HomeNixon FoundationNixon Center

Anniversary of the Smoking Gun

June 23, 2009 by David Emig | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Nixon in the News, Richard Nixon, Watergate 

When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!

–Richard Nixon

to H.R. Haldeman

June 23, 1972

By that order, on this day thirty seven years ago, Richard Nixon destroyed his Presidency, and set into motion the events that would lead to his resignation less than twenty-two months later.  Still, it is way past the time for supporters and critics of Richard Nixon to put the “Smoking Gun” and indeed all of Watergate into proper perspective.  While the events and implications of June 23, 1972 are important, they cannot overshadow everything else.

Under federal law, obstruction of justice is defined as: “[t]he criminal offense, under common law and according to the statutes of many jurisdictions, of obstructing the administration and due process of law.  It is “[a] criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.”  (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.)  Specifically in Watergate, President Nixon could have been held accountable for violating the Omnibus Clause {18 U.S.C.A. § 1503}.  The relevant portion of this statute covers “endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”   (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.) Unlike many of the other charges that others in Watergate were tried and some convicted for: obstruction of justice is uniquely President Nixon’s.  The June 23rd tape ties Nixon to Watergate, directly and forever.  It is only within the power of the executive to order to use one executive agency to stop a criminal investigation by another.

Many believe that the President wanted to stop the investigation out of a legitimate national security concern.  After all, some of the burglars were involved in the Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba.  However, this reason is a red-herring.  An invasion eleven years ago has no relevance to a political break-in.  Bringing up the Bay of Pigs fiasco was just a way to remind Democrats and the current CIA apparatus of the potential reopening of a politically embarrassing event of a Democratic administration.

When one consults the Haldeman Diaries, things don’t seem clear cut.  On the editor’s note on page 475, CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters was to call the FBI Director Gray to tell him to stop his investigation.  However, on July 6th, the editor’s note on page 481 states that Walters told Gray that CIA had no interest in Watergate.  RN then told him to continue the investigation.  (See Haldeman, H.R. “The Haldeman Diaries”, 1994.)

Of course the original intent wasn’t to find out if the CIA had interest; it was to stop the investigation entirely.  In addition, the Omnibus Clause covers “endeavors” as well as successful attempts to obstruct justice.

Much later, Richard Nixon discussed the “Smoking Gun” tape in both the Memoirs and in a later book, “In the Arena”. In the Memoirs, he said that Haldeman informed him that the CIA and FBI had a long-standing agreement not to interfere in each other’s secret operations.”  (See Nixon, Richard; Memoirs, 1978, p. 640.)   In his book, “In the Arena”, RN stated that one of the myths of Watergate was that he committed obstruction of justice.  He received bad advice from aides (Dean) who themselves had something to hide.  And besides, the officials at the CIA, Director Helms and Deputy Director Walters ignored the White House request and the investigation continued.  (See Nixon, Richard; In the Arena, 1990, pp. 34-35.)

There is still no evidence that the break in was a secret operation.  The Plumbers who participated worked for the White House or the Committee to Reelect.  Even if there was no actual obstruction, the Omnibus Clause clearly concerns endeavors to obstruct.  And while advisors advise, it is the President of the United States who is responsible for the decisions made. And this decision cost Richard Nixon the presidency.

After the disclosure of the tape in the first days of August, it was felt to be an impeachable offense by both sides of the aisle.  After the June 23rd tape was disclosed by order of the Supreme Court; the President’s support among Republicans evaporated.  Years later, Barry Goldwater recalled the last meeting…

I said, I took a nose count in the Senate today.  You have fourteen votes.  The others are really undecided.  I’m one of them.

(See Goldwater, Barry, “With No Apologies”, 1979, p 279.)

It was clear that he would be the second President to be impeached in the House, and the first President in history to be convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

The action on the tape was quintessence Nixon.  Richard Nixon always thought in political terms — in political right and wrong.  His instinct was to limit the political damage for his reelection — in which he reasoned wasn’t a sure thing.  The action also showed his character.  The President wanted to protect the people who worked hard for him and the country.  Richard Nixon’s loyalty to his friends and allies has always been without question.

Of course, one must factor the era of Watergate to be taken seriously in historical circles.  It is the elephant in the room.  However, it must not cancel all of the achievements of the Nixon years.  Remember it was President Bill Clinton who said, “may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”  (See Remarks by President Bill Clinton, Funeral for President Richard Nixon, April 22, 1994.)

After all, Richard Nixon was an “American Pioneer” in many ways.  As Vice-President, he traveled the world more than any previous Vice President.  He was the first Vice President of consequence in the modern era, rather than being a figurehead waiting for tragedy to step in.  As President, his vision and actions unlocked the doors to mainland China.  His different strategy of Vietnamization ended American involvement in the Vietnam War; and serve as instruction for modern conflicts like Iraq.  President Nixon was the first president to make an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union.

Domestically, Richard Nixon was a pioneer too.  Revenue sharing through programs like the Philadelphia plan was without precedent.  His administration spearheaded clear air legislation, creating the Environmental Protection Agency.  The Nixon Administration also federally funded cancer research, and proposed the first comprehensive health care system.

And finally, Richard Nixon will also be appreciated for how he handled the end of his Presidency.  His resignation set the precedent for transition of power.  Unlike many other countries, no military coups, or violence and revolution in America’s streets.  Just an orderly, if not emotional transfer of power.  It showed that Richard Nixon valued the institution of the Presidency, and indeed the country above all else.

So, even if Richard Nixon’s presidency was ruined thirty-seven years ago today; his example as a statesman and his achievements as president are with all of us even today.  Take it all as Richard Nixon’s to his country and the world.

(I welcome your comments.)



Comments

5 Responses to “Anniversary of the Smoking Gun”

  1. MK on June 23rd, 2009 7:04 pm

    1. David Brooks, “A Still Small Voice,” The New York Times, October 16, 2007 — “A few weeks ago, I interviewed Deborah Pryce, the Republican congresswoman. . . . I asked about her re-election campaign in 2006. Her Ohio House race had been one of the toughest in the entire country. . . she talked about the ads that she had put on the air against her opponent. ‘I was appalled by what I had to do,’ she said. . . . When Pryce spoke about the direct-mail letters that went out under her name, she did so with a look of disgust. . . . her own mother told her she was ashamed of the ads. . . . I could see that she’d been fighting the war that the best politicians fight – the war within herself to preserve her own humanity. Politics, as you know, is a tainted profession. Professional politicians cannot serve their country if they do not win their races, and to do that they must grapple with a vast array of forces that try to remold and destroy who they are.”

    2. A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt:

    – “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?” Sir Thomas More to Richard Roper

    – “Why does your Grace need my poor support?” Sir Thomas More to King Henry VIII.

    “Because you’re honest… and what is more to the purpose, you’re known to be honest. There are those like Norfolk who follow me because I wear the crown; and those like Master Cromwell who follow me because they are jackals with sharp teeth and I’m their tiger; there’s a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves. And then there’s you… “ King Henry VIII to Sir Thomas More

    3. MK’s thoughts: The need first to recognize, then to face and somehow integrate the ethos of the political world and the ethos of the governmental world creates many challenges for those who seek the presidency. Would self-reflection cripple those in the White House, as John Podhoretz implied in his Bush I administration White House memoir? If the principals struggle to work their way through the ethical issues, what about pundits? Don’t we see daily in newspapers and blogs how people who have convinced themselves that they have a strong moral compass struggle to confront issues honestly? Too often, they, also, find excuses to explain away actions by those whom they support and scramble to pick up mud to fling at those they don’t, thereby coarsening the political culture rather than shining a guiding light. Who is there, in practical terms, to help a President confronted with a Watergate? It all comes down to the man himself.

    Shankar Vedantam used to write a column on The Department of Human Behavior for the Washington Post (I don’t know if he still does). He once discussed actor-observer bias and how people view actions as situational or dispositional. He wrote

    “Where a Republican might say that another Republican who failed had a hard job to do, Democrats would be likely to conclude the person was incompetent — we choose situational explanations to justify the errors of our allies, and we choose dispositional explanations to judge the errors of our opponents.

    Our psychological perceptions get flipped when our allies and opponents do the right thing. Republicans are likely to see the success of other Republicans as dispositional — reflecting the innate nature of Republicans. But Democrats are likely to see the success of a Republican as situational — thus depriving their opponents of credit.”

    As well as I know what happened during the Nixon presidency – I’ve listened to 2,000 hours of the tapes, some yet to be released by NARA – I don’t have the answers for why Nixon handled Watergate as he did. I believe there is more to it than what you offered in your essay. For instance, I don’t think we’ll ever have hard, verifiable data to explain why the Watergate break-in occurred, although people have offered various theories. On tape, Nixon said it made no sense to break into the DNC if one’s aim was gathering operational intelligence about the opposing candidate. Makes sense. And yet . . . . Nixon knew the tapes were running when he said that. How did that affect what he said in recorded conversations? When did he remember the tape reels were turning and when did he forget? We’ll never know.

    Most of the people around a President can be fired at will. They have zero job protection. I sometimes wonder how academics would do, if placed in a situation where they have to nudge a power player off a course that clearly is wrong. It can be very difficult. Unfortunately, a President’s greatest strength – his vested power – can be his greatest weakness. From studying Nixon I believe it is easy to lose perspective, to lose one’s sense of self, to conflate personal political goals with governmental ones, to forget what it is that one holds as a steward. A President has to fight those tendencies. Ultimately, it is up to the man at the top to reward, not shoot, the messenger. Nixon needed more people around him capable of telling him “no, that’s not a good idea.” Sometimes, there was no such person there. When an angry Nixon reacted to release of what he viewed as damaging employment figures by saying he wanted Fred Malek to determine how many Jews worked in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, no one pushed back and said, “no, we can’t do that with civil servants, it’s wrong.”

    The White House aide who worked with the Plumbers,“Bud” Krogh, explained in a 2007 book why such an environment led him to prison for his role in the break in into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. His book is called Integrity and is well worth reading. Krogh’s website has this at its top: “The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the full light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny. It is the light that guides your way. Heraclitus, Greek Poet and Philosopher, 6th Century B.C.”

    Perhaps some who read this site or write here will laugh at that. I don’t think you will, David. I know I don’t. As one federal official said a few years ago, “Those in positions of power and trust must understand that the law represents the floor of acceptable behavior.” Watergate’s anniversary is sad in many, many ways. As his biographer Stephen Ambrose noted, the nation may have lost much more than it gained, when Richard Nixon had to resign.

  2. David Emig on June 23rd, 2009 7:49 pm

    Thank you for your thoughts, MK.

    To me, the break in has always been simple. Larry O’Brien, Howard Hughes, Don Nixon, Loan for Nixons…home of the Nixon Burger. I didn’t make that up…

    In 1956, HH loans $300,000 to Don Nixon to establish a restaurant chain…”Nixons”. The short answer is that Don defaults on the loan, and HH takes the property in payment. “Nixons” go belly up.

    RN was bothered by questions about the loan in 1960 and the race for Governor of California in 1962.

    So what’s this have to do with Larry O’Brien. After O’Brien left the JFK campaign, he became HHs personal attorney. RN always feared anything JFK, especially the artitect of his defeat in 1960. He detested O’Brien.

    Because of this, during the beginning of 1972, RN wanted O’Brien to be held accountable for his retainer with HH, and other things. Harass O’Brien. This became RNs obsession during the year.

    I’ve always thought of the break in as being a result of a Thomas Becket type thing… “Who will give me information on O’Brien. Possibly information that O’Brien might have on the loan…perhaps something to discredit O’Brien.

    Someone, maybe Colson…in that group, wanted to get the information for the President. How convenience that O’Brien had a office at the Watergate — where he was Chairman of the DNC….

    If someone has a better theory, I am all ears and paper.

  3. MK on June 24th, 2009 3:41 am

    I’ve heard that theory, and seen it described as one of the more plausible ones, but don’t think we’ll ever know for sure. As they say, “the facts are not in evidence.” There is no record that neatly ties together the elements you mention.

  4. Frederick Graboske on June 24th, 2009 6:36 am

    Gordaon Liddy has said that he was told that the purpose of the break-in was to gather financial information on O’Brien. That has been interpreted to mean gathering information on O’Brien’s taxes. Not necessary: Nixon could, and did, get the tax returns from the IRS. The central remaining historical questions about the Nixon administration: who ordered the break-in and why? To this end I would urge the Nixon Library to convene a symposium of participants (Dean, Krogh, Liddy, Magruder, er al.) and historians (Woodward, Colodny, Hougan, Rosen, Parmet, et al.) in an attempt to resolve this issue.

  1. Have Purpose | linkthe.com

Got something to say?