Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”
―Richard Nixon
It’s been 50 years since Richard Nixon resigned.
He was the only President to ever do so in our country’s history. Let’s turn back time and be reminded what viewers of the three major broadcast networks watched on the evening of August 8th, 1974:
Since that historical speech, the national opinion (still posited by a great many Democrats and Republicans) is that Nixon was corrupt, a crook, and the mastermind behind the Watergate scandal. And what’s worse? The narrative allowed continual hero worship for the “dogged journalists” who were simply chasing leads and happened to stumble upon evidence that changed the course of history through dedication and allegiance to exposing the truth.
But what if almost all of it was a lie? What if he made some mistakes but was the unfortunate victim of an ousting? What if he was a victim of lawfare?
What if what you’ve been told about WATERGATE has always been a carefully crafted tale - a ridiculously deceptive and successful story that completely ruined one man’s reputation while providing the real crooks a cover?
The work of Geoff Shepard heavily influenced the following information and research that I did. As you’ll learn below, Shephard played an interesting role in the Nixon administration. After Shepard graduated from Harvard Law School (he went to high school down the road from our old home in California!) Shepard was selected as a 1969–1970 White House Fellow, one of fifteen young Americans chosen to spend that year serving in the Executive Branch. He worked at the Treasury Department as a Special Assistant to the Secretary. In September 1970, Shepard was hired by John Ehrlichman (you’ll learn more about him below) as Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs for his Domestic Council staff. That staff, the counterpart to the National Security Council staff under Henry Kissinger, worked with the President on domestic issues of national importance. Shepard's immediate superior was Egil Krogh, who later became notorious as the head of the White House Plumbers. Shepard succeeded Krogh as Associate Director for General Government in 1972 and was re-appointed to that position by President Gerald R. Ford in 1974. He left the White House staff in 1975, having authored hundreds of policy memoranda for Presidents Nixon and Ford and their senior staff.
His books (which can be found HERE and HERE) were instrumental in my understanding of the corruption that eventually brought down a former President and set a precedent for lawfare against a political figure. When I outline the key players in the scandal, I’ll often reference the findings that Shepard uncovered and his take on each person’s involvement. It can be assumed that I agree with his findings and conclusions. I’m very grateful for his work and years of research.
Super simplified….
In essence, he (Geoff Shepard) argues that once the scandal investigations had become highly politicized, through the creation of the Senate Watergate Committee and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, two major injustices followed:
First, the scandal itself was skillfully exploited by President Nixon’s political opponents, who were far more interested in destroying the Republican party in advance of the 1976 presidential election than in punishing actual wrongdoing. They hated Nixon for a variety of reasons: he didn’t fit into their elite East Coast club with no Ivy League education, he wasn’t anti-war, and he was anti-communist (he worked overtime to expose Alger Hiss, who was a communist in the State Department). What needs to be made very clear is that the media at the time (CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, and the WaPo) all worked together to take down a wildly popular president.
Secondly, it was the career prosecutors who had broken the cover-up, but they were quickly removed from the case by Archibald Cox, the newly appointed Special Prosecutor. His office then postponed the pending indictments for ten months while they launched unrelated investigations into every aspect of the Nixon presidency, sent FBI and IRS agents to interview over 120 major Republican contributors, and developed background information on every potential GOP presidential candidate, including President Gerald Ford, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, Vice Presidential nominee Senator Robert Dole, and California Governor Ronald Reagan. Source.
Let’s get into it…
Watergate, often portrayed as a quintessential example of presidential misconduct, has been etched into the American consciousness as a story of justice prevailing over corruption. However, the narrative surrounding Watergate is far more complex and troubling. Rather than merely a tragedy of a president caught in a web of illegal activities, truth-tellers and investigators are beginning to expose that Watergate was a meticulously orchestrated conspiracy aimed at undermining and ultimately ousting Richard Nixon from office. This perspective asserts that powerful elements within the political establishment, intelligence agencies, and media were complicit in a covert campaign to discredit and remove a president who, despite his flaws, posed a threat to their interests. The Watergate scandal, therefore, is seen not just as a moment of accountability but as a calculated power play that forever altered the course of American politics. This can’t be dismissed as a “difference in opinion” or “conspiracy theory,” no. The paper trail and research lead to one conclusion…
Richard Nixon paid the price for things he did not do. He took a punishment that certainly did not fit the crime. This is a story of collusion and corruption and the plan to take down a sitting United States President.
The story of Nixon’s downfall can be seen as a tragic intersection of political miscalculation, media frenzy, and the machinations of influential individuals and institutions.
Let’s head back in the time machine for some context…
What made Richard Nixon different?
I found that studying Richard Nixon’s earlier life and upbringing made it even more clear to me why the Washington elite struggled with him so much. Firstly, he was just “raised” differently than the WASPy boys from Conneticut or Boston.
Middle-Class Roots: Nixon came from a modest background in Yorba Linda, California. His family's financial struggles and his own self-made journey through education and politics contrasted with the more affluent or socially connected backgrounds of many in Washington. He grew up middle class and didn’t have an elite college education.
Quaker Heritage: His Quaker upbringing influenced his demeanor, often giving him a more reserved and somewhat austere public persona, different from the more extroverted or socially liberal elite. Nixon often seemed uneasy or even abrasive.
Additionally, it’s vital to remember (and assume to a degree) that Democrats didn’t love Nixon because he beat them in 1968 and destroyed them (electorally speaking) in 1972. This outsider not only won but crushed the Democrat candidate and was going to enjoy a victory again. He was beloved by the American people. He was successful at implementing his policies. He was effective.
They hated that.
Background: The Political Climate of the 1970s
The 1970s were a turbulent time in American politics that followed an equally dark decade. The Vietnam War had deeply divided the nation, the counterculture movement was challenging traditional values (second-wave feminism,) and the media was becoming increasingly influential in shaping public opinion. Richard Nixon, who had been elected on a platform of law and order and a promise to end the Vietnam War, found himself presiding over a country in turmoil.
A data point that can’t be missed is that Richard Nixon was elected in one of the greatest electoral landslides in American history - he won a whopping 61% of the popular vote in 1972 - and took every state except Massachusetts and D.C. Additionally, he ran on a platform of ending the (wildly unpopular) Vietnam War, and he delivered on the metrics. When he was elected in 1968, there were 537,000 troops in the region, and when he ran again in 1972, the number drastically decreased to 50,000. Significant achievements marked Nixon’s presidency: he opened diplomatic relations with China and the détente with the Soviet Union. He created the EPA. However, his administration was also characterized by an intense distrust of the media and political opponents, which led to creating an "enemies list" and using various means to counter perceived threats.
The 1972 Electoral College Map (Nixon v McGovern):
There are almost no maps in American history that look like this. Nixon was the nation’ favorite and there’s no question.
Before we get into the nitty-gritty, three key points to keep in mind:
1.) Of the six Watergate burglars, all but one were CIA
2.) Its widely accepted now that Nixon knew why they killed JFK
3.) Nixon was resoundingly reelected post-Watergate. He didn’t know about the break-in; he only participated in the coverup.
Ok, moving on….
What the heck WAS Watergate? What happened?
The Watergate scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters, located in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972. I’ve actually toured the room and walked on the balcony. It’s much smaller than you might imagine. The break-in was carried out by five men who were attempting to wiretap phones and steal documents. These men were later found to be connected to President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign.
Who broke in?
James W. McCord (Jan 26, 1924 – Jun 15, 2017 – age 93) – a security coordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President. McCord was also a former FBI and CIA agent. He was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in.
Virgilio R. Gonzales (b May 18, 1926 -) a locksmith from Miami, Florida. Gonzalez was a refugee from Cuba following Castro’s takeover.
Frank A. Sturgis (Dec 9, 1924 – Dec 4, 1993—age 68) was another associate of Barker from Miami. He also had CIA connections and was involved in anti-Castro activities.
Eugenio R. Martinez (Jul 8, 1922 – Jan 30, 2021 – age 98) – worked for Barker’s Miami real estate firm. He had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro-Cuban exile. Click here to read Martinez’s account of the burglary.
Bernard L. Barker (Mar 17, 1917 – Jun 5, 2009 – age 92) – a realtor from Miami, Florida. Former Central Intelligence Agency operative. Barker was said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962.
The break-in was part of a larger campaign of political espionage and sabotage orchestrated by members of Nixon's campaign team. Initially, the incident was treated as a minor burglary, but as investigations progressed, it became clear that high-level officials in the Nixon administration were involved in efforts to cover up the break-in and obstruct justice. In the end, two dozen staffers were imprisoned.
What began as an illegal break-in/cover-up (which is absolutely wrong) turned into a witch hunt that eventually led to the takedown of a former President who did not actually know about the initial plan to infiltrate the Democrat’s headquarters.
CAST OF CHARACTERS (BOTH INNOCENT AND GUILTY)
Richard Nixon - The President
Role: Richard Nixon was the 37th President of the United States and was made the central figure in the Watergate scandal. While it is acknowledged that Nixon participated in the cover-up of the break-in, conclusive evidence now shows us he was targeted by a broader conspiracy aimed at removing him from power due to his foreign policy initiatives and domestic actions that threatened entrenched interests.
Knowledge of the Cover-Up: According to Shepard, Nixon did have knowledge of the cover-up of the Watergate break-in. However, Shepard argues that this knowledge and Nixon's subsequent actions were more about political damage control rather than a criminal conspiracy. Shepard contends that Nixon did not orchestrate the break-in itself but became involved in trying to manage the fallout once it was discovered.
Use of Presidential Powers: Shepard acknowledges that Nixon used his presidential powers to obstruct the investigation, but he frames this as Nixon trying to protect his presidency from what he perceived as unfair attacks, rather than a direct attempt to thwart justice. Shepard argues that Nixon's actions, while questionable, did not amount to criminal behavior as his opponents claimed.
H.R. Haldeman - White House Chief of Staff
Role: H.R. Haldeman was Nixon's Chief of Staff and one of his closest advisors. He was deeply involved in the day-to-day operations of the White House and was implicated in the Watergate cover-up.
Involvement: Haldeman is often cited as the "architect" of the cover-up, coordinating with Nixon and other officials to obstruct justice.
Key Sources:
Haldeman’s testimony: United States v. Nixon
Biography: H.R. Haldeman: The Ends of Power
Geoff Shepard, who has written extensively on Watergate and defended the actions of Richard Nixon and his administration, also provides a nuanced view of H.R. Haldeman's involvement in the scandal. Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff, was a central figure in the Watergate affair, and Shepard's interpretation of his role reflects a similar argument to that made for Nixon—that Haldeman was involved to some extent but was also wrongly accused in certain ways.
Haldeman’s Direct Involvement:
Role in the Cover-Up: Shepard acknowledges that Haldeman was involved in the Watergate cover-up. As Nixon's Chief of Staff, Haldeman was responsible for managing many of the White House's internal operations, including the handling of the fallout from the break-in. Shepard suggests that Haldeman was part of the discussions about how to contain the political damage from the scandal, which included the possibility of obstructing the investigation.
Use of Executive Power: Haldeman, according to Shepard, was instrumental in advising Nixon on the use of executive powers to manage the situation. This included discussions about influencing the FBI's investigation, which was part of the broader strategy to limit the exposure of the administration's involvement. Shepard contends that these actions were politically motivated and not necessarily criminal in intent, although they were later judged as such.
Haldeman’s Wrongful Accusations:
Mischaracterization of His Role: Shepard argues that Haldeman was wrongly accused in part because his role was mischaracterized by prosecutors and the media. Shepard believes that Haldeman was depicted as a key architect of the Watergate break-in and cover-up, whereas in reality, he was more of a facilitator who was carrying out orders and managing the crisis, rather than the mastermind behind it.
Bias in Prosecution: Shepard asserts that the prosecution against Haldeman was biased and driven by a desire to bring down high-ranking officials in the Nixon administration. Shepard believes that Haldeman, like Nixon, was a victim of prosecutorial overreach, with legal authorities pushing the limits to secure convictions against him, despite a lack of direct evidence linking him to the planning of the break-in itself.
Overemphasis on the “Smoking Gun”: Much like with Nixon, Shepard argues that the infamous “smoking gun” tape unfairly implicated Haldeman. In the tape, Haldeman is heard discussing the use of the CIA to block the FBI's investigation. Shepard contends that this conversation has been interpreted in the worst possible light and that Haldeman’s involvement in this discussion was more about protecting the presidency than obstructing justice.
In summary, Geoff Shepard's defense of H.R. Haldeman aligns with his broader view that the Watergate scandal was, in part, a politically motivated effort to dismantle Nixon’s presidency. He portrays Haldeman as someone who was directly involved in managing the administration's response to Watergate but was unfairly targeted and accused of being more culpable than the evidence warranted.
H.R. Haldeman, who served as White House Chief of Staff under President Richard Nixon, was unfairly treated and wrongfully convicted in the aftermath of the scandal. Shepard contends that Haldeman, like others in Nixon’s administration, was a victim of prosecutorial overreach and judicial bias, and that the evidence used to convict him was misinterpreted or taken out of context.
Haldeman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury for his role in the Watergate cover-up. However, Shepard argues that Haldeman's actions, as portrayed by the prosecution, were not criminal but rather consistent with his duties as Chief of Staff, which involved managing the President's schedule and communications. Shepard suggests that Haldeman was doing his job in protecting the interests of the presidency and that the prosecution exaggerated his involvement in the cover-up to secure a conviction.
One of Shepard's key points is that the Watergate prosecutors, in conjunction with Judge John Sirica, created an environment where fair trials were impossible. Shepard claims that ex parte communications between the judge and the prosecutors, as well as the immense pressure on witnesses to cooperate, led to a situation where Haldeman and others were convicted based on the need to find someone accountable rather than on solid legal grounds.
Shepard has pointed to newly uncovered documents from the National Archives that suggest the evidence against Haldeman was not as clear-cut as it was presented in court. For example, Shepard argues that the famous "smoking gun" tape, which was used to implicate Haldeman and Nixon in the cover-up, was misinterpreted and that the conversation it recorded did not prove any illegal activity.
In essence, Shepard believes that Haldeman was convicted not because of actual criminal behavior, but because of his position within the Nixon administration and the political climate that demanded high-profile convictions. Shepard's work calls for a reconsideration of the fairness of the trials and suggests that Haldeman, like others, was unfairly vilified and wrongfully punished for actions that were not criminal.
Dwight Chapin - Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States
“I did nothing wrong!”
Geoff Shepard, who has conducted extensive research on the Watergate scandal and its legal proceedings, has argued that Dwight Chapin was unfairly targeted and wrongfully convicted in the aftermath of Watergate. Shepard contends that the legal process against Chapin was influenced by the political climate and the intense desire to hold members of the Nixon administration accountable, regardless of their actual culpability.
According to Shepard, the prosecution of Chapin, particularly his conviction for perjury, was based on weak and circumstantial evidence. Shepard argues that Chapin's role in the Nixon administration, specifically his involvement in hiring Donald Segretti, was not illegal or unethical in the context of the campaign practices of the time. Shepard suggests that Chapin was merely doing his job as an aide to the President and was not involved in any of the illegal activities that directly related to the Watergate break-in or the subsequent cover-up.
Shepard also points out that the intense pressure on witnesses and defendants to cooperate with the prosecution and the biased environment fostered by the judges and prosecutors led to a situation where individuals like Chapin were convicted despite the lack of solid evidence against them. Shepard highlighted previously undisclosed documents and transcripts from the National Archives that suggest the legal proceedings were marred by prosecutorial overreach and judicial bias, contributing to Chapin's conviction.
In essence, Shepard argues that Chapin was a scapegoat in the broader Watergate investigation, convicted more for his proximity to power and his association with Nixon's inner circle than for any actual wrongdoing. Shepard's work calls for reevaluating the fairness of the legal processes during the Watergate scandal and suggests that Chapin, among others, may have been unjustly treated.
John Ehrlichman - Domestic Policy Advisor
Role: John Ehrlichman was Nixon's Domestic Policy Advisor and a key figure in the Watergate scandal. Like Haldeman, he was deeply involved in managing the White House response to the break-in.
Involvement: Ehrlichman was responsible for directing the "plumbers" unit, which conducted the break-in at the Watergate complex, and later worked to cover up their activities.
Key Sources:
Like his views on Nixon and Haldeman, Shepard presents a perspective that suggests Ehrlichman's involvement in the scandal was less criminal and more about political damage control, while also arguing that he was wrongly accused in some respects.
Ehrlichman’s Direct Involvement:
Participation in the Cover-Up: Shepard acknowledges that Ehrlichman was involved in the Watergate cover-up. As one of Nixon's top aides, Ehrlichman played a significant role in trying to manage the situation after the break-in was discovered. He was involved in discussions about how to prevent the scandal from reaching the highest levels of the administration, which included considering ways to obstruct the investigation.
Handling the Plumbers Unit: Ehrlichman had oversight of the White House Special Investigations Unit, also known as the "Plumbers," which was initially created to stop or respond to leaks of classified information. The Plumbers were involved in illegal activities, including the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. Shepard notes that while Ehrlichman was involved in managing this unit, his primary focus was on national security and damage control rather than orchestrating criminal acts.
Ehrlichman’s Wrongful Accusations:
Overemphasis on His Role in Criminal Activities: Shepard argues that Ehrlichman was wrongly accused of being a central figure in the criminal conspiracy related to Watergate. According to Shepard, Ehrlichman’s actions were driven by a desire to protect the administration from political harm rather than engage in criminal conduct. Shepard contends that Ehrlichman was portrayed as more deeply involved in illegal activities than the evidence actually supported.
Misinterpretation of the “Cover-Up”: Shepard believes that Ehrlichman's involvement in the cover-up was more about containing the political damage and less about obstructing justice in a legal sense. Shepard suggests that Ehrlichman's attempts to manage the situation were wrongly interpreted as direct criminal behavior, whereas they were actually politically motivated efforts to safeguard the Nixon presidency.
Prosecutorial Overreach and Judicial Bias: Similar to his arguments regarding Nixon and Haldeman, Shepard contends that Ehrlichman was a victim of prosecutorial overreach and judicial bias. He believes that the prosecutors were determined to convict high-ranking officials in the Nixon administration and that they exaggerated Ehrlichman's role in order to secure a conviction. Shepard also argues that the legal process was skewed against Ehrlichman, leading to an unjust outcome.
Unfair Targeting Due to Position: Shepard asserts that Ehrlichman was targeted because of his close proximity to Nixon and his influential position within the administration. Shepard argues that Ehrlichman was made a scapegoat for actions that were, at worst, politically motivated and not inherently criminal, and that the focus on his involvement was part of a broader effort to bring down the Nixon administration.
In summary, Geoff Shepard’s view of John Ehrlichman’s involvement in Watergate is that while Ehrlichman was involved in the administration’s attempts to manage the scandal and prevent political fallout, his actions were not as criminal as they were portrayed. Shepard argues that Ehrlichman was wrongly accused due to prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, as well as a mischaracterization of his role in the events surrounding Watergate.
John Dean - White House Counsel
Role: John Dean was the White House Counsel who played a pivotal role in the Watergate scandal. Initially involved in the cover-up, Dean later turned state's evidence and testified against Nixon and other top officials. Essentially, he’s a turncoat. He has been called the “Desk officer of the Watergate coverup.”
Involvement: Dean’s role in orchestrating the payments to the burglars and managing the cover-up was significant. His decision to cooperate with prosecutors was a turning point in the investigation, leading to the unraveling of the conspiracy.
Key Sources:
Dean’s testimony: Watergate Hearings
Biography: Blind Ambition
Dean's actions were motivated by self-preservation and a desire to shift blame away from himself, which ultimately led to Nixon's downfall.
According to Shepard's interpretation of the evidence, Dean was more deeply involved in the planning and cover-up of the Watergate break-in than he initially admitted. When the scandal began to unravel, Dean sought to protect himself by becoming a cooperating witness for the prosecution. Shepard argues that Dean provided testimony that was crucial in implicating Nixon and other senior White House officials, but that this testimony was self-serving and not entirely truthful.
Shepard contends that Dean’s betrayal was twofold:
Selective Disclosure and Misleading Testimony: Shepard argues that Dean selectively disclosed information to prosecutors and the Senate Watergate Committee in a way that minimized his own involvement while maximizing the perceived culpability of Nixon and his top aides. Dean’s testimony, which was widely publicized, painted a damning picture of Nixon’s involvement in the cover-up, but Shepard suggests that Dean exaggerated or distorted key aspects of his account to save himself from prosecution.
Collusion with Prosecutors: Shepard claims that Dean actively colluded with Watergate prosecutors, who were eager to secure convictions at the highest levels of government. Shepard points to documents from the National Archives that suggest Dean had extensive, undisclosed communications with the prosecution team, and that these communications may have influenced the direction of the investigation and the legal strategy used against Nixon and his aides.
Shepard's research suggests that Dean's cooperation with the prosecutors was instrumental in building the case against Nixon, but that this cooperation was driven by Dean’s own legal jeopardy rather than a desire to expose the truth. By turning on Nixon and cooperating with the investigation, Dean was able to secure a relatively lenient sentence for himself, while Nixon faced impeachment and eventual resignation.
In summary, according to Geoff Shepard, John Dean betrayed Richard Nixon by providing misleading testimony and colluding with prosecutors in a way that unfairly shifted the blame onto Nixon and other senior officials while downplaying his own role in the Watergate scandal. Shepard's findings, based on newly uncovered documents, challenge the conventional narrative of Dean as a whistleblower and instead portray him as a key figure in the legal and political maneuvering that led to Nixon’s downfall.
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy - "Plumbers" Operatives
Role: Hunt and Liddy were former CIA and FBI operatives, respectively, who were part of the White House "plumbers" unit. Their roles were to stop or prevent leaks of classified information, like the Pentagon Papers.
Involvement: Hunt and Liddy planned and executed the break-in at the Watergate complex. Their connections to the intelligence community have fueled suspicions of a broader conspiracy to manipulate the political process.
Key Sources:
Court cases: United States v. Liddy
Hunt’s involvement: American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate, and Beyond
Mark Felt ("Deep Throat") - Associate Director of the FBI
Role: Mark Felt was the Associate Director of the FBI who acted as the anonymous informant known as "Deep Throat" to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Involvement: Felt provided crucial information that linked the Watergate break-in to the Nixon administration, helping to sustain the media’s investigation into the scandal. Some argue that Felt’s motives were not purely patriotic, but rather influenced by internal power struggles within the FBI.
Key Sources:
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein - Washington Post Reporters
Role: Woodward and Bernstein were investigative journalists at The Washington Post who were instrumental in uncovering the details of the Watergate scandal.
Involvement: Through their reporting, which relied heavily on information provided by "Deep Throat," Woodward and Bernstein kept the Watergate story in the public eye, contributing to the growing pressure on Nixon to resign. Critics argue that their reporting was biased and driven by a desire to bring down Nixon.
Key Sources:
Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting: All the President’s Men
Judge John Sirica (Corrupt)
Judge John Sirica played a pivotal role in the Watergate scandal as the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where he presided over the trials of the Watergate burglars and several other key figures involved in the scandal.
Presiding Judge: Sirica was the U.S. District Court Judge in Washington, D.C., who presided over the trial of the Watergate burglars. His approach during these trials was crucial in bringing out the broader conspiracy.
Provisional Sentencing: Sirica employed a method known as "provisional sentencing," where he gave convicted defendants time to reflect on their sentences, hinting that cooperation might lead to leniency. This tactic led to James W. McCord, Jr., one of the Watergate burglars, revealing that higher-ups in the Nixon administration were involved, thus implicating officials beyond those initially charged.
Subpoena of Nixon Tapes: Perhaps his most famous act was ordering President Nixon to surrender his recordings of White House conversations to federal prosecutors. This decision was challenged but ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to the exposure of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up when the tapes were released.
Testimony and Evidence: Sirica's persistent questioning and handling of the trials helped uncover the extent of the Watergate cover-up. His insistence on the release of documents and testimonies played a significant role in the unfolding scandal.
Allegations of Corruption:
Criticisms: Critics argued that Sirica sometimes overstepped judicial bounds. For instance, his meetings with prosecutors before trials were seen by many (especially as time goes on and more evidence is uncovered) as compromising his impartiality.
Renata Adler's Allegations: In her book "Gone: The Last Days of The New Yorker," Renata Adler alleged that Sirica was "corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest," with connections to organized crime and Senator Joseph McCarthy. These claims, however, have been largely discredited or not substantiated by other sources.
Nixon Tapes Evidence: Nixon's own tapes, which were central to his downfall, included discussions about possibly approaching Sirica to influence the case. However, these conversations showed Nixon and his aides considering and then rejecting such a move, suggesting they believed Sirica to be an "honest" and "tough" judge, as per Charles Colson's comments on the tapes.
Public Perception and Historical View: Sirica was known as "Maximum John" for his tendency to give maximum sentences.
Leon Jaworski
Leon Jaworski (Guilty as sin)
American attorney and law professor who served as the second special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
Leon Jaworski, who was the Special Prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, engaged in actions that could be considered corrupt or unethical in the context of the legal proceedings against President Richard Nixon and his associates. Shepard, who has extensively researched the Watergate scandal and analyzed documents from the National Archives, argues that Jaworski's conduct contributed to an unfair and politically motivated prosecution.
Here are some key points Shepard makes about Jaworski's alleged corruption:
Ex Parte Communications: Shepard claims that Jaworski, like his predecessor Archibald Cox, engaged in ex parte communications with Judge John Sirica, the judge overseeing the Watergate cases. These undisclosed meetings and communications between the prosecutor and the judge are seen by Shepard as highly inappropriate and indicative of collusion to ensure convictions. Shepard argues that this compromised the fairness of the trials and contributed to a prejudiced legal process.
Selective Prosecution: Shepard asserts that Jaworski selectively prosecuted members of the Nixon administration, focusing on those who were politically expedient to target, while ignoring or downplaying the roles of others who were equally or more culpable. This selective prosecution, according to Shepard, was driven by a desire to bring down the Nixon administration rather than to pursue impartial justice.
Pressure on Witnesses: Shepard argues that Jaworski, along with his team of prosecutors, applied undue pressure on witnesses to cooperate with the prosecution. This included offering plea deals in exchange for testimony that would incriminate higher-level officials, including Nixon himself. Shepard contends that this led to coerced and potentially unreliable testimony, which was instrumental in securing convictions.
Misuse of Grand Jury Information: Shepard also highlights that Jaworski allegedly misused grand jury information, leaking it to the press and using it to influence public opinion and the proceedings against Nixon and his aides. This misuse of confidential information, according to Shepard, was part of a broader strategy to undermine Nixon’s presidency.
Political Bias: Overall, Shepard argues that Jaworski was not an impartial prosecutor but was influenced by political motivations and a desire to see Nixon removed from office. Shepard's analysis suggests that Jaworski's actions went beyond the proper bounds of legal prosecution and were aimed at achieving a specific political outcome.
In summary, according to Geoff Shepard, Leon Jaworski's conduct during the Watergate scandal was marked by unethical practices, including collusion with the judge, selective prosecution, and undue pressure on witnesses. Shepard's research challenges the traditional view of Jaworski as a neutral enforcer of the law, instead portraying him as a key player in a politically driven effort to bring down President Nixon.
Archibald Cox - Special Prosecutor
Role: Archibald Cox was appointed as the Special Prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal. His insistence on obtaining the Nixon tapes led to a major constitutional crisis.
Involvement: Nixon’s firing of Cox during the "Saturday Night Massacre" was a turning point in the scandal, leading to a public outcry and increased scrutiny of the Nixon administration.
Key Sources:
Cox’s role: Cox’s Testimony
Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus - Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
Role: Richardson and Ruckelshaus were the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, respectively, who resigned rather than follow Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox during the "Saturday Night Massacre."
Involvement: Their resignations demonstrated the growing rift between the Nixon administration and the Department of Justice, contributing to the perception of Nixon as being increasingly isolated and dictatorial.
Key Sources:
Chuck Colson
Political Career: Colson worked as a lawyer and became involved in Republican politics. He served as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973, earning the nickname "Nixon's hatchet man" due to his aggressive and effective political tactics.
Watergate Involvement:
Role in the Scandal: Colson was implicated in several aspects of the Watergate scandal:
He was part of the Nixon administration's "enemies list" strategy, targeting opponents.
He was involved in the "dirty tricks" operations against political adversaries, including the Daniel Ellsberg case, where he was accused of attempting to defame Ellsberg after the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
Legal Consequences:
In 1974, Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Ellsberg case, not directly for Watergate itself but for actions in the broader context of Nixon's political operations.
He was sentenced to 1-3 years in prison, serving seven months at the federal Maxwell Prison in Alabama.
Redemption and Service:
Conversion to Christianity: Before his imprisonment, in August 1973, Colson experienced a profound religious conversion, influenced by reading C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" and discussions with Christian friends. This conversion was met with skepticism by some but proved to be a turning point in his life.
Prison Fellowship:
After his release, Colson founded Prison Fellowship in 1976, which became the world's largest outreach to prisoners, their families, and crime victims, focusing on rehabilitation through faith.
This ministry was about bringing the Christian message of redemption to prisoners, advocating for prison reform, and providing support for ex-convicts.
Public Life and Advocacy:
Colson authored numerous books, including "Born Again," which detailed his conversion and time in prison. His writings often dealt with themes of faith, justice, and cultural commentary.
He was involved in radio commentary with "BreakPoint," discussing cultural issues from a Christian worldview.
His efforts extended to founding the Colson Center for Christian Worldview to educate Christians on engaging with contemporary issues.
Recognition and Legacy:
Colson received the Templeton Prize in 1993 for his contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.
In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal for his work in prison reform.
Death and Impact: Chuck Colson passed away on April 21, 2012, after suffering complications from a brain hemorrhage. His life after Watergate is often cited as a model of redemption and service, demonstrating a significant shift from political machinations to humanitarian and spiritual advocacy.
Colson's story from one of the Watergate conspirators to a leading evangelical figure and prison reform advocate illustrates a dramatic personal transformation. His work continues through Prison Fellowship and other initiatives, impacting thousands of lives globally.
Please watch this:
Geoff Shepard
Role: Geoff Shepard was a young lawyer who played a significant role during the Watergate scandal as part of President Richard Nixon's defense team. Serving in the White House from 1969 to 1974, Shepard was closely involved in the legal strategies and defense efforts during the unfolding of the Watergate investigations. He worked under John Ehrlichman, who was Nixon's chief domestic advisor and was deeply involved in reviewing evidence, preparing legal arguments, and helping manage the White House response to the scandal.
In recent years, Shepard has become a key figure in challenging the conventional narratives surrounding Watergate. He has argued that there was judicial misconduct and political bias against Nixon and his aides during the trials. Shepard has authored several books on the subject, including "The Real Watergate Scandal," where he presents his case that the judicial process was corrupted by the prosecutors and judges involved. His work is based on a thorough analysis of previously undisclosed documents and tapes that he obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Sources: Geoff Shepard's work includes the National Archives, where he accessed many of the Watergate tapes and documents, as well as his own personal records from his time in the Nixon administration. Shepard's arguments have sparked debate and have offered a controversial, revisionist perspective on the Watergate scandal.
The Watergate Scandal: A Timeline of Events
*This is a rather simplistic timeline, but I hope it’s helpful as you order your mind around the events.
June 17, 1972: The Watergate break-in occurs. Five men are arrested inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. They were caught attempting to wiretap phones and steal documents.
June 19, 1972: Connections between the burglars and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) are discovered, raising suspicions that the Nixon administration might be involved.
September 15, 1972: The Watergate burglars and two co-conspirators, including E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy are indicted. The Nixon administration initially dismissed the incident as a "third-rate burglary."
January 8, 1973: The Watergate burglars are convicted. The trial begins to reveal links between the break-in and the Nixon administration, leading to increased media scrutiny and investigations.
February 7, 1973: The Senate establishes a committee to investigate the Watergate scandal, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin (reference Ervin Committee below.)
April 30, 1973: Key Nixon aides, including H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, resign. Nixon delivers a televised address, claiming no prior knowledge of the break-in and pledging full cooperation with the investigation.
July 16, 1973: Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield reveals the existence of a secret taping system in the Oval Office. This disclosure led to demands for the tapes, which could potentially reveal Nixon’s involvement in the cover-up.
October 20, 1973: The "Saturday Night Massacre" occurs. Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had subpoenaed the Oval Office tapes. Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resign in protest. Solicitor General Robert Bork complies with Nixon’s order and fires Cox.
July 24, 1974: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon that the president must release the tapes.
August 5, 1974: The "smoking gun" tape is released, revealing Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up. The tape shows that Nixon ordered the FBI to halt its investigation of the break-in, providing irrefutable evidence of his complicity.
August 8, 1974: Facing certain impeachment, Nixon announces his resignation, effective the following day.
August 9, 1974: Nixon resigns from office, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President of the United States.
What exactly was the Ervin Committee?
The Ervin Committee, formally known as the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, played a significant role in the investigation of the Watergate scandal. Chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, the committee was established by the U.S. Senate in 1973 to investigate the events surrounding the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration. It was televised and spellbound citizens nationwide.
Shepard has criticized the Ervin Committee for what he views as its politically motivated approach and lack of impartiality. He argues that the committee's proceedings were highly publicized and often more focused on creating a narrative that would damage President Richard Nixon than on uncovering the full truth in an unbiased manner. Shepard contends that the committee was more interested in securing headlines and influencing public opinion against Nixon than in conducting a fair and thorough investigation.
Key points Shepard makes about the Ervin Committee include:
Political Bias: Shepard believes the committee was inherently biased against Nixon from the outset. He argues that the committee's leadership, particularly Senator Ervin, was determined to bring down Nixon and used the hearings as a platform to achieve this goal. Shepard suggests that the committee’s questioning and presentation of evidence were designed to portray Nixon and his administration in the worst possible light.
Selective Presentation of Evidence: According to Shepard, the Ervin Committee selectively presented evidence to support its conclusions, often ignoring or downplaying information that might have been exculpatory or that could have provided a different perspective on the events. This selective use of evidence, he argues, contributed to a skewed public perception of the Watergate scandal.
Media Spectacle: Shepard also criticizes the committee for turning the hearings into a media spectacle. The televised hearings were watched by millions of Americans, and Shepard argues that the committee members were more concerned with making a political impact than with conducting a rigorous investigation. He believes this focus on public relations undermined the integrity of the committee’s work.
Impact on Legal Proceedings: Shepard suggests that the Ervin Committee’s work had a direct and negative impact on the legal proceedings related to Watergate. By publicizing certain aspects of the case and by fostering a narrative of guilt before the trials had even occurred, the committee, according to Shepard, contributed to an environment where fair trials were difficult, if not impossible.
In summary, according to Geoff Shepard, the Ervin Committee was a politically motivated body that played a central role in shaping public opinion against President Nixon during the Watergate scandal. Shepard views the committee’s work as biased and selective, arguing that it prioritized political goals over a fair and balanced investigation.
Where the narrative went wrong….and the truth came out….
The Role of the CIA and FBI
The involvement of the CIA and FBI in the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s eventual resignation is a subject of intense debate and speculation. The role of these agencies can be seen as part of a broader struggle for power within the U.S. government.
The FBI, under the leadership of Acting Director L. Patrick Gray, initially conducted the investigation into the Watergate break-in. However, the agency’s leadership was in flux following the death of J. Edgar Hoover in May 1972. Nixon’s efforts to influence the FBI’s investigation, including his attempts to have the CIA block the FBI’s inquiry into the break-in, are well-documented. Nixon’s order to halt the investigation, as revealed in the "smoking gun" tape, ultimately led to his downfall.
The CIA’s involvement is more ambiguous but equally significant. Operatives like E. Howard Hunt had connections to both the CIA and CREEP, and there have been longstanding suspicions that elements within the CIA were working against Nixon. Some conservative commentators argue that the CIA’s actions, whether through direct involvement or through leaking information, contributed to the scandal’s escalation.
Furthermore, the relationship between Nixon and the intelligence community was fraught with tension. Nixon distrusted the CIA, believing that it was filled with individuals loyal to previous administrations who might undermine his presidency. This distrust, coupled with his attempts to manipulate the FBI, created a toxic environment in which the Watergate scandal could not be contained.
The Media’s Role
On August 9, 1974, the Washington Post ran what was then the largest front-page headline in its history: "Nixon Resigns." The relentless pursuit of the Watergate story by The Washington Post, combined with the sensational coverage by other media outlets, created a narrative of guilt before all the facts were known. Some conservatives believe that the media’s bias against Nixon, coupled with leaks from the intelligence community, created an environment in which the president’s political enemies could capitalize on his mistakes.
As important as Watergate was in political history, it was perhaps equally so in journalism history. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein produced "the single most spectacular act of serious journalism [of the 20th] century," said media critic Ben Bagdikian. Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, believes that the Post's reporting was "absolutely critical" to "creating an atmosphere in Washington and within the government that Nixon was in serious trouble and that the White House was engaged in a cover-up. I believe that the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein represents a milestone of American journalism."
Even conservative critics have accepted the notion that Woodward and Bernstein were instrumental in Nixon's downfall. "[T]he Washington Post.. decided to make the Watergate break-in a major moral issue, a lead followed by the rest of the East Coast media," Paul Johnson wrote in his book Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000. This "Watergate witch-hunt," Johnson declared, was "run by liberals in the media..the first media Putsch in history."
Woodward dismisses both detractors and fans who contend that the media unseated a president. "To say that the press brought down Nixon, that's horseshit," he says. "The press always plays a role, whether by being passive or by being aggressive, but it's a mistake to overemphasize" the media's coverage.
But it was Woodward and Bernstein's best-selling book, All the President's Men, that focused public attention on the young reporters, especially after Hollywood turned it into a blockbuster movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. The film immortalized the chain-smoking anonymous source called "Deep Throat," who met Woodward at night in deserted parking garages after first signaling for meetings with elaborate codes (see sidebar, "Who Is Deep Throat? Does It Matter?"). Warner Brothers promoted the movie as "the story of the two young reporters who cracked the Watergate conspiracy...[and] solved the greatest detective story in American history. At times, it looked as if it might cost them their jobs, their reputations, perhaps even their lives."
Despite the hype, Woodward and Bernstein did not write a comprehensive history of Watergate, just a memoir of their own experience covering it. "The fallacy in All the President's Men is that..the movie is all from our point of view, so that it seems to be a story about us," Woodward acknowledges. "But that's just one piece of what happened early in the process."
Still, as sociologist Michael Schudson wrote in his book Watergate in American Memory, that's not the way the public sees it: "A mythology of the press in Watergate developed into a significant national myth, a story that independently carries on a memory of Watergate even as details about what Nixon did or did not do fade away. At its broadest, the myth of journalism in Watergate asserts that two young Washington Post reporters brought down the president of the United States. This is a myth of David and Goliath, of powerless individuals overturning an institution of overwhelming might. It is high noon in Washington, with two white-hatted young reporters at one end of the street and the black-hatted president at the other, protected by his minions. And the good guys win. The press, truth its only weapon, saves the day."
How accurate is this scenario? Not very, according to Kutler, author of what is widely considered the most definitive history of the scandal, The Wars of Watergate. "As more documentary materials are released," Kutler wrote, "the media's role in uncovering Watergate diminishes in scope and importance. Television and newspapers publicized the story and, perhaps, even encouraged more diligent investigation. But it is clear that as Watergate unfolded from 1972 to 1974, media revelations of crimes and political misdeeds repeated what was already known to properly constituted investigative authorities. In short, carefully timed leaks, not media investigations, provided the first news of Watergate." Source.
Once you learn more about Watergate and agencies involvement, it only makes sense to look at recent legal dealings with Trump and go…. “This sounds famliar” and also notice how corruption supports further corruption.
Take for instance this interview in 2023 with Woodward and Bernstein:
Prosecutorial and Judicial Misconduct
Research into newly released files from the National Archives has uncovered serious ethical breaches by both the special prosecutor’s office and by judges of the D.C. Circuit Court presiding over the Watergate cases, namely John J. Sirica and Gerhard A. Gessel.
Notably, on December 14, 1973, Jaworski and three senior members of his staff met secretly with the presiding judges without Nixon’s lawyers present. Such ex parte meetings violate the legal profession’s ethical standards.
Long-held rules governing Grand Jury secrecy were also thrown aside when Sirica released to the House Judiciary Committee the special prosecutor’s Road Map. Source.
Conclusion
It’s funny….I remember my dad always saying (when I was much younger) that Nixon got kicked out of office because Democrats were angry a “non-elite” defeated them so badly. Of course, I was young and uninformed, so all I saw was my father supporting a “crook.” It seemed so bizarre to me - Nixon resigned! He was guilty!
Decades later, I get it. And I genuinely believe that Nixon (who, like every single president, has made his share of mistakes) was punished for things he did not play a role in. I’ll let you do further research and decide WHY that was the case. But, on this side of it, it’s clear to me that the lawfare we’ve recently witnessed exerted against Trump is not a historically new phenomenon. It’s a story as old as time - stretching back to governments in antiquity - and it will continue on. The real question is…will the American people see through the facade and speak out in the name of true justice? How will America really remember Richard Nixon?
Nixon’s resignation was a watershed moment in our nation’s history, and the involvement of the CIA, FBI, and the media played crucial roles in his downfall. Nixon’s resignation is a tragedy, a case of a president brought down by political missteps, media bias, and the machinations of powerful individuals within the government. While Nixon was not without fault, the events leading to his resignation highlight the complex interplay of power, politics, and the media in shaping the course of American history. Their influence did and can elevate or destroy careers and lives.
For more research
Newly declassified evidence at RealClearPolitics
Watergate Explained (The Nixon Foundation)
George H.W. Bush's involvement in Watergate
Geoff Shepherd on Tucker Carlson
The Real Watergate (National Archives.) I strongly recommend watching this one to build on what I shared above:
I finally read this and feel like my head is spinning. I don’t know much about watergate so this was like drinking from a fire hydrant!! But very well done. Thank you for putting all this together!
Wow! I watched some of the trials when I was in Middle School. ( Giving away my age here) but boy politics is evil! I like Nixon and remember watching his speech when he resigned and was very sad. This all was very eye opening. Thank you for all of your work! I really enjoy your work!