• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Watergate

BobTheCoward said:
Suppose a hypothetical where Nixon doesn't resign, Congress doesn't pursue impeachment, but the DoJ pursues criminal obstruction of justice. Suppose the defense asserts the order was Legitimate national security concern. What does the actual precedent and laws say about it and how would a judge apply it?
Click to expand...

Since we're going with unlikely hypotheticals, what if Nixon declared himself emperor?
 
Spindrift said:
So what? Congress was going to impeach Nixon. They had enough proof to convict with the recordings.

While there may not be a test for national security, covering up a burglary being done on behalf of a political campaign is not national security.
Click to expand...

So what? Either you are into discussing hypotheticals about law or you are not.


To your last point....Prove it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
As far as I can tell, there wasn't anyone pursuing criminal charges for obstruction of justice. Congress was, but that isn't a criminal proceeding. It is political...
Click to expand...

This is why you should be reading some of these links. Forty government officials were indicted and/or jailed over the break-in. In fact in the smoking gun tape, I think everyone present -- except Nixon -- did wind up going to prison. Nixon could very well have faced criminal charges. But his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Link
 
newyorkguy said:
Bob everything you're asking about is answered in the link that was posted (and which I'm repasting) above. You.re really making a mistake by not at least looking at it.

Article I was Obstruction of Justice. Section 3 reads:
  • approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
Section 5:
  • endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

The "national security" issue Nixon talks about on tape is the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion ten years earlier. That the investigation might "open that whole thing up again." Open what up again? That didn't make too much sense and is undoubtedly the reason the FBI Director Patrick Gray didn't buy it. Why Congress accused him of trying to "misuse the CIA."

Where you seem to be getting confused is, Nixon didn't try and use the national security claim as a legal defense. He tried to use executive privilege. Essentially he argued the president is above the law. Which is what I was referring to -- if the president does it it's not illegal -- which started this whole segueway.
Click to expand...

Articles of impeachment are political, not proper application of the law. If a national security defense is correct, they have the authority to ignore it.

He used executive privelige regarding a subpoena. The national security defense over the order to the CIA was not adjudicated.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Articles of impeachment are political, not proper application of the law. If a national security defense is correct, they have the authority to ignore it.

He used executive privelige regarding a subpoena. The national security defense over the order to the CIA was not adjudicated.
Click to expand...

And it would be up the them to justify the national security defense. How would they do that?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Then prove that claaim. What is the standard? I can easily show you the standards for a self defense claim. Where is the standard for a national security claim?
Click to expand...

Nope. Try again. You want them to try to use a national security claim. You prove they can use it and it would be acceptable.
 
Spindrift said:
Nope. Try again. You want them to try to use a national security claim. You prove they can use it and it would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

That is what I'm trying to find out. Everyone seems to agree that national security is a possible reason to reject an obstruction violation (CIA asks the FBI to not look into something). Everyone agrees Nixon don't meethat criteria. No one can cite what the standard is or what law/precedent established it.
 
On one of my jobs we used to have a guy -- a Boomer like me -- who loved to imitate Richard Nixon. And he was dead on, too. When something happened, when we screwed something up and we wondered, "Is Quality Control going to catch this," he'd say (in his Nixon persona):
"If they do just tell them, 'This is national security. You don't want to get involved in this! Just leave it alone. You don't want to open this up!'"
Click to expand...


When they asked Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky maybe that's what he should have said.
"This is national security. You don't want to get involved in this! Just leave it alone. You don't want to to open this up!"
Click to expand...
:)
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is what I'm trying to find out. Everyone seems to agree that national security is a possible reason to reject an obstruction violation (CIA asks the FBI to not look into something).
Click to expand...
Does every agree on that? I don't necessarily agree that it is a possible reason.


BobTheCoward said:
Everyone agrees Nixon don't meethat criteria. No one can cite what the standard is or what law/precedent established it.
Click to expand...

One would think that it would have to include something involving the US government, acting on behalf of the government. A burglary done on behalf of an election campaign doesn't involve the government, even if it involves people in the government.
 
BobTheCoward said:
...No one can cite what the standard is or what law/precedent established it.
Click to expand...

Because it happened forty-five years ago is one reason. Another is, the national security issue was not taken seriously. In fact, I don't think even Nixon tried to raise that defense. Can't you understand this? The national security issue was raised in an Oval Office conversation. It wasn't raised either before the Congress or in court.
 
newyorkguy said:
Because it happened forty-five years ago is one reason. Another is, the national security issue was not taken seriously. In fact, I don't think even Nixon tried to raise that defense. Can't you understand this? The national security issue was raised in an Oval Office conversation. It wasn't raised either before the Congress or in court.
Click to expand...

I understand I'm the one raising it in my hypothetical. It is very different than the actual situation. That is why it is hypothetical.
 
Spindrift said:
Does every agree on that? I don't necessarily agree that it is a possible reason.




One would think that it would have to include something involving the US government, acting on behalf of the government. A burglary done on behalf of an election campaign doesn't involve the government, even if it involves people in the government.
Click to expand...

It did involve money in a Mexican bank. I guess you could assert embarrassing to an international partner (see my FDR Churchill hypothetical). I think embarrassing was the aspect of the "bay of pigs" remark.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you one thing, I'm enough of a legal buff to suspect, if there had been a serious national security issue, that fact would have been communicated to Congress and they probably would have had someone, maybe not the President himself, but someone from the Nixon Administration explain it in a closed door session.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'll tell you one thing, I'm enough of a legal buff to suspect, if there had been a serious national security issue, that fact would have been communicated to Congress and they probably would have had someone, maybe not the President himself, but someone from the Nixon Administration explain it in a closed door session.
Click to expand...

And if that occured, what laws and legal precedent would be used to adjudicate the situation?
 
I'm of that era steeped in the politics of the time. I read his "Bay of Pigs" comment, not as support for some illusory security issue but as a direct threat to the CIA to do what he wanted or "that whole Bay of Pigs thing" is going to get reopened. The Bay of Pigs was a CIA boondoggle of the highest order. They were allowed to skate with not much more than a "mistakes were made" hand-wave.

Nixon was a vicious political animal. If he brought that up in conversation with the CIA during a conversation about a request for them to deliver a little favor for Dick, then it was a tit-for-tat threat.
 
Can anyone recommend a good book(s) on Watergate? Documentary maybe, whatever seems accurate, if there is such a thing.

I was a kid when all of this broke - I remember it on TV and thinking there was an actual wooden "gate" somewhere, that's about it. :)

Side note:
I know someone whose wife worked for Nixon at the time and knew all of the key players involved, Liddy, etc. She was an admin and worked for his campaign I believe when it all went down, not involved in any of this. They are friends of my parents.

I wish I could bend her ear but she really knows little about it apparently. I just called my Dad to ask about her after seeing this thread. I barely know her so I'd feel weird asking about "that time everyone she worked with went to prison" ;)

Anyways, books? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom