Donald J. Trump's Hallucinatory Quest: Catching the Illusive Illegal Immigrant Voter!

IF YOUR DEMOCRACY-LOVING HEAD is spinning, who would blame you? In four short months, we have seen President Trump (a.k.a. Orange Mussolini ) vilify the press, chastise an independent judiciary and work to block an F.B.I. investigation. Even though, trust Trump and his sycophants: There’s no there, there. 

James Comey? 

Sad!

Unfortunately, Trump’s efforts to undermine democracy may prove more dangerous than we fear, abetted by a supine GOP that finds it difficult to win elections fairly. 

You may not know anything about Secretary of State Kris Kobach of Kansas. Trust me: the man is dangerous. Having spent the last two years hunting illegal immigrant voters in every sunflower patch in his state, Kobach is about to take futility national. As the Kansas City Star reported earlier this month, “Kobach, who repeatedly has made questionable claims of rampant voter fraud, will co-chair President Donald Trump’s new Commission on Election Integrity.” 

Did you know Trump had created a Commission on Election Integrity? Now you do!

For good reason people who care about civil rights were quick to criticize the choice of Kobach. For his part, the Kansas Secretary of State was “very excited and honored to have this opportunity to serve the country.” “The commission,” he claimed, “does not begin with foregone conclusions. All members…are approaching it with an open mind…The objective is to go where the facts lead us.”

That’s the problem: where “the facts” lead Kobach.

THE POOR FELLOW IS NUTS.

Not quite the face of the illegal immigrant voter the GOP has in mind.

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that the GOP’s fundamental problem is dark-skinned people voting. Hispanics voting legally? A terrible idea. African Americans? You get the impression Trump & Co. would be delighted to repeal the Fifteenth Amendment.

In fact, the GOP is intent on making it hard for college kids to vote, perhaps because many are working on their tans.

Those commies!

Take for example a strict Texas voter ID law, which has been struck down repeatedly by the courts. A variety of judges have described it as a thinly veiled attempt to keep 600,000 otherwise eligible, but mostly dark-skinned or tanned young citizens from casting ballots. Under the proposed law, a voter must have one of a handful of proper kinds of photo IDs to vote. Many poor Hispanic and African American voters don’t have the official birth certificate needed to get the ID they require. Then again, if you show up at the polls you can vote if you present a concealed carry license. You can’t vote, though, if all you have is a photo ID from, say, the University of Texas.

Makes sense, right? 

THIS IS WHERE KOBACH and the “Commission on Election Integrity” take their bows. According to Trump a tidal wave of three to five million imaginary illegal immigrant voters swamped the polls in 2016. Every one voted for “Crooked Hillary.” Not one imaginary voter pulled an imaginary lever for Orange Mussolini.

(Actually, that’s true, in an imaginary way.)

Luckily, in Kansas, that tide was staunched by Secretary of State Kobach. Out on the Great Plains, he was doing his best to save America, so Trump could make it great again and maybe bring back the poll tax. For two years, under Kansas law, Kobach was hard at work ferreting out trillions and trillions of illegals who, he insisted, infested voter registration rolls across the nation. In fact, if you recall Trump’s insistence that he would have won the popular vote if all those illegals hadn’t voted, you might keep in mind Kobach was his main source for his absurd claims.

This is where the delusions of Trump and the anti-democratic instincts of the GOP intersect to perfection. If you set out to suppress the vote and capture Bigfoot you need a leader who believes Bigfoot exists to lead the search—and suppress the minority vote in the process. Using rare powers vested in him by a GOP-controlled legislature, Kobach left no suffrage stone unturned. He cleaned out criminals left and right. 

Like fascist right. 

This past April the Kansas City Star proudly proclaimed that, “Victor David Garcia Bebek has pleaded guilty to voter fraud.”

Bebek is dark-skinned for sure, a native of Peru, who ran afoul of Kobach after qualifying for citizenship and applying to vote legally. It turned out Bebek had been confused about his legal status, had already cast ballots in two elections, and a brand new citizen was hauled into court and fined $5,000.

With that, the total number of illegal immigrant voters caught and convicted by Kobach since July 2015 rose to…one.

One!

HERE A LIBERAL—OR ANY LOGICAL HUMAN—might suggest Bebek voted because he got mixed up, not because he was part of a nefarious plot to subvert the nation. Bebek wouldn’t be the first citizen, new or used, to be unclear how democracy works. It took Trump five years to figure out Hawaii was part of the United States and President Obama was therefor an American citizen. In a recent poll 57% of adults couldn’t name a single justice on the Supreme Court, even though they had nine chances. (You figure they didn’t know there were nine justices, either.) In another stunner, only 1 in 3 Americans could correctly name the three branches of government, and 1 in 8 agreed the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right to own a pet. During the 2016 campaign, 59% of Trump supporters still believed Mr. Obama was the first alien to land in the Oval Office. 

So it’s no surprise that Trump, who has clearly never read the U.S. Constitution, and many loyal Trumpsters believe Bigfoot exists.

Look at the evidence from Kansas!

According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Kobach has managed to prosecute a total of nine people for voter fraud in two short years, collecting $30,000 in fines in the process. Sadly, eight of nine convictions involve noticeably white, native-born citizens, who voted in two different states during one election. The Wichita Eagle highlighted Kobach’s “success” in May 2016, when Ron Weems, 77, pled guilty to three misdemeanors, including double voting in Kansas and Colorado.

Soon a fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth criminal fell to the blazing guns of the Kansan Kobach.

Nine cases—out of 1,788,673 registered Kansas voters.

Sure, the “fake news” folks might quibble. CNN might point out that one Kansan criminal, Randall Kilian, 62, was a registered Republican.

MSNBC might focus on Steven Gaedtke, also surprisingly white, who paid a fine after voting in Kansas and Arkansas in 2010.

Some damn liberal might point out his crime was committed six years before Trump ran for office.

When Kansas newspapers (and even Fox News) scoffed, Kobach defended his efforts, claiming he had uncovered many more cases. In Sedgewick County he said he had turned up 25 illegally registered criminals, their evil deeds spread over a a lawless period of thirteen years. Some had even cast ballots! In many cases, Kobach discovered “criminals” who registered to vote, realized they weren’t eligible, and didn’t. In one particularly egregious case five Kansans in one county illegally registered—and then self-reported their errors. And it was too bad when a Shawnee County judge struck down new voter registration rules, pushed by Mr. Kobach, on the judicially flimsy grounds that…um…18,000 Kansans who had every right to vote would have been denied ballots.

SADLY, WE’VE SEEN THIS SORRY SAGA play out before. In North Carolina a federal appeals court ruling that another GOP-supported voter ID law was drafted in a way to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and insure they didn’t cast ballots was upheld (meaning the law was nullified) by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And consider the case of Florida. With an estimated 850,000 illegal immigrants residing in that state, Governor Rick Scott set out in 2012 to purge the voting rolls and protect democracy at its roots. First, the Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 men and women who might be voting illegally. 

Bigfoot! Sooooo scary!

A second careful check of records, duplicate names, wrong addresses, and more, quickly cut that figure to 2,700.  

Less scary!

Then more checking reduced the total to 200 possible illegals, one of whom turned out to be an 85-year-old World War II veteran. 

Eventually, after many tax dollars wasted, the state did manage to purge 85 names from the rolls.

Not at all scary! 

(Unless you care about the tens of thousands of eligible voters who nearly got kicked off the rolls.)

IN ANY CASE,, President Donald J. Trump pledges a massive effort to catch millions of illegal voters. He has promised to spend millions and millions in taxpayer dollars on his hallucinatory quest.

Kris Kobach will do his part to find Bigfoot and work hard to justify keeping as many dark-skinned individuals as possible away from the polls. “This is really a first-of-its-kind enterprise,” he told reporters after hearing of his appointment. “For the first time having a national body gather data from all 50 states. The objective of the commission is to bring those hard facts together on a national level.”

So, good luck, Mr. Kobach. Sometime soon, we know you’ll find Illegal Immigrant Voter #2.

MAYBE THE K.K.K will even pitch in and help you.

Trump and the GOP Make the Case for Democrats in 2018 and 2020

If you set out to convince people to return power control of Congress to the Democrats in 2018, and the White House two years later, what would be the most effective way to accomplish it?

It could be, all you need to do is focus on the incompetence of Donald Trump and the most ineffective, GOP-controlled Congress in history.

Polls (see below) show that might be all you need.

If the election were held today, the GOP would be in well-earned and deep trouble.

But we can help speed the process if we approach the situation carefully. We can run strictly honest candidates in 2018 and 2020. 

That would be a start.

Also—Democrats could address the needs of older, white working class voters, especially men, who have seen their economic standing erode. We should keep championing the concerns of darker-skinned citizens, as well as women, and law-abiding immigrants, even undocumented ones. But we should be sympathetic to the financial concerns of many Trump supporters, realizing they are valid.

(We are liberals: we want to help the down-trodden.) 

You would also want to make a powerful case that it isn’t government that has screwed the average white, working-class man and woman. It was giant corporations that shipped millions of good jobs to low-wage nations. It wasn’t President Obama who forced those greedy companies to start operating in Vietnam, China and Sri Lanka.

Muslim Americans didn’t do it.

Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, weren’t responsible.

The CEO’s of corporations did it—and did it because CEO’s don’t bleed red, white and blue. They bleed green.

To the degree that President Trump has talked about bringing jobs back to America, his case resonates with many of our fellow citizens. The problem—and here, I am ignoring the fact that on many topics Trump sounds nuts—is that he represents a political party that has worked diligently to break fiscal back of the average worker. Expecting the GOP to push for policies that aid the working stiff is like expecting the Tooth Fairy to show up when you have impacted wisdom teeth, perform surgery, and leave $1,000 under your pillow.

It’s not going to happen.

At no point since the GOP took complete control of Congress has the approval rate of that august body reached 30%.

It would help if Democrats could make clear how little regard the ordinary GOP lawmaker has for the ordinary American worker. Consider the virulent Republican hatred for labor unions. Perhaps you’re too young to remember. But there was a time when no non-union worker dared pick up a shovel or swing a hammer on any unionized job site. (As a bonus, that meant no undocumented worker plucked off the street would have a chance to take a good American job; and, again, I do not mean to disparage those who come here from other countries in search of a better life). And why does the GOP loathe unions? For all their imperfections, unions exist to fight for higher wages and improved fringe benefits.

If you go back to the 1980s, Republicans were happy to argue that business leaders had every right to move jobs from Ohio and Michigan, where wages were “too high” and pensions “too good,” to states like Texas and Tennessee. There workers would expect less and there would be no unions to demand more.

Then the GOP used the same argument, and made it with increasing fervor, starting in the late 90s. If Apple or Ford or Caterpillar wanted to ship jobs overseas, well, that’s how the system is intended to work. The first, last and only imperative of a company is to make as much money as possible.

Republican policies were designed to facilitate that process, not to help the average worker. Tax shelters overseas, where giant companies could hide cash? Good idea! Special tax rates for hedge fund managers and Goldman Sachs banking executives? Just as Jesus intended! Tax cuts for billionaires? Just what the Koch brothers ordered! Raise the minimum wage, which would have a ripple effect for workers at the lower end of the spectrum, even those not directly covered? Can’t do it! That would cripple the U.S. economy! I once listened to a conservative friend insist if Congress raised the minimum wage a McDonald’s hamburger would suddenly cost $5.00. I said I was pretty sure his math was suspect, and he stalked away, muttering darkly that he was going home to turn on Fox News.

Now, is it okay if the typical CEO earns 300 times as much as the average worker? Does that raise the price of the hamburger? Not at all. According to the GOP, that’s why capitalism was invented.

In the same way, Democrats would be wise to point out that Republicans have been playing political “rope-a-dope” with their base supporters. While offering tax cut crumbs, and secretly smiling as hourly wages for those supporters declined, the GOP warned darkly that if Democrats regained control:

1. Gay marriages would ruin marriage for straight people. This was kind of like insisting: If your gay neighbors painted their house pink your formerly straight children would all come marching out of the closet.

2. Granny, kicking and screaming, would be carted away in a sinister black van, if Obamacare was enacted. There would be “death panels!”

GOP ineptitude has even convinced a majority of Americans the Affordable Care Act is good.

3. Speaking of “death,” Democrats would insist on innocent middle class Americans paying a “death tax.” I.R.S agents dressed like the Grim Reaper would show up at Granny’s funeral (see above). Granny would have to pay a huge tax on all assets, house, car and savings. Okay, don’t mention the fact the estate tax applies only to individuals who leave behind $5.5 million and couples that leave twice as much.

4. Also, if Democrats gain control, Muslims will enforce Sharia law in every village and town and every cornfield in Iowa. Even Mormons and Amish women will have to wear face coverings and long black robes.

5. If Muslim Obama (see above) was elected—and especially reelected—good citizens would immediately be required to give up all their guns. Even Nerf guns would be banned! And when Muslim Obama didn’t take away a single gun during his first term, or his second, well, it was a ruse, because Hillary was lurking in the wings ready to seize all the guns Obama was going to seize only didn’t. Meanwhile, worried Americans, their right to bear arms under terrible attack, ran out and bought another 150 million weapons, and gun-makers raked in the cash and happily raised CEO pay.

6. If Democrats ran Congress, we as a nation would lose the “War on Christmas.” We would suffer a catastrophic defeat in the “War on Coal” and even the “War on Ear Wax.”  After the government disposed of granny, your Christmas tree would get it too. And: no coal for the kids’ stockings!

7. Indeed, “tree huggers” would come to your house and take away your tree and trample all your ornaments; because they’re commies who believe in science and actually read NASA studies and think the earth is heating up in unnatural fashion. But the CEO’s of Big Oil companies and Big Coal know what’s best for all of us, and who are you going to trust? Scientists, or, say, guys who run Big Pharma?

The question, then, is how does our side counteract all the fear-mongering and make a case to vote “Democrat” in 2018 and 2020?

A little respect for the principles and beliefs, the valid fears and concerns of most Trump voters wouldn’t hurt.

And it might not be a bad idea to quote that great Republican president, a bit of a “tree hugger,” himself, Theodore Roosevelt:

The true welfare of the nation is indissolubly bound up with the welfare of the farmer and the wage-worker—of the man who tills the soil, and of the mechanic, the handicraftsman, the laborer. If we can insure the prosperity of these two classes we need not trouble ourselves about the prosperity of the rest, for that will follow as a matter of course.

  

Or, you might just enjoy the show as President Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bumble every issue and make a hash of the democratic process.

That clearly works, too.

Asked to choose: more Americans today would like to see the Democrats regain control of the legislative branch.

Letter to Nine U.S. Senators

This is a copy of the letter I sent to nine U. S. senators today.

As you will read, I have hope for eight and almost no faith in Mitch McConnell.

Senator Mitch McConnell

U. S. Senate

317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

                                                                                                                        May 11, 2017

Dear Senators McConnell, Burr, Corker, McCain, Brown, Flake, Graham, Portman and Sasse:

As a former Marine, retired American history teacher, and one who loves his country, I call on you to act decisively in excising a growing “cancer on the Presidency,” to use a phrase from the Watergate Era.

I sincerely believe most of you have the best interests of our nation at heart. I am reassured to hear Senators Burr, Corker and McCain, Senate committee chairmen, have expressed misgivings over the bizarre timing of the firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey. I am also heartened to know Senator Sasse and Senator Flake have expressed doubts about the decision of President Trump to fire the F.B.I. head at a time when there is an ongoing investigation into possible collusion between members of the Trump team and the Russian government.

I admit I have never been a fan of President Trump. Nevertheless, until now, I assumed any wrongdoing during the recent campaign was likely limited to his aides, in particular General Michael J. Flynn and Paul Manafort. Now, harkening back to Watergate once more, I fear the question becomes: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

It is possible that Mr. Trump knew nothing about any questionable activities. This affair may simply boil down to political incompetence. Yet the dark clouds hanging over the White House daily grow. I believe Senator Flake said it best yesterday morning: “I’ve spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing. I just can’t do it.”

Millions of your constituents surely concur and the black cloud over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue must be dissipated. Only an independent prosecutor, an Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski type, or very powerful Senate investigative efforts can put serious doubts to rest. The rule of law has been upheld before, with the impeachment of President Nixon and investigation into President Clinton’s reprehensible behavior. It is time for the proud Republican Party to act. Senator McConnell, you will either go down in history as a wise leader or a craven, political coward.

You seem inclined to trace the latter path.

The American people call on you for answers. Why does Mr. Trump so adamantly insist the whole Russian story is “a hoax?” Why did foreign intelligence agencies warn U.S. counter-parts if there was nothing to fear in this matter? Why would the White House act so slowly in firing General Flynn once they knew he lied about lucrative Russian connections unless President Trump knew about and signed off on same? If “there’s no there, there,” as the White House still insists, why, just as Director Comey was asking for increased resources to expand the investigation, with news sources reporting there are multiple grand juries impaneled, why then was Mr. Comey fired? Indeed, what story does General Flynn have to tell, as hinted at by his lawyer, if he can be granted immunity?

If President Trump has done nothing wrong, we need to know. It will be a relief if that proves true. If serious criminal activity took place during the 2016 campaign, and if a spreading cover-up is underway, we also need to know.

Faith in democracy is at stake.

Senator Portman and Senator Brown, I ask you to adopt the most principled stands. I ask you, Senator Graham, to work diligently to get to the bottom of this mystery. I know you support the President’s decision to fire Director Comey. I have grave reservations; but I respect the stands you have taken on many issues and trust you will continue to do what you believe is best for this country.

There may be little to this Russian story in the end. Or we may face a “grave constitutional crisis” as Senator Durbin has said. It will be up to all of you to insure that if the latter is the case, that crisis is met with wisdom.

Sincerely,

John J. Viall

Trump: Smells like Watergate?

In light of President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey yesterday, I thought a few people might be interested in a refresher on the Watergate Affair. This is something I put together for my students years ago:

An Affair Called Watergate

A few days before President Richard M. Nixon left office in disgrace, an advisor tried to cheer him. History would mark him as one of our great presidents, the aide predicted. 

A gloomy Nixon could only reply, “That depends, Henry, on who writes the history.”

*

If you ask people what they remember about President Nixon’s time in office today, most of what he did right is forgotten. The Watergate Affair is what they are likely to mention. Nixon is the only president ever driven from office before his term ended as a result of the impeach-ment process.[1]

His downfall began with a botched burglary at “The Watergate” building in Washington, D. C. It was there, on June 17, 1972, that a night watchman with a flashlight noticed something unusual. The locks on several doors, including those in the offices of the National Democratic Party were taped open. Police were called and five burglars rounded up. 

Normally, burglary isn’t national news. This was no ordinary break-in. The suspects carried $1,754 in cash, along with cameras and film. They had sophisticated equipment for tapping phones and recording conversations. One burglar, James McCord, had worked for the C.I.A. Even stranger, police found this notation in his address book: “Howard E. Hunt, W. House.”

From the start police were suspicious. Why would burglars break into the headquarters of the Democrat Party? Could McCord’s note mean the White House? Could the suspects be spying on Democrats because 1972 was an election year? Who had hired them and turned them loose? 

The next day White House staff members spoke to reporters. No one who worked for the President, they said, knew anything about the break-in. President Nixon shrugged it off as a “third-rate burglary.” Then he assured reporters there was no reason for concern. Everyone, from the President down, seemed surprised. Almost all of them were lying.

*

            Today we know what was involved. Nothing added up in the summer of 1972. Nixon had been elected four years earlier, partly on a promise to end the Vietnam War. (Lyndon Johnson, president before him, had been attacked over handling of the fighting in Vietnam. Johnson took criticism so hard he decided not to run for reelection in 1968.) Even after Nixon took office, however, the war dragged on and on. The list of dead grew with each week. 

Americans who believed the government had made a mistake by leading us to war turned on the new man in the White House. In 1970 there were anti-war protests on college campuses across the country. Four student protestors were killed at Kent State University (Ohio) when National Guard troops opened fire. In 1971 thousands of peace marchers flooded the streets of Washington, D. C. They threatened to “shut the government down” unless bloodshed ended. Americans who weren’t sure what to think had real doubts about the war.

Criticism of Mr. Nixon mounted. With the election of 1972 approaching, he seemed unable to end the fighting.

We couldn’t win the war; but the President refused to accept defeat, to be part of what he said would be a “cowardly retreat.” He insisted the United States must have “peace with honor.” Nixon chose to increase pressure on the enemy. American warplanes rained bombs on North Vietnamese targets. Fighting spilled over into neighboring Cambodia. The President had promised to end the war. Instead, it seemed to grow. Meanwhile, Daniel Ellsberg, who once worked for the U.S. government, added fuel to the debate. Secretly, Ellsberg removed thousands of pages of documents from government files. These papers he handed over to reporters. Soon known as “The Pentagon Papers,” the documents seemed to show that U.S. leaders before Nixon took office had failed to tell the truth about the war and had overstated our chances of winning.

American troops had been fighting in Vietnam for nearly a decade. Voters were weary. Democrats who planned to run for president in 1972 increased attacks on Nixon, questioning his handling of the war.

Hadn’t he had four years to find a solution? Wasn’t it clear he had failed? Why not elect someone new and let them end the war?

Senator George McGovern, for one, claimed he could stop the fighting “twenty-four hours” after he was sworn in as president. Opinion polls that summer indicated that Nixon might lose the election in November.

*

So, what went wrong? In his heart, President Nixon believed anti-war protests were hurting U. S. chances for victory in Vietnam. The enemy would not give up, he argued, if they thought the United States might quit first. Nixon was angered by the criticism—and considered Ellsberg nothing less than a traitor. More importantly, the President believed if America backed down in Vietnam we would lose respect round the globe. To the President and his advisors the danger seemed clear. For the good of the country, to insure our nation’s strength, Nixon had to be reelected. The protestors and Democratic rivals had to be silenced—had to be put out of action—even if that meant drastic action. 

Government agents received secret instructions to begin tapping phones and opening mail of anti-war individuals and organizations.

Newspaper writers who criticized Nixon had their phones bugged, too, all these actions taken without search warrants.

John Erlichman and Charles Colson, top White House aides, ordered several illegal break-ins, what became known as “black bag jobs.” The office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist was raided in an effort to gather information that would make him appear “sick” or crazy. These actions were clearly illegal. The men who worked for Nixon, however, felt justified. They were acting for the “good” of the country. Ellsberg and those who leaked material to reporters were a threat—to the safety of America—or, so said Nixon’s men. They even coined their own nickname: “The Plumbers.” In an effort to stop “leaks” of information to the press, they repeatedly broke the law.

            As Election Day approached, questionable activities multiplied. In the spring of 1972 it looked like Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, would be Nixon’s strongest challenger. A Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), was set up by some of the President’s allies and swung into action. Donald Segretti and several young political workers were hired to harass and damage Muskie’s campaign any way they could.

            On one occasion, Segretti put in a fake order for 200 pizzas to be delivered to a Muskie campaign dinner. That might sound funny; but more serious tricks quickly followed. Fake campaign literature was passed out. Supposedly, it laid out Muskie’s positions on various issues. Materials were written to make him sound bad, like someone you wouldn’t want for your president. Important records turned up missing from his office. Fake callers cancelled meetings and changed plane reservations. A fake letter to a newspaper ruined Senator Muskie’s campaign for good.    

Nixon encouraged top aides to gather information on Senator Ted Kennedy, another possible challenger. A private detective was hired to look into details of a car accident involving Kennedy in 1969, during which a young lady drowned. Colson turned up a picture of Kennedy, who was married, leaving a night club with a hot blonde. It was printed in several papers. Nixon congratulated Colson for his work. Colson moved on to more questionable activities. Once he hired several men to pose as homosexuals and stand outside Senator McGovern’s meetings. Pretending to support McGovern for president, Colson knew their presence would cause many Americans to vote against McGovern instead.

            Laws on the collection and use of money in elections were broken in various ways. Several companies secretly donated as much as $250,000 to CREEP.[2] Nixon overstepped the rules, himself, asking the Internal Revenue Service to check the tax returns of individuals who questioned his handling of the war. If people on an “enemies list” the White House now kept could be caught in mistakes it might silence their criticism.

*

            Before June 17, 1972 these activities were mostly secret. Now, with the arrest of five Watergate burglars, the White House had problems. The original burglars and G. Gordon Liddy who helped with the break-in and was arrested shortly thereafter, knew plenty. Some of Nixon’s closest advisors had knowledge of the break-in plan. The trail led right to (and possibly through) the door to the Oval Office. Police investigations soon showed a direct connection between the burglars and Howard Hunt. Hunt had an office in the White House. Liddy and McCord were on the CREEP payroll. CREEP was headed by John Mitchell, Nixon’s personal friend.

            Fearing the investigation might spread like cancer the White House decided their best bet was to “cover up.” The day after the burglary, Mitchell lied, denying any connection to the men arrested. The day after that one of Mitchell’s workers, a lawyer named Jeb Magruder, asked what to do with notes that might prove CREEP knew what was going on. Mitchell’s reply: “Maybe you ought to have a little fire at your house tonight.”

            John Erlichman, second in line to leadership of the White House staff, panicked when the F.B.I. joined the case. Erlichman had been deeply involved with Hunt and Liddy. He knew about the Ellsberg burglary. Now he ordered John Dean, President Nixon’s personal lawyer, to empty the safe in Hunt’s White House office. Dean did what he was told but not before putting on a pair of surgical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.  What about the evidence in the safe? What should he do with it? Erlichman told Dean to “deep-six” the contents. He should dump everything in the Potomac River. Dean, like several top men at CREEP, got busy with a paper-shredder. Box after box of evidence turned to confetti.

            Despite these cover-up efforts, reporters kept sniffing. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who wrote for the Washington Post, did more than anyone to break the story. Early on, a secretary at CREEP warned them privately, “The whole thing is being very well covered up and nobody will ever know what happened.” Then the two reporters uncovered a key lead. CREEP officers had used a secret fund of $350,000 to pay for illegal activities. Another source, deep inside the F.B.I., began providing them with a variety of leads.[3] Woodward and Bernstein picked up Donald Segretti’s trail. A friend who worked for the phone company checked records for them—ironically, in illegal fashion. Segretti had used a credit card to call Hunt and Dwight Chapin at the White House.

            Chapin was Nixon’s private secretary.

            As early as June 23, 1972—six days after the break-in—Nixon made a fatal decision.

            That day he told H. R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, to pressure the F.B.I. to go slow on the investigation. From that point forward the “Watergate Affair” was something more than a “third-rate burglary.” At first, the question was: “Who planned the break-in?” There was a possibility Nixon was innocent. After the meeting with Haldeman, an illegal cover-up was underway. And the President of the United States of America was involved.

*

            By late summer, the trials of Liddy and the five burglars had begun. Several witnesses lied in hopes of keeping the investigation from spreading, adding perjury to a growing list of crimes. The White House secretly arranged to pay the burglars to remain quite, to “hush them up.” John Dean hinted to defendants that after the election, when it was politically safe to do so, Nixon would “take care” of them. A quick pardon would follow.

            Judge John Sirica, who heard the case against the Watergate burglars, was suspicious from the start. The six men insisted they planned the job themselves. So, when it came time to sentence the defendants, Sirica put on the squeeze. They were expecting three-to-five years, fairly typical in burglary cases where no one was harmed. Sirica wanted to force them to talk. So he slapped them with the maximum penalty: thirty-five years in prison. 

James McCord broke immediately. In a letter to the judge, written almost as soon as he returned to his jail cell, he admitted money and pressure had been applied to keep him silent. Sirica read the letter to reporters and a stunned courtroom audience the following day. 

            Nixon and his aides kept a lid on the story enough so that he was able to win reelection. But the shadow of Watergate lengthened. Congress set up a special committee to investigate. Reporters from various news organizations kept digging. Doubts about Nixon grew with each passing week. By the spring of 1973 the story was making daily headlines. To show he was “anxious” to get to the bottom of the mess, the President appointed Archibald Cox as “special prosecutor” to investigate matters. 

            Startling developments only complicated Nixon’s dilemma. During questioning in Congress, a White House aide named Alexander Butterfield let a critical detail slip. The President, he admitted, “bugged” his own office. “I was hoping you fellows wouldn’t ask me about that,” Butterfield told the Congressional panel. For years President Nixon had recorded every conversation he held in his White House office, including dozens which might tell who knew what, when, and how much about the Watergate affair. Nixon wrote in his diary soon after: “At the present time we are really caught without knowing how to handle it.” Normal White House business was at a standstill. The presidency seemed “paralyzed.”     

The key question was clear: WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

            Opinions vary even today. We do know Nixon chose, at the very least, to protect friends rather than tell the truth. At one meeting he told John Mitchell how aides should testify in Congress and in court. Let them “stonewall it” and say nothing. They could “plead the Fifth Amendment,[4] cover up or anything else if it’ll save it—save it for them,” he explained.

It was harder and harder to keep a lid on the truth. By March 21, 1973 Nixon’s lawyer, John Dean, was warning his boss there was “a cancer on the Presidency” which would grow. He (Dean), Colson, Haldeman, Erlichman and others were likely to face criminal charges. The worst problem was Howard Hunt, who was blackmailing the White House. Dean explained that it would take $1,000,000 to keep Hunt and the original burglars quiet. Even that might not be enough. The President was willing to pay. But it made no difference. Dean began spilling the truth to investigators himself. So did other top officials. 

One by one, Nixon’s closest aides were caught in a spider web of lies. Top CREEP officials were found guilty of planning the burglary and lying in court. Chapin, Colson, Haldeman, Erlichman and Dean were charged with a list of crimes. Mr. Nixon continued to insist he had not been involved.

During one famous TV address he looked into the camera and assured a worried nation: “I am not a crook.”

*

            The beginning of the end came in September 1973. Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, asked to listen to nine tape recordings from the Oval Office, covering key conversations related to Watergate. Nixon refused to give him the tapes, offering written transcripts instead. Fresh problems arose. One recording, a meeting on June 20, 1972, was found to have a mysterious 18 ½ minute “gap” or erasure. No one could explain how this happened. Nixon’s secretary said she might have erased a few minutes by mistake. It seemed like more than a “coincidence” that this tape covered the first meeting between H. R. Haldeman and Nixon, days after the break-in.

            Cox insisted transcripts were not enough. He demanded the recordings. Nixon responded by firing him, the very man he had chosen to get to the “truth.” When the President asked Attorney General Elliot Richardson to carry out his order, Richardson quit. His top assistant quit, too. Finally, a third official was found who would carry out the order. The firing and resignations of these three top law enforcement officials became known as “The Saturday Night Massacre” and stirred a storm of protest. 

A week later the White House roused the nation’s anger again. Nixon’s staff reported that one of the nine tapes Cox asked for did not exist. A third ran out in the middle of a conversation. In the last ten days of October a million telegrams and letters poured into Congress, demanding action. On November 12, 1973, Time magazine ran its first editorial in fifty years. The headline: “The President Should Resign.”

Nixon tried to save himself. He appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. But the President had no time to relax. Jaworski asked for more tapes, sixty-four in all. Nixon released thousands of pages of transcripts but no tapes. The printed record was bad enough. It showed our nation’s leaders had been involved in what one magazine called “sleazy, cheap and vulgar” activities. Nixon dug in his heels and refused to give up any more transcripts or any tapes at all. According to the powers granted by the U.S. Constitution, Nixon said, Congress had no right to pry into his private records.

Faced with evidence of a long list of crimes, the House of Representatives opened impeachment hearings in the spring of 1974. On July 24 the United States Supreme Court sealed Nixon’s doom. By an 8-0 vote, with one justice in the hospital, the court ruled that he was required to turn over the tapes investigators wanted. When they were released Congress had all the evidence it needed. The tape of June 23, 1972 was labeled “the smoking pistol.” Like a smoking gun in a criminal’s hand, it showed Nixon had been involved in an illegal cover-up from the start.

The House quickly voted to impeach. As required by law, the Senate prepared to hold the trial and perhaps remove the President from office under the process set forth in the U.S. Constitution. With no hope left, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.

Soon after, a beaten ex-president headed home to California in disgrace.

Sadly, on one of his last mornings in office, Nixon questioned two staff members. “Well, I screwed it up good, real good, didn’t I?” he asked. Neither man had the heart to answer.

Your work:

1. What did the burglars expect to gain by breaking into the Watergate building?

2. Why did Nixon feel that the United States could not afford to lose the Vietnam War?

3. In what ways did Segretti and other Nixon supporters disrupt Democratic election plans in 1972?

4. What illegal activities were used against news reporters, anti-war groups and Daniel Ellsberg?

5. What was Nixon’s “fatal decision” on June 23, 1972 and how did it change the Watergate affair?

6. How did Nixon suggest aides should testify in court?

7. By March 1973 why was the White House having trouble keeping the story from spreading?

8. After the President refused to give Congress any more transcripts or tapes, how was the legal battle settled?

9. Identify or explain the importance of:

A.   Woodward and Bernstein

B.    CREEP

C.   Daniel Ellsberg

D.    “deep-six”

E.    Judge Sirica

F.    Alexander Butterfield

G.   The 18 ½ minute gap

H.   The Saturday Night Massacre

I.      “the smoking pistol”

---

[1] President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1867 and barely survived the Senate vote, 35-19. President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1999 but never came close to losing his seat in the Oval Office. Embarrassingly, however, the vote on one article was 50-50.
       It requires a two-third’s vote by the Senate for removal.

[2] This is illegal—because it might rightly be called an attempt to buy “favors” from the government.

[3] The identity of this man, whom Woodward and Bernstein called “Deep Throat,” remained secret till 2005. His name was Mark Felt, in those days, a top man with the F.B.I.

[4] Under the 5^th Amendment no defendant can be forced to give information that might lead to his or her own conviction for a crime.