DOCSLIB.ORG

NORTHMUNC IV Crisis Committee: Watergate Scandal Start Date: June 18, 1972 (Day of Watergate Break-In) Chair: Richard Nixon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NORTHMUNC IV Crisis Committee: Watergate Scandal Start Date: June 18, 1972 (Day of Watergate Break-In) Chair: Richard Nixon NORTHMUNC IV Crisis Committee: Watergate Scandal Start Date: June 18, 1972 (day of Watergate break-in) Chair: Richard Nixon History: In the 1968 election, the death of Robert F. Kennedy opened the doors for previous Vice President Hubert Humphrey to become the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. On the other side was Republican Richard Nixon, who ran on a platform promoting domestic and foreign peace. Nixon claimed victory over the White House by 500,000 popular votes. Once in office, Nixon’s greatest problem was the Vietnam War. How was he going to stop it and fulfil the promises he had made to the American public during his campaign? The war was widely unpopular among the American people and resulted in many protests demanding peace. Nixon urged the American people to be patient and pursued negotiations. By the end of Nixon’s first year in office, he sported a 59% approval rating. At the end of his second year, that figure had fallen to 52%. At the beginning of 1972, Nixon’s approval rating reached a high of 62%. Possible causes of Nixon’s high approval ratings include landing the first man on the moon in 1969 and running a successful re-election campaign. It is safe to say that Nixon was relatively popular amongst the American people during his first term. During the 1972 election, the Democratic Party chose George McGovern as their nomination over Senator Edmund Muskie. The Republican Party renominated Richard Nixon. In early June, it seemed likely that Nixon would win his second presidential election as many Americans believed he was taking the right course of action in Vietnam. Before the Watergate Scandal broke loose, 1972 marked an important year for Nixon’s political moves: he established strong diplomatic relations with China following a trip to Beijing and he dropped bombs on North Vietnam and placed mines in Haiphong Harbor in an attempt to stop Communist attacks. His decision to bomb North Vietnam resonated well with people back home, further increasing the incumbent politician’s chances of winning the White House a second time. However, problems still plagued Nixon’s administration. In June 1971, The New York Times and The Washington Post’s release of excerpts from ​ ​ the Pentagon Papers posed as a serious issue for Nixon. Nixon’s attempts to censor the press––which proved to be a huge mistake following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York ​ Times Co. v. United States––put the administration under an immense amount of public pressure ​ and fire to end the Vietnam War. Moreover, the Mai Lai Massacre of 1968, Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 (a fact hidden from Congress and the public for over fourteen months), and the Kent State massacre of 1971 further infuriated the American public. To assuage American concerns about these issues and remain in office, Nixon withdrew 70,000 American troops from Vietnam in a three month process, leaving the remaining troops with less than half of their previous strength. In a move that is likely to be a bright spot on his record, Nixon revealed that he had been engaging in secret peace negotiations with the Vietcong, though peace has not been achieved yet. However, a cornerstone of debate going into the election might be the recent arrests at a Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate complex. Five men were caught breaking into and trying to bug the office. However, as this is an extremely recent event, more information is not available yet. Current Situation: The year is 1972, and America is embroiled in scandal and chaos. The Washington Post ​ has leaked the Pentagon Papers, the Vietnam War is costing taxpayers dollars and lives, and public perception of government is generally low. Most importantly, the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters have just been broken into and ransacked—searched, apparently, for proof of Democratic Candidate George McGovern’s inadequacy. The place has been swept clean. Wiretaps have been discovered in high-ranking Democrats’ phones. Five men have been arrested. The entire setup reeks of political sabotage orders of magnitude more severe than anything seen in the past. The situation arouses suspicion simply by virtue of how brash and careless it seems, especially since a $25,000 check has conveniently landed in one of the suspected burglars’ bank accounts. Who, you might ask, wrote a check to a felon? As you, trusted officials with security clearance, are well aware, Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign wrote that check. The story continues to swell in magnitude as more and more officials are drawn into investigations and accused of political subterfuge. As of now, the public hasn’t been informed of Nixon’s ties to the break-in; they simply know about the crime. But you can already imagine the headlines of national papers: “Nixon: President or Thief?” to “Nixon: Traitor-in-Chief?”. As always, the court of public opinion will answer these questions come election day—but only if they come to learn of the scandal itself. Nixon’s extreme insecurity, penchant for going to extreme lengths to preserve his power, and remarkable ability to alienate allies will put him in a difficult position. Nixon’s entire presidency stands on the edge of a precipice; as information about his surveillance tactics—including his extensive use of hidden tape recorders—threatens to leak, Richard Nixon’s campaign for reelection is in dire straits. Today is June 18th, the day after the Watergate break-in. President Nixon has assembled an emergency cabinet, consisting of members of his presidential cabinet and the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), to deal with the emerging crisis. Your task today is to do two things: prevent the leakage of sensitive and almost certainly damaging information, and ensure that he wins November’s election by enough of a margin for the election to go uncontested. Some of you are RNC chairpeople; some of you are heads of federal agencies; some of you are assorted attorneys, strategists, and analysts. Nixon demands only one thing from all of you in equal measure: absolute, unwavering, unshakeable conviction and loyalty. You have a few months to quell the tide of information which threatens to inundate the Nixon administration. It’s no easy task yet it’s something that a team a fraction of the size of the janitorial staff of the Pentagon has been tasked with. The 210 million people in this county clamor for change as you read this. Vietnam has already enraged them enough. They are entirely disgusted by the opacity and corruption of public office. Faith is fast declining, and it’s quickly being replaced by anger, choler, and inflammatory rhetoric. If Watergate comes to light, it will be the end of Richard Nixon—and perhaps the end of the Republican Party’s control over America. Personally, you each have a choice. The Nixon administration is a faulty ship on the brink of sinking. Help save it, and you are hailed as a hero. Let it sink, and you drown alongside it. Will your loyalty to an official perceived as corrupt outweigh your desire to preserve your own political career? We’ll see. Good luck — you’ll need it. Challenges: At this point in the game, things seem look astoundingly terrible for Nixon and the GOP in general. Besides the obvious break-in scandal that this committee has been charged with diverting before it reaches the public, terrible economic growth, combined with huge amounts of inflation has left the economy in shambles, being dubbed “stagflation”. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam is causing higher taxes across the nation, leading to outrage from desperate families throughout America that cannot afford to have another burden on their plates. People throughout the nation are calling for change, change which the Democratic candidate, George McGovern has been claiming to provide, calling for a swift end to the Vietnam war. Even worse, the American people are losing faith in the Nixon Campaign, or more accurately, whatever faith they had left, throughout the nation. President Nixon has long been in the eyes of public scrutiny, whether it be for the quick disappearance of his political rivals, or botched cover-up operations that seem to point to his corruption. This break-in threatens to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, ruining Nixon’s career forever. Though the majority in this committee may believe Nixon was the perpetrator of this crime, this committee may want to investigate whether this is just a set-up, or whether Nixon was guilty of this political scandal. While Nixon doesn’t have much credibility to his name, ANY evidence that this wasn’t him could go a long way in saving his reputation––whether that evidence be real or fake…that is up to you, as a committee, to decide. This committee faces an almost insurmountable task when it comes to building and salvaging President Nixon’s public image again. Nixon’s bid for re-election seems to have been jeopardized. Thus the question remains: how will Nixon win the upcoming re-election? If this committee decides to put up another candidate in place of Nixon for the election, how could the committee overcome the blemishes on the face of the GOP? However, not everything looks insuperable for incumbent president Nixon just yet. Nixon has been able to maintain a huge margin over McGovern, leading with an astounding margin of 30% in the last few polls that were administered throughout the nation. Furthermore, Nixon’s campaign has succeeded in portraying McGovern as a leftist radical, using the popular slogan “amnesty, abortion, and acid”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ABSTRACT Title of Document: INTERNATIONAL ORIGINS OF
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: INTERNATIONAL ORIGINS OF NIXON’S WAR ON DRUGS John Taylor Kadz, Master of Arts, 2013 Directed By: Associate Professor David B. Sicilia, University of Maryland Department of History This thesis examines how President Richard Nixon's keen interest in foreign policy affected the development of America's modern drug wars. In addition to the Nixon administration years, it also discusses how foreign influences associated with late 19th and early 20th century immigration contributed to phases of American hysteria, which led to the nation's earliest anti-drug legislation. INTERNATIONAL ORIGINS OF NIXON’S WAR ON DRUGS By John Taylor Kadz Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2013 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor David B. Sicilia, Chair Professor Julie Greene Associate Professor Saverio Giovacchini © Copyright by John Taylor Kadz 2013 Preface This thesis is the culmination of a quest to answer questions about the origins of America’s war on drugs. In 2012 I deployed with the United States Navy aboard U.S.S. Elrod (FFG-55) in support of Operation Martillo, a component of the White House strategy to combat transnational organized crime and illicit trafficking. Our Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) MK III helicopter detachment embarked with the Navy’s first Night Airborne Use of Force (N-AUF) qualified crews. This groundbreaking capability required costly aircrew equipment upgrades, aircraft modifications, and months of coordinated training with precision marksmen from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Krogh & the Watergate Scandal
    Krogh & the Watergate Scandal Egil “Bud” Krogh was a young lawyer who worked for the Nixon administration in the late 1960s and early 1970s as deputy assistant to the president. Military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the “Pentagon Papers,” which contained sensitive information regarding the United States’ progress in the Vietnam War. President Nixon himself tasked Krogh with stopping leaks of top-secret information. And Nixon’s Assistant for Domestic Affairs, John Ehrlichman, instructed Krogh to investigate and discredit Ellsberg, telling Krogh that the leak was damaging to national security. Krogh and another staffer assembled a covert team that became known as the “plumbers” (to stop leaks), which was broadly supervised by Ehrlichman. In September 1971, the plumbers’ first break-in was at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist; they were looking for documents that would discredit Ellsberg based on mental health. Reflecting on the meeting in which the break-in was proposed and approved, Krogh later wrote, “I listened intently. At no time did I or anyone else there question whether the operation was necessary, legal or moral. Convinced that we were responding legitimately to a national security crisis, we focused instead on the operational details: who would do what, when and where.” The break-in, which was illegal, was also unproductive. Nothing was found to discredit Ellsberg. Importantly, the ties between this break-in and Nixon were much more direct and easy to establish than the ties between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. Krogh later pled guilty to his role in the break-in and was sentenced to two-to-six years in prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 3 Context of '1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides To
    Context of '1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides to Avoid Antitrust Lawsuit' Page 1 of 3 !Donate Home | Contact UserName Login Not registered yet? About Timelines Blog Donate Volunteer Search Go !! History Commons Alert, Exciting News Home » Context of '1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides to Avoid Antitrust Lawsuit' Printer-Friendly View Email to Friend Context of '1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides to Avoid Antitrust Increase Text Size Lawsuit' Decrease Text Size Ordering Date ascending This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides to Avoid Antitrust Lawsuit. You can narrow or Time period broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, Email Updates the less relevant the items, on average, will be. Receive weekly email updates 1 2 3 4 5 summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database Email Address Here Go 1969: ITT Negotiates with Nixon Aides to Avoid Antitrust Lawsuit Donate International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) acquires three Developing and maintaining smaller corporations, prompting the US Justice Department to this site is very labor file suits against ITT charging that the mergers violate antitrust intensive. If you find it useful, laws. Between 1969 and April 1971, ITT officials meet with please give us a hand and donate what you can. several Nixon administration officials, including Vice President Donate Now Spiro Agnew; White House aides John Ehrlichman, Charles ITT logo. [Source: Colson, and Egil Krogh; Cabinet secretaries John Connally and Private Line.com] Maurice Stans; Justice Department officials John Mitchell and Volunteer Richard Kleindienst; and others, in attempts to persuade the If you would like to help us administration to drop the lawsuits.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomatic Negotiations and the Portrayal of Détente in Pravda, 1972-75
    A Personal Affair : Diplomatic Negotiations and the Portrayal of Détente in Pravda, 1972-75 Michael V. Paulauskas A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2006 Approved by Advisor: Donald J. Raleigh Reader: David Griffiths Reader: Chad Bryant ABSTRACT MICHAEL V. PAULAUSKAS: A Personal Affair: Diplomatic Negotiations and the Portrayal of Détente in Pravda, 1972-75 (Under the direction of Donald J. Raleigh) This thesis explores how diplomatic relations between the US and the USSR changed during détente , specifically concentrating on the period between the 1972 Moscow Summit and the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the 1974 Trade Bill . I employ transcripts of diplomatic negotiations to investigate the ways that Soviet and American leaders used new personal relationships with their adversaries to achieve thei r foreign policy goals. In order to gain further understanding of the Soviet leadership’s attitudes toward détente, I also examine how the Soviet government, through Pravda, communicated this new, increasingly complex diplomatic relationship to the Soviet public in a nuanced fashion, with multilayered presentations of American foreign policy that included portrayals of individual actors and not simply impersonal groups . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………..…………………………………………. 1 A Cautious Beginning: Soviet -American Relations before the Moscow Summit ..…………...9 The Lifting of the Veil: The 1972 Moscow Summit …………………………..…………….16 The High -Water Mark of Détente: The 1973 US Summit …..………………………….……30 “Nixon’s Last Friend”: The Watergate Scandal …………………………………………..…37 Détente in Crisis: The Jackson-Vanik Amendment ……………..…………………………..45 Conclusion…………………………………………………..……………………………….53 Appendices ……………………………………………..……………………………………57 Bibliography …………………………………………..……………………………………..65 iii Introduction Soviet Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin greeted the news of Richard M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Richard Nixon
    T H E R I S E A N D F A L L O F... The Rise and Fall of Richard Nixon What events influenced Richard Nixon’s rise to and fall from power? Introduction This photograph was taken of vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon relaxing with his pet dog, Checkers, in 1952. In his famous “Checkers” speech, Nixon refuted accusations that he had misused campaign contributions. He emphasized his family’s modest means, claiming that his wife, Pat, wore not a mink coat but “a respectable Republican cloth coat.” On September 23, 1952, California senator Richard Nixon reserved a spot on television to deliver the most important speech of his career. With this address, Nixon hoped to squash rumors that he had accepted $18,000 in illegal political contributions to finance personal expenses. The Republicans had recently nominated Nixon to run for vice president on Dwight D. Eisenhower’s ticket. When these charges against Nixon became public, Eisenhower was noncommittal — he did not drop Nixon from the ticket, but he also did not defend him. In his speech, Nixon said, “Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the © 2020 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A T H E R I S E A N D F A L L O F... United States.” But, he did confess to accepting one personal gift: A man down in Texas heard [my wife] Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Number 39-1 Portion of a Telephone Conversation Between
    Conversation Number 39-1 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Henry A. Kissinger. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 at an unknown time between 1:27 and 1:29 p.m. [This conversation is cross-referenced with conversation 440-35.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -White House response -White Paper -National security Conversation Number 39-4 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Hugh Scott. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 between 1:36 and 1:38 p.m. [This conversation is cross-referenced with conversation 440-38.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -Scott's actions, May 23 -Ronald L. Ziegler Scott's schedule Watergate -White House response -National security -Effect on United States foreign policy -Scott's possible statement -Scott's statement, May 23 Conversation Number 39-5 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Leslie C. Arends. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 between 1:39 and 1:40 p.m. [This conversation is cross- referenced with conversation 440-39.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -Republican congressmen's morale -White House response -White Paper -National security -Effect on United States foreign policy Conversation Number 39-16 Portions of a telephone conversation between the President and Alexander M. Haig, Jr. These portions were recorded on May 25, 1973 at an unknown time between 12:58 and 1:25 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Eisenhower, Dwight D.: Post-Presidential Papers, 1961-69
    EISENHOWER, DWIGHT D.: POST-PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS, 1961-69 1961 PRINCIPAL FILE Series Description Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Post-Presidential Papers reveal the wide range of contacts and the busy schedule which he maintained during the 1960s. A large volume of mail kept his small secretarial staff busy, and he was in great demand as a public speaker. Correspondence in the Post-Presidential Papers offers some interesting insights into Eisenhower’s thinking on numerous issues. No longer burdened by the responsibilities of public office, he felt freer, perhaps, to express himself on various topics. Among the issues discussed in documents found within the 1961 Principal File are the space program, the Berlin situation, Republican party politics, the U.S. economy and monetary policy, and the 1960 elections. Additional topics discussed include Cuba and the Bay of Pigs disaster, foreign aid, taxes, the alleged missile gap, the 1952 campaign, the U.S.I.A.’s mission, the Electoral College, Laos, Latin America, and public housing. Eisenhower’s correspondence in the 1961 Principal File reflects a virtual Who’s Who of both foreign leaders and prominent Americans. Konrad Adenauer of Germany, John Diefenbaker of Canada, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, and Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain, Prime Minister Menzies of Australia, President Mateos of Mexico, and King Saud of Saudi Arabia are among the foreign leaders who stayed in touch with the ex-president. Many prominent Americans maintained contact with the former president as well. He corresponded with numerous former members of his administration, including Dillon Anderson, Ezra Taft Benson, Arthur F. Burns, Andrew Goodpaster, James Hagerty, Bryce Harlow, Gabriel Hauge, C.D.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • To Set the Record Straight by Judge John J. Sirica Richard L
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Book Review: To Set The Record Straight By Judge John J. Sirica Richard L. Aynes Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Aynes, Richard L. (1981) "Book Review: To Set The Record Straight By Judge John J. Sirica," Akron Law Review: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol14/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Aynes: Book Review BOOK REVIEW To SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: By Judge John J. Sirica W. W. Norton & Co., 1979. 303 pp. Reviewed by Richard L. Aynes* N MANY WAYS it seems almost impossible that eight years have passed since that night on June 17, 1972 when the Democratic National Head- quarters at the Watergate complex was burglarized. Yet, the fact that so much time has passed becomes evident when one recognizes that many of the principal characters, once prominent in the headlines, have now faded into obscurity.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Mardian (Bress)
    REPRODUCED AT THE I~ATIONAL ARCHIVES ¯ 2466 MR. BRESS : l.iay~ it please ti~e Cou~’to, counsel, ladies and gentl~:aen.of the jury. ~ly n~me is David Bress. I am app.-e~a~ing before you on behalf of defendapt Robert C. Mardian. As you understand fron~ ~qhat the C~t has already stated, the defendants do not ]]ave to make ~m opening state,_-:~ent they have the right to reserve. So~,~e have reserved, and some have: ~hos.en to make an opening statement. I have chosen to make one to you -~/: this ti:.::e for t%,;o re.aSOl~S . First, Robert i.iardian is very mi=fmal!l~ involved in the evidence in this case i.~; a very perfLrlieral ~.:ay and it would be a long time before %:e are able to l~u~ on our evidence on our case. It may be t~o or three months from, aow before he / has the oppontunity to offer evidence in hi~ o%-;n behalf. Therefore, it would make your- function a lot easier if you kne~; ~;ho ~e ~.:e~.-u si~ting at the table and ~hat are we doing her~-~ ~’.nd \.~hat U~ -,-.~,s,-, do ~,;e have, so that you can ~ore I REPRODUCED AT THE NAT;ONAL ARCHIVES ¯ 2467 twelve-count indictn, ent against five defendants. Robert [.:ardian is mentioned only in the first count. He is ti~e¯ only defendant before you who is ntentlo;.e~" ~ ~ only in the first count. I kno%, m~%y of you have not had previous experience as jurors and ~’un~s ’ must be some~.~hat of a novel experience for you, unique, but the Govez’~ent files an indic~r~ent, a charge, ~,hich is not evidence and it stahes t-~hat it expects to prove in support of the charge, what the charge is.
    [Show full text]
  • Watergate, Multiple Conspiracies, and the White House Tapes
    Do Not Delete 8/1/2012 8:26 PM Watergate, Multiple Conspiracies, and the White House Tapes Arnold Rochvarg* On January 1, 1975, John Mitchell, former United States Attorney General, John Ehrlichman, former Chief White House Assistant for Domestic Affairs, H.R. Haldeman, former White House Chief of Staff, and Robert Mardian, former Assistant Attorney General, were convicted of conspiracy1 for their involvement in what is generally known as “Watergate.”2 The Watergate conspiracy trial, presided over by Judge John Sirica, had run from October 1, 1974 until December 27, 1974.3 The trial included the in-court testimony of most of the figures involved in the Watergate scandal,4 and the playing of thirty of the “White House tapes.”5 The purpose of this Symposium article is to discuss whether the evidence presented at the Watergate trial is better understood as evidence of multiple conspiracies, as argued by two of the defendants,6 or as a single conspiracy as argued by the prosecution. The article first will set forth the law on multiple conspiracies and apply that law to the evidence presented at the Watergate conspiracy trial. The article will then discuss whether the admission into evidence of certain White House tapes premised on the single conspiracy view may have prejudiced any of the convicted defendants. I. THE LAW OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES It is not uncommon at a criminal conspiracy trial, or on appeal from a conviction of conspiracy, for a defendant to argue that a guilty verdict for * Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law. Professor Rochvarg was a member of the legal defense team that represented Robert Mardian in the appeal of his conviction of conspiracy at the Watergate conspiracy trial.
    [Show full text]