

Verry interesting in terms of current events.  Is Cassidy Hutchinson the new Martha Mitchell?  As Matt Allison suggests, might Cipollone be the next John Dean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The book on Heidi and Mo, Whitehouse Call Girl is quite revealing, literally.  This show about Martha Mitchell is as well.

Verry interesting in terms of current events.  Is Cassidy Hutchinson the new Martha Mitchell?  As Matt Allison suggests, might Cipollone be the next John Dean? 

Cassidy Hutchinson was a Trump insider who spilled some of the beans about Trump's seditious conspiracy but, unlike John Dean, she wasn't, apparently, complicit in any Presidential crimes.

Cipollone must have been complicit on some level.    According to Hutchinson, Cipollone was frantically trying to stop Trump from going to the Capitol with the armed mob.

That kind of implies that Cipollone was fully aware of Trump's felonious plan to obstruct the Congressional certification of Biden's election, by inciting an attack on the Congress.

One thing I noticed about Hutchinson's firsthand witness testimony is that Trump didn't really delegate much administrative authority to Meadows (or Cipollone.)  His official staff seemed, more or less, sidelined from his loony executive decisions-- with the exception of Ornato's practical SS ops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cassidy Hutchinson was a Trump insider who spilled some of the beans about Trump's seditious conspiracy but, unlike John Dean, she wasn't, apparently, complicit in any Presidential crimes.

Cipollone must have been complicit on some level.    According to Hutchinson, Cipollone was frantically trying to stop Trump from going to the Capitol with the armed mob.

That kind of implies that Cipollone was fully aware of Trump's felonious plan to obstruct the Congressional certification of Biden's election, by inciting an attack on the Congress.

One thing I noticed about Hutchinson's firsthand witness testimony is that Trump didn't really delegate much administrative authority to Meadows (or Cipollone.)  His official staff seemed, more or less, sidelined from his loony executive decisions-- with the exception of Ornato's practical SS ops.

An important point about delegating authority, he's a control freak, trusting no one (including his children now).  But I'm no psychiatrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

An important point about delegating authority, he's a control freak, trusting no one (including his children now).  But I'm no psychiatrist.

My psychiatric opinion is that Trump is too narcissistic to listen to sound advice and delegate authority appropriately.

He's very grandiose about his own flawed judgment and opinions, and his self-esteem is too fragile to tolerate confrontation or contradiction.  That's why he, ultimately, surrounded himself with sycophants who did his bidding and told him only what he wanted to hear.

According to Hutchinson, Trump's own Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, was relegated to resting on the couch in his office, answering frantic texts and declining to bother the Orange Emperor, during the January 6th debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My psychiatric opinion is that Trump is too narcissistic to listen to sound advice and delegate authority appropriately.

He's very grandiose about his own flawed judgment and opinions, and his self-esteem is too fragile to tolerate confrontation or contradiction.  That's why he, ultimately, surrounded himself with sycophants who did his bidding and told him only what he wanted to hear.

According to Hutchinson, Trump's own Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, was relegated to resting on the couch in his office, answering frantic texts and declining to bother the Orange Emperor, during the January 6th debacle.

Sounds right.

A spoiled tyrant.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My psychiatric opinion is that Trump is too narcissistic to listen to sound advice and delegate authority appropriately.

He's very grandiose about his own flawed judgment and opinions, and his self-esteem is too fragile to tolerate confrontation or contradiction.  That's why he, ultimately, surrounded himself with sycophants who did his bidding and told him only what he wanted to hear.

According to Hutchinson, Trump's own Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, was relegated to resting on the couch in his office, answering frantic texts and declining to bother the Orange Emperor, during the January 6th debacle.

It is troubling that the president apparently did not want his Chief of Staff there in the Oval Office during a time of Crisis.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said:

It is troubling that the president apparently did not want his Chief of Staff there in the Oval Office during a time of crisis.

Who needs a Chief of Staff when they've got sage advisors like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman? 🤥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...