Way back when I was young and naive, as the young always are, I was labeled a Nixon-hater. True enough. Based on the public record of the man, I had concluded that he was corrupt, power-hungry, and served his own ego and the interests of his rightwing and corporate backers. And would do anything to further his ambitions and the interests of his buddies.
Yet, from June 1972 to this day, I have always known that my prejudice didn’t cloud my perception and interpretations of the news about the Watergate break-in and all the subsequent and related revelations about the Nixon Administration. Thus, when Nixon resigned and so many people around me were shocked, worried, and angry that they had been duped, I was calm and hoped all those ordinary people that had been claiming that Nixon hadn’t done anything wrong had learned an important lesson. (As I said, I was young and naive.)
Principles (social, ethical, legal) and objectivity are cognitive qualities that I always strive for and far outweigh my partisan political inclinations. More dirty rotten scoundrels may exist among the ranks of Republicans but they aren’t exclusive to Republicans which appears to be a fact that most Democrats often fail to appreciate.
Those that get to carry the “good guy” label at particular times in history aren’t always perceived that way in real time. Some may in fact be lifelong good guys. For others, it may be a situational moment of being a good guy. Or an accidental good guy. Some may be lifelong dirty rotten scoundrels that in moments only look like good guys. All of those types existed among the characters involved in the story of what is known as Watergate and only a small slice of which I’m going to cover here.
The characters:
Richard Nixon – January 1969 – August 1974 – President of the United States
US Attorney General:
Richard Kleindienst – February 15, 1972 – May 25, 1973
Elliot Richardson – May 25, 1973 – October 20, 1973
Robert Bork (acting) – October 20, 1973 – January 4, 1974
William Saxby – January 4, 1974 – January 14, 1975
FBI Director:
J Edgar Hoover – 1932 – May 2, 1972
L Patrick Gray (acting) – May 2, 1972 – April 27, 1973
William Ruckelshaus (acting) April 30, 1973 – July 9, 1973
Clarence M Kelly – July 9, 1973 – February 15, 1978
Washington Post October 10, 1972 by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward –FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats
FBI agents have established that the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of President Nixon’s re-election and directed by officials of the White House and the Committee for the Re-election of the President.
…
Perhaps the most significant finding of the whole Watergate investigation, the investigators say, was that numerous specific acts of political sabotage and spying were all traced to this “offensive security,” which was conceived and directed in the White House and by President Nixon’s re-election committee.
The investigators said that a major purpose of the sub rosa activities was to create so much confusion, suspicion and dissension that the Democrats would be incapable of uniting after choosing a presidential nominee.
…
The details, both as to the volume, breadth, and specificity, in this report were explosive and astoundingly accurate except for these projections:
According to sources close to the Watergate investigation, much of the FBI’s information is expected to be revealed at the trial of the seven men indicted on charges of conspiring to eavesdrop on Democratic headquarters at the Watergate.
“There is some very powerful information,” said one federal official, “especially if it becomes known before Nov. 7.”
…
Are Richard Kleindienst and L Patrick Gray hero “good guys” for not disclosing the information their agencies had in hand before the 1972 election? No liberal at that time would have taken such a position. Nor would any authentic liberal today take such a position.
The WaPO report didn’t make a shred of difference to the election a few weeks later. Nixon got his presidential landslide but without down-ticket gains for his party. What was even more surprising is that the information collected by FBI agents didn’t make its way to the trial of the Watergate burglars.
If Mark Felt had been appointed FBI Director after the death of J Edgar Hoover would he have acted differently than L Patrick Gray did during 1972-73? Probably not. Would Bernstein and Woodward have found anothe FBI source and published a similar report as the one they did on October 10, 1972? Probably not. Would those changes have altered the course of the whole Watergate issue through Nixon’s resignation? No.
The FBI had almost all the goods on “Watergate” by early October 1972 and the public had the means to inform themselves as well. The FBI sat on what their investigation revealed and never publicly took the lead on it.
Backing up a bit with timeline excerpts:
June 1972
Currently, FBI and Secret Service agents are investigating the burglary.
June 18, 1972
[Earl J Silbert, assistant US Attorney for the District of Columbia] argues unsuccessfully that the five should be held without bail, citing their use of fictitious names, their lack of community ties, and the likelihood that they would flee the country after they post bail. “They were caught red-handed,” Silbert tells the court.
At that time Silber appeared to be a good guy.
June 23, 1972
President Nixon orders the CIA to attempt to stop the FBI from investigating the Watergate conspiracy, using the justification of “national security.”
…
Helms and Walters both agree to pressure Gray to abandon the investigation, but their efforts are ineffective; the assistant US attorney in Washington, Earl Silbert, is driving the investigation, not the FBI.
…
The public didn’t learn of Nixon’s order until much later. Of course CIA interference on domestic issues is illegal. Except, Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
Subsequently:
Soon after Nixon’s order, acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray tells Nixon that his administration is improperly using the CIA to interfere in the FBI’s investigation of Watergate. Gray warns Nixon “that people on your staff are trying to mortally wound you.” Gray is himself sharing Watergate investigation files with the White House, but will claim that he is doing so with the approval of the FBI’s general counsel.
August 22, 1972:
US District Court Judge Charles Richey, presiding over the Democratic Party’s lawsuit against the Committee to Re-elect the President (see June 20, 1972), reverses his own ruling and orders all pre-trial statements and depositions to remain sealed until after the lawsuit has run its course. This ensures that court statements by Nixon campaign officials such as John Mitchell, Maurice Stans, and others will not be made public until after the November election. Richey makes the decision unilaterally; no motion for such a decision has been made by campaign lawyers. Richey explains his extraordinary decision by saying he is concerned for the constitutional rights of those involved in the lawsuit.
Question: Was Judge Richey’s decision interference or non-interference in the 1972 election? Who’s “constitutional rights” was he protecting?
January 8-11, 1973
Prosecutor Earl Silbert’s opening argument presents a scenario in which Liddy had been given money for legitimate political intelligence-gathering purposes, and on his own decided to mount illegal operations. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, observing in the courtroom, is dismayed; Silbert is giving the jury the “Liddy-as-fall-guy” tale Woodward and his colleague Carl Bernstein had learned of months before, and which Nixon and his aides had discussed in June (see June 21, 1972).
Bernstein and Woodward read this correctly. (In May 1974 Nixon appointed Earl Silber to the position of US Attorney for the District of Columbia.) Silbert — not a “good guy.”
January 1973
Bernstein and Woodward learn of FBI investigative failures/lapses. Nobody’s perfect. Bernstein looks into and reports on deals in the works for the burglars to accept plea deals for money.
January 23, 1973
Former Nixon campaign treasurer Hugh Sloan testifies during the trial of the “Watergate Seven” (see January 8-11, 1973). Judge John Sirica becomes impatient with the diffident questioning of the prosecutors, excuses the jury, and grills Sloan himself. Sloan admits to disbursing $199,000 in secret campaign funds for G. Gordon Liddy’s covert campaign espionage operations, and that the transaction had been approved by both campaign director John Mitchell and campaign finance director Maurice Stans*
Had “Maximum John”** Sirica not been drawn as the judge for the Watergate burglars (and not lived up to his well-earned reputation), it’s entirely possible that the whole matter would have ended up as less than a footnote of a third-rate burglary. There would have been no AG Elliot Richardson, no Special Prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, no Senate Watergate hearings, Senator Sam Ervin would have retired with some distinction as a liberal Senator for a racist, no “Saturday Night Massacre” and no House Nixon impeachment proceedings. Bernstein and Woodward would have been labeled hack reporters and others in the MSM would have smeared them as they’ve done to other reporters. (shudder) Robert Bork would have been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. And all the dirty rotten rotten scoundrels would have gotten away with it.
*In the early ’90s I worked in an office across the hall from a law firm that had Maurice Stans on its nameplate. He was an elderly man by then and I don’t know that he made any appearances in the office during those years. I often hoped that I’d run into him on the elevator or in the hallway so that I could a few unkind but honest words to him.
**According to my liberal attorney friend, Sirica was well known as “maximum John” among defense attorneys because he reliably handed out maximum sentences.
