Tag Archives: Watergate

As for impeachment …

Now that so many pundits and politicians are talking about impeachment these days in Washington, D.C., I believe I’ll share an important date that’s about to pass.

On Aug. 9, many Americans will commemorate — some will cheer it, others will mourn it — the resignation of the 37th president of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.

You see, Nixon resigned because he was certain to be impeached for some serious “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment; the full House was certain to ratify them; the Senate then seemed certain to convict the president.

It then fell to at least one key friend of the president, Sen. Barry Goldwater, to give him the straight scoop: You don’t have enough support in the Senate to save you from conviction, Mr. President.

He quit on Aug. 9, 1974 and saved the nation the trauma of a certain conviction.

What did he do — allegedly? Well, he ordered the FBI to stonewall efforts to find the truth about who was responsible for the burglary of the Democratic National HQ office at the Watergate office complex.

That’s the real deal, folks. That’s the kind of behavior that gets presidents impeached.

The talk today? Well, it’s not even clear what in the world critics of the 44th president, Barack Obama, have in mind. They keep yammering about overuse of executive authority, even though this president has used it far less than his predecessors over the past century.

If this ridiculous discussion continues in the months to come, let’s keep in mind what happened four decades ago. A president abused his power in a serious way and had the good sense to quit his office before the U.S. Senate ran him out of town.

No do-overs on Watergate

The late Richard Nixon probably had a few regrets along the way, perhaps some things he wished he could do over.

Forty-two years ago today, some goofball goons broke into an office at the Watergate hotel and office complex in Washington, D.C., and sought to steal some papers from the Democratic National Committee. They were acting on behalf of President Nixon’s re-election committee.

It was, as Nixon’s people described it, a “third-rate burglary.” It soon would mushroom into something quite different. It became a cat-and-mouse game played by the campaign committee, the FBI, the CIA and, oh yes, the White House itself.

The coverup orchestrated by none other than the Main Man himself, the president, resulted in Nixon’s resignation from office a little more than two years later.

The very term “Wategate” added the “gate” suffix to subsequent controversies that many have thought to turn into scandals. But this one stands alone. It was a doozy.

Imagine, though, if President Nixon could do it over, get a second chance at trying to do the right thing, assuming of course that he was capable of doing it.

It might go something like this:

H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, White House adviser and good pal of the president: Uh, Mr. President, I have just heard something that you need to know about. I just got word that the D.C. cops have arrested some morons at the Democratic Party headquarters. They’ve been charged with burglary.

President Nixon: Say that again, Bob? Oh, never mind. I heard you first the time. You mean to say that someone got caught trying to screw up my re-election campaign by pilfering papers from (DNC Chairman) Larry O’Brien’s desk drawers? What in the bleeping name of all that is holy is this all about? Don’t those yahoos know I’m going to win re-election by a landslide against anyone the Democrats throw against me? Who told ’em to do that?

Haldeman: Mr. President, it appears it came from CREEP (the Committee to Re-elect the President). They issued the order.

Nixon: You know, that’s about the most appropriate acronym I’ve ever heard. (Nixon laughs; so does Haldeman, nervously.) OK, here’s what we’re going to do. You’re going to get on the phone right after this meeting and you’re going to fire the campaign chairman. Tell him you’re acting on my direct order. Get him to tell you who else was in on the planning … and then you’re going to fire them, too.

Haldeman: That’s it?

Nixon: Oh, no, Bob. Call the press office and tell (White House press secretary Ron) Ziegler to schedule a press conference. I’m going to go the briefing room and I’m going to announce the firings. I’m going to apologize publicly to O’Brien and the Democrats for this terrible lapse in judgment on my campaign staff. I’m going to announce that the White House will cooperate fully with local and federal law enforcement authorities. I’ll announce that anyone in the White House who had any advance knowledge of this event should just leave immediately. I’m going to clean house. I will not stand for this kind of conduct.

Haldeman: OK, and that’s it?

Nixon: One more thing. Then I’m going to answer questions from the press. I know those guys hate my guts, but it’s the right thing to do.

'Money is not speech'

The late President Gerald Ford chose well when he selected John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1975.

The former justice today provided proof of President Ford’s wisdom.

Justice Stevens went to the Senate today and told senators that “money is not speech,” and that anonymous unlimited campaign donations harm the democratic process.

Good for you, Mr. Justice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/john-paul-stevens-campaign-finance_n_5240779.html

Stevens, in a rare appearance by a former court justice before a congressional committee, said: While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.”

At issue is whether unlimited campaign donations give rich donors greater access to power than average folks, such as, you know, you and me. Stevens said “yes.”

Billionaires are giving huge amounts of money to Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hiding behind the anonymity that recent Supreme Court decisions give them.

At the very least, there needs to be full disclosure of these donations. The public needs to know who’s giving the money. Citizens deserve to understand their motives for giving it and what they perhaps expect in return for those enormous cash gifts.

A better solution would be to limit those donations to reasonable amounts.

What is so un-American about leveling the playing field and giving all interested voters a shot at influencing those who would seek to lead our country?

As the Huffington Post reports: “Recent Supreme Court rulings have permitted individuals and corporations to write unlimited checks to independent political committees, while other groups can accept cash and disclose the donors’ identities months or years later, if ever.”

Mitt Romney said famously during the 2012 Republican primary presidential campaign that “Corporations are people too.” Actually, they are not. They are juggernauts that are able to trample the political process.

Christie clears himself of wrongdoing

This just in: A team of lawyers with close ties to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says the governor didn’t do anything wrong in the infamous closure of George Washington Bridge lanes.

Who knew?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/christie-bridge-scandal/internal-probe-christies-account-bridgegate-rings-true-n63796

I have an idea. It’s worked before in other controversies that turned into scandals.

Why not hire a real, honest-to-goodness independent special prosecutor to look deeply into this matter?

A brief background: Someone reportedly ordered the closure of several lanes on the world’s busiest bridge in 2013 after the Fort Lee, N.J. mayor, a Democrat, refused to endorse the re-election bid by Christie, a Republican. The traffic tie-up caused incredible havoc on the bridge. Democrats accused Christie of getting back at the mayor. Republicans say that’s so much bunk. Christie has said from the beginning he had no advance knowledge of the closure. Others have said he is covering up what he knew and when he knew it.

The law firm that did this probe didn’t interview some key principals in the matter, such as former deputy Christie chief of staff Bridget Kelly who sent out the infamous email that said it was “time for some traffic problems” on the GW bridge.

Hey, a special prosecutor should be turned loose on this matter.

Do the names Leon Jaworski and Ken Starr ring any bells for you. Jaworski was the special prosecutor who probed the cover-up of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon. And Starr? He was picked to investigate something called “Whitewater” during the Clinton presidency and his investigation ended up revealing a tawdry sexual affair involving the president and a young White House intern; President Clinton was impeached as a result, tried in the Senate and acquitted of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

President Nixon didn’t know about the Watergate break-in in advance. The cover-up did him in.

This so-called “investigation” of Gov. Christie’s alleged role in the bridge-lane closure doesn’t even come close to putting an end to this story.

Bring in an independent counsel and let’s get some real answers.

Christie’s woes looking more like Watergate

It’s fun to discuss public affairs with people who, like me, are old enough to remember history as it unfolded.

A friend of mine and I were talking yesterday about the Chris Christie mess in New Jersey, involving whether the New Jersey governor knew about the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge that caused all that traffic havoc on the world’s busiest motor vehicle span.

Christie insists he didn’t know anything in advance. He categorically denies ordering the lanes closed in retaliation against the Democratic mayor’s failure to endorse the Republican governor’s re-election bid in 2013.

My friend and I were recalling Watergate and how this controversy is beginning to resemble the track that the Watergate scandal took in 1972 and into 1973.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/chris-christie-scott-walker-republican-governors-2016-presidential-election-103133.html?hp=t1_3

For those who are too young to remember, here’s a quick primer:

On June 17, 1972, some burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. The cops arrested them. The Washington Post covered the event as a crime story. They buried the initial report of the burglary deep inside the paper.

Two young reporters working the Metro desk, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, were assigned to cover the cop story. But they began to smell a rat. Sources were telling them the burglary was more than what it appeared to be. Big hitters were involved. Bernstein and Woodward believed their snitches and sought more time to work the story. Their editors blew them off, telling them they didn’t think much of their tips. The reporters persisted. Finally, they talked their editors into letting them work their sources more aggressively.

President Richard Nixon was revealed to have ordered the cover-up of the investigation. We learned about enemies lists and we learned about how the president abused his power to cover his own backside. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment.

Is the Chris Christie tracking inevitably toward a similar course? I don’t know. Republican officials think it’s a trumped-up controversy. They claim it’s phony and doesn’t merit the kind of coverage it’s getting in the media. But this kind of thing has a way of developing a life of its own. Officials are coming out of the shadows and saying the governor knew more than he says he did. One trail has led to alleged misuse of Hurricane Sandy relief money by the governor’s office.

I’ll refrain henceforth from attaching the “gate” suffix to this controversy. There’s only real “gate” scandal, but this one just might — perhaps, maybe — end as badly for the person at its center as the Watergate scandal did for the 37th president of the United States.

Stay tuned.

Christie ‘scandal’ getting pretty darn curious

My friends on the right are outraged at the “mainstream media’s” addiction to the Chris Christie “Bridgegate” scandal.

They’d better get used to it, because it doesn’t appear as though it’s going to wither away any time soon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-chris-new-jersey-george-washington-bridge-scandal-david-wildstein-102977.html?hp=t1

A letter has surfaced now that suggests Christie knew at the time that one of his key aides ordered the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, the busiest span in the world — and that it might have been in retaliation for the refusal by Fort Lee, N.J.’s Democratic mayor to endorse the Republican governor’s re-election effort.

The letter’s assertion contradicts Christie’s statement that he didn’t know anything until he read about it in the press.

This is what happens when a high-profile politician who portrays himself in a certain manner is accused of doing things that run counter to that public image. Christie, who many people believe wants to run for president in 2016, has cast himself as a hands-on, no-nonsense chief executive. If that’s the case, then how could he not know that his chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, would order the lanes closed, resulting in a horrendous traffic bottleneck.

Now we learn about alleged misuse of federal relief funds dedicated to help New Jersey residents recover from Superstorm Sandy.

No one has accused Christie of ordering lane shutdown himself. Frankly, I don’t think he would be so stupid.

However, this controversy is beginning to take on a life of its own the way other controversies have grown into full-blown scandals.

Two examples stand out: The Watergate burglary in 1972 turned from a criminal investigation into a constitutional crisis involving presidential abuse of power; Whitewater turned from a probe into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate ventures into a scandal that involved a presidential dalliance with a White House intern and his lying under oath to a federal grand jury about whether he did those nasty things with the young woman.

It’s looking as though, regarding Gov. Christie’s involvement in this bridge lane-closing, that history may be about to repeat itself.

Coverup looms as worst part of bridge battle

If Richard Nixon taught politicians of the future anything, it should have been that the cover-up usually is worse than the crime itself.

The president got caught in covering up the Watergate burglary by using federal authorities to quash an investigation. It cost him his job in August 1974.

Is there another cover-up under way in New Jersey?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-nj-documents-show-extensive-coverup-in-fort-lee-traffic-shutdown/2014/01/10/09af4efc-7a1f-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

The Washington Post suggests there might be some serious trouble brewing for Gov. Chris Christie, who’s been investigated for the closure of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, allegedly as payback for a Democratic mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election bid.

Did the governor order the lane closures on the world’s busiest bridge? I doubt it. But did he know about it when it occurred? Was his staff acting on orders given by those quite close to the governor?

Does all of this testify to Christie’s reputation as a vengeful bully?

What did the governor know and when did he know it? That question — a form of which was posed by Republican U.S. Sen. Howard Baker during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings — went to the president of the United States. It seems valid today to ask it of Gov. Christie.

Another ‘Gate’ scandal joins the ranks

Now it’s become “Bridgegate.”

Please.

Now many “gate” scandals — or controversies, if you will — must we endure?

I refer, of course, to the boiling mess involving the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge this past year. Did the Republican governor of New Jersey order the lanes closed to get back at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J. because the mayor didn’t endorse the governor for re-election? If so, what will be the consequences? If not, will the media let the story die?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christies-bridgegate-guide-102033.html?hp=l6

It’s become yet another in an interminable line of “gate” stories.

I feel compelled to remind everyone there is only one “gate” scandal that matters. The Watergate scandal of 1972-74 brought down the 37th president of the United States, Richard Nixon.

On June 17, 1972, a team of bungling burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and office complex in Washington. They got caught. Then over the course of the next few days — we would learn later — the president of the United States ordered federal authorities to quash the investigation into whether the president’s re-election campaign or the White House were complicit in any way.

Therein launched a constitutional crisis of enormous proportions. The debate has swirled ever since ass to whether it merited the attention it got. I believe it did. President Nixon used the power of his office to stymie a federal criminal probe. That’s a very big deal indeed.

He quit the presidency on Aug. 9. 1974, thus ending the Watergate scandal for keeps … or so we all thought and hoped.

The “gate” part of that terrible time lives on as goofballs attach the suffix to every political controversy large and/or small that comes along.

I’m weary of it. There can be only one “gate” scandal. It was enough of a doozy to stand alone forever.

GOP fights with itself

I remember a time when Democrats were the fractious bunch and Republicans all held hands and sang off the same page.

That was, oh, about 40 years ago. The times they are a-changin’.

Now it’s the Republicans’ turn to fight among themselves. Democrats have locked arms and aren’t exactly crying crocodile tears over their “friends” troubles on the other side of the aisle.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/193464-boehner-right-fight-moves-to-senate

GOP House Speaker John Boehner stuck it in the tea party wing’s eye the other day after the House passed the bipartisan budget bill worked out under the leadership of Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Democratic Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray.

Now it’s the Senate’s turn to approve the deal and, one can hope, start the nation toward a long-term repair of its budget problems. I’m not holding my breath for that to occur.

Republican senators are taking heat from their so-called “base,” aka the tea party, over their willingness to compromise with those dreaded Democrats. Many key Republicans aren’t being intimidated. “I’ve said for a long time that there are some outside groups who do what they do solely to raise money,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “I’m glad that people are wising up.”

One GOP senator, Texan John Cornyn, is going to get a primary challenge from U.S. Steve Stockman, who might be among the looniest of the tea party types to serve in Congress. I’ll predict right now that by the time the March primary rolls around, Cornyn will be seen by many Americans — perhaps even me — as a true statesman when compared to the kookiness of Stockman’s pronouncements.

The Cornyn-Stockman fight symbolizes what’s happening to a once-great political party. It might be helpful for Republicans to have this fight, just as it cleansed Democrats of bitterness back in the 1970s. Of course, Democrats had some help from a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who got entangled in the cover-up that occurred after that “third-rate burglary” at the Watergate office complex.

For now, I’m going to watch Republicans gnaw on each others’ legs.

How ’bout them ’72 Dolphins?

It’s a little late, but it ought to be welcome nevertheless.

President Obama is bringing one of the NFL’s most storied teams to the White House for a decidedly belated congratulatory visit. The 1972 Miami Dolphins are coming to town to be honored in a ceremony that should have occurred oh, about four decades ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/20/obama_to_give_72_dolphins_a_belated_salute_119645.html

The president at the time of the Dolphins’ historic season — in which they went 17-0, capping it off with a 14-7 win in the Super Bowl over the Washington Redskins — was Richard Nixon. He was vacationing in Florida and professed to be a Dolphins fan. He also had told Redskins coach George Allen that he was rooting for them to win the big game.

One other thing might have kept the president from inviting the Dolphins to the White House. Nixon was fresh off his smashing 1972 re-election victory, but was facing increasing scrutiny over the “third-rate burglary” that occurred the previous June at the Watergate Hotel.

President Nixon had other things on his mind, I reckon, and couldn’t be bothered with saluting the Miami Dolphins’ history-making season.

Barack Obama also is a big sports fan and isn’t bashful about bringing in sports teams or individual athletes to be honored.

I’m quite happy to see him honor the Dolphins. Forty years is a little late, but I’m sure this band of aging former athletes and coaches will enjoy the spotlight once again.