The only good thing about this comparison is that it potentially can shine a light on what Watergate was all about. After living through it and reading/researching it plenty since it happened, I’m convinced that Colodny and Gettlin got it about exactly right in their 1992 book “Silent Coup: The Removal of a President.”
So what does “worse than Watergate” mean? The real Watergate or the fallacious narrative that John Dean produced with the help of others?
Watergate started and was fueled in the Media. Then you have the weak Republican Party that came in to finish the president off. Nixon should have burned the tapes, and basically fired everyone.
John Dean? John Dean? The Benedict Arnold of the 20th Century. He can rot in h*ll.
Watergate now for the most part is to the general public, a story of a bumbling break in.
the real story was kept under wraps.
So to compare this to Watergate minimizes what the DS CIA/FBI were doing to our election process and what the Obama Administration, and perhaps the Bush administration also colluded with.