Watergate Scandal in the Early

Watergate Scandal

In the early morning of June 17, 1972 five men were caught breaking into the Watergate complex. This would be the very beginning of one of the largest scandals to come out of the White House, since Andrew Johnson was impeached in the 1870s. To thoroughly analyze the events of the scandal, we will discuss the details leading up to the eventual resignation of Richard Nixon from the Presidency. The historical significance of Watergate has opened up the eye of the public to view the office of the President in a much more critical light, questioning the integrity and morals of the Commander in Chief or whomever holds the highest office.

Further more, the Watergate affair was even more amplified by the fact that the press investigations (mainly from the Washington Post) revealed that the actual framework of espionage and political abuse from the White House was much larger, targeted many other people as well from the Democratic Party and, overall, had significantly affected the credibility of the presidential institution. The fact that money from secret funds were used in an attempt to quiet down the burglars only decreased the credibility of the officials involved.

The five men that had broken into the Watergate complex, inside the Democratic National Committee's offices, were Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, James W. McCord, Jr., Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. All of them were tried and convicted, with a sentence being passed in January 1973 for the charges of conspiracy, burglary and violation of federal wiretapping laws. Nevertheless, it was the involvement of Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, both of them also tried and convicted, that started to trace the entire affair back to the White House.

All of the seven belonged to the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), an organization that supported the re-election of President Nixon for another four years, and the relationship with the Committee was proven through the money that the burglars, as well as Liddy and Hunt, had received through the CRP secret funds. Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from the Washington Post discovered that the Watergate break-ins had involved influential people in the White House, including H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff, and J. Ehrilichman, both of whom were eventually convicted on different charges, spending time in prison. White House Counsel John Dean would testify in the Senate and would become a witness against President Nixon.

Up to this point, the Watergate burglaries had involved people in the CRP and some of the important and influential individuals in the White House, including the President's Chief of Staff. The very important question at this point was how much was President Nixon himself involved. An answer to this question would help explain whether the burglaries (as well as the entire wire tapping operation and all the other wrong doings) had occurred with the direct involvement of the president, or it was simply limited to his aides.

The hearings in front of the Senate Committee would help shed some light into the matter. Testimonies by important individuals revealed that the extent of wire tapping was significant, going as far as the president's office. The tapes were subpoenaed to be heard and parts of these were indeed presented (President Nixon refused to present the entire tapes, supporting this position with the argument that releasing the entire tape might have had an impact on the national security. It is more probable that the tapes contained parts which were not consistent with the image that Nixon tried to present to the public). However, the final claim of the Supreme Court supported the argument according to which there were no clear or plausible constitutional arguments for which the tapes could not be released and they finally were (Nixon was putting forth the argument of executive privilege to support his claims).

It was one of the final tapes that was released that supported without any doubt the argument according to which the president was both involved and very active in the decision making process related to the entire cover-up, as well as the wire tapping activities. The tape showed a conversation between Haldeman and Nixon, in which they were discussing the possibility of inducing the CIA into lying that the national security was involved in the matter, which might have blocked of the investigations. Impeachment of the president became a reality in both chambers of the Congress and the president resigned on August 9, 1974 (his announcement was made on August 8, but his resignation became effective on August 9).

The controversy does not stop here actually (this will be further discussed when referring to the impact on U.S. history, further below). On September 8, the new president, Gerald Ford, announced that Nixon would be given an unconditional pardon on all or nay of the charges that might be brought against him. The effect of this act was tremendous and, in the entire atmosphere of suspicion, brought Gerald Ford in from of the House Judiciary Committee to explain his act and argue against the idea that was forming according to which Nixon had actually stricken a deal with Ford to obtain unconditional pardon in exchange to his resignation.

The issue of Watergate has remained in the public's attention ever since, mainly because of its tremendous implications and because of the impact it had on the U.S. history. There are several things worth discussing and taken into consideration. First of all, the wiretapping itself needs to be discussed. Wiretapping can be used in the interest of national security, however, here it was directed against political opponents and used to spy in an apparently unlimited number of people. Just as concerning, or even more so, was the fact that the president and his aides seemed to be using wire tapping and different means of surveillance without abiding by any of the current legislation that regulated this type of activity.

The latter fact can probably be best explained by looking at the way the president behaved during the time he was facing both the Congress and the Supreme Court. His attitude is important in showing that, in his opinion, the president's will and acts could replace the actual legislative statute if the situation implied it. In a recent movie called "Frost/Nixon," president Nixon states in an interview that when the president does something, it is not illegal.

This type of thought is probably very true in the case of the real president Nixon as well. Most likely, he truly believed that, in his role as a president, he could surpass the legislative and judicial frameworks and pose himself as being above the law. One of the fundamental statements of a democratic regime is, however, that nobody is above the law.

Placing himself above the law is probably the quickest way towards a dictatorial regime in which the president only abides by his own rules, not those made by the regulatory bodies. Even more so, the controversy of putting himself above the law continued with his successor, President Ford.

President Ford decided, on his own account, to put both himself and the former president above the law and declare president Nixon pardoned unconditionally of any charges that might be brought against him. His explanations, presented in Congress, according to which he wanted to put a stop to a potential continuous process of accusations and simply allow the nation to heal do not really stand ground. The only way that the nation could start its healing process would have been if former president Nixon had been brought to stand trial. A process would have allowed him to defend his actions and, potentially, clear his good name. Unbelievably, this was not allowed and President Nixon did not go down in history as one of the American presidents that did the most for the U.S. foreign policy, but simply as a president who hampered with justice and obtained a shameful pardon, which actually implied that he recognized all the accusations, but was simply afraid to defend himself, knowing that these were true.

Finally, beyond the questioning of the acts of the president, there are issues to be discussed relating to the actual action of wiretapping and how this could go in the line of argument according to which this type of action is imposed by national security. It is almost the same as the debate around the measure that the Bush Administration took in order to protect national security, including extraordinary rendition. How far can wire tapping and surveillance procedures go to be considered reasonable?

In my opinion, the answer to this is that wiretapping can go as far as the law permits it to. In this sense, if the law does not permit a certain act, the respective legislative or judiciary act can go through the usual channels, be voted on in Congress and its prerogatives increased, if the senators and representatives thus decide. This is usually how the democratic process works and, probably, only in the case of a war can other entities, such as the White House, substitute themselves to this usual democratic channel. What happened with Watergate was exactly this type of unfortunate substitute of the democratic process with the will of another institution.

The subject of the paper is very important for U.S. history exactly because of the implications of what was previously described. It is not a singular case of an American President attempting to substitute himself to the general democratic framework or usual democratic channels.

Andrew Jackson had attempted to decrease the role played by Congress and rule absolutely and despotically. Just in the same manner, the U.S. institutions (namely the legislative and judicial branches) joined together in order to ensure that President Nixon could not use his executive prerogatives to bypass some of the usual procedures and means by which things are done, including in issues concerning the national security. Ideally, Watergate should have also emphasized the idea according to which nobody is above the law. Because of the reasons previously mentioned, this was unfortunately not possible, although the fact that the President did have to resign is encouraging in this sense.

Beyond the subject of wiretapping, the fact that this was used to hamper the opposition's activities is also significantly worrying for the democratic processes. How could the President's argument that this was necessary and required by the national security interests of the country actually stand ground given the fact that the Democratic Party was the primary target of these actions? One can also understand the international context and the fact that the U.S. was involved in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and that this implied that political party in the U.S. could be financed from abroad. Still, the issue of bypassing the usual legal and legislative means still remains.

The last aspect of importance of the Watergate affair and its impact on the U.S. history was that it brought out the importance of an efficient system of checks and balances that the U.S. society had. This included not only the three branches of government, but also the press, which played an essential role in ensuring that the culprits could be followed all the way to the White House. Nobody managed to restrain the activities of the press, which shows again the importance of a free press in an operational society. All and all, it is the press that is the watch dog of society.

Book Sources:

1) American Government: Great Lives by Doris Faber and Harold Faber

Macmillan Publishing Co., 866 Third Ave., NY, NY 10022. 1988. Pg. 198-203

Gives a brief history of Richard Nixon, born in 1913. U.S. Congressman; U.S. Senator; thirty-seventh President of the United States. Also gives description of Nixon's second term which became famous as the Watergate Scandal surfaced.

2) the American Story by Jennifer Armstrong

Text Copyright 2006. Random House, NY. Pg. 312-315

Gives a detailed description of the events on June 17, 1972. A guard at the Watergate office complex in Washington D.C. noticed that the catch on a door to the stairwell had been taped so it wouldn't close. He became very curious and began to investigate. Within minutes police converged on the offices of the Democratic National Committee, where five men were found jimmying filing cabinets, setting up cameras, and bugging equipment. This was just one of the events, leading up to the full blown scandal.

3) Our Countries Presidents by Anne Bausum

National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. Copyright 2001. Pg 155- 157.

Gives an in depth description of Richard M. Nixon and his rise to the Presidency. It also explains how he earned the nickname, "Tricky Dick." Nixon expanded on his use of dirty tricks while he was President. He and other staff members broke laws in their efforts to discover embarrassing information about his political rivals and enemies.

4) Breech of Faith: The Fall of Richard Nixon by Theodore H. White.

Atheneum Publishers, NY 1975.

The story starts with the last days of Richard Nixon in the White House. Those closest and most devoted to him now realize that he had deceived them all and they must force him out of office. He then traces the story back to the beginning 20 years before. White unravels many of the situations which mystified all Americans for two years. How and why were the famous tapes conceived? Why were they not destroyed? What motivated the selfish men surrounding Nixon and how did they sidestep the law of that time to try and manipulate their plan into action? White gives credit to President Nixon for his achievements as President and peacemaker and also explains how he betrayed the American people.