tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6258238939014765280..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: April 27, 1973Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16792369089600528572013-04-28T14:41:28.016-05:002013-04-28T14:41:28.016-05:00So your answer is that it's all Prisoner's...So your answer is that it's all Prisoner's Dilemma. Dean is willing to sell Nixon out. Felt is willing to talk to the press. Had they hung together, they would not have hung separately?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73527067400473318832013-04-28T14:10:07.551-05:002013-04-28T14:10:07.551-05:00My answer to this is a little different than Tybal...My answer to this is a little different than Tybalt's. <br /><br />I do think that a large part of why impeachment actually happened had to do with the general way that Nixon refused to respect the constitutional order.<br /><br />But it's also true that there's a difference between everyone knowing that there are felonies, and an actual confession to felonies. If Nixon had confessed -- fully confessed -- in summer 1972 or November 1972, I think he would have probably had to have been impeached. <br /><br />"I would assume that had they opened up in November, the tapes might never have been found." But see, that's the problem; that's the modified limited hang-out: a partial confession. And the problem from June on is that there's no fallback position that works. <br /><br />E.g. Dean knows less in November than he does in March/April 1973, he still knows a lot, and he probably still uses what he knows (including Fielding and other WH horrors) to cut his best deal, and that unravels more (and also leads to the tapes coming out, no?). Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60678115757568972532013-04-28T10:15:27.217-05:002013-04-28T10:15:27.217-05:00I could be wrong here, but my thought is that his ...I could be wrong here, but my thought is that his pick for a successor isn't just about poor judgement. Nixon has few if any good options left. Either the candidate is in on the conspiracy, which means they're still a threat, or they aren't, in which case there's always the danger they tell the truth to the press or a judge.<br /><br />The only other option is someone who can be easily duped in which case they wouldn't be an ideal candidate either.MyNamenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54205543195758884462013-04-28T09:04:49.862-05:002013-04-28T09:04:49.862-05:00Let me take a shot at the first part of this one.
...Let me take a shot at the first part of this one.<br /><br />Democrats in Congress tried (will try, on our timeline here) to impeach Nixon for war crimes, including the bombing of Cambodia that was revealed by the Pentagon Papers. Now that was equally as much a criminal conspiracy as anything in Watergate or the cover-up. So why couldn't they impeach?<br /><br />Well, part of it surely was that Nixon definitely didn't own Vietnam. He might have owned the bombing of Cambodia, but responsibility for the conflict in general was shared by both parties.<br /><br />But another part of it was, there is a sense in which the community of political actors within Washington don't view war crimes as important, at least in part because it doesn't touch their prerogatives but even more so because war crimes don't threaten the foundational principles of the Republic. And I don't think the Watergate bugging does either, and I am totally convinced that there is no way that the bugging alone, had the conspirators simply come forward in the weeks after, would have led to impeachment and conviction. I don't even think if they had picked the day after the election and laid their cards on the table, that it would necessarily have resulted in impeachment and conviction despite all that went on before November, including the smoking gun tape of Sept 23... I would assume that had they opened up in November, the tapes might never have been found. <br /><br />It would have been a firestorm, sure. But Nixon would have survived. The bugging was a political crime, and Nixon would have been politically crippled. He'd have survived, though, and recovered, and been given enough of a foreign policy hand to continue as an effective foreign policy leader, with some constraint to his and Kissinger's options.<br /><br />But it was, it always is, the cover-up. The cover-up meant that almost every senior White House official was enmeshed in a web of lies, deceit, perjury, and obstruction of justice. It became an attack on the rule of law, and that is a core foundational principle of the republic. And at that point, the political class can no longer ignore not just the loss of respect, but the real loss of power and the real danger of a secret imperium above the law. So they attacked, and as they attacked, the cover-up started to go levels deeper. Not even after Nixon's resignation did the obstruction, lies and deceit stop, the attempts to flout the rule of law. I don't buy that it takes a perfect storm; any President that tried to pervert the course of justice and the rule of law as Nixon did would be meted out rough and harsh justice. If the storm were perfect, it was located entirely within the Nixon White House itself.<br /><br />Tybaltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-76127384246149788312013-04-28T08:49:24.409-05:002013-04-28T08:49:24.409-05:00It's quite amazing, on reflection, that the ac...It's quite amazing, on reflection, that the acting head of the FBI could, in full knowledge of the public and his successors, withhold evidence from an ongoing investigation and never even be asked to account for it because there was too much high-profile crime going on, by even more powerful people, that he was just sort of lost in the shuffle.<br /><br />I asked a couple of weeks ago about whether Ehrlichman (in particular) knew that he was done for. So by now, they clearly actually do know they are done for, both E and Haldeman. And yet...?<br /><br />So, I have another unanswerable question about what people know. Do E and H know, at this point, that the President is so badly advised and so twisted off his supports that he's going to make a hash of things if they aren't there? Are they just clinging because they know that Nixon would make a titanic blunder of choosing a new chief, or new chief advisers?Tybaltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-21837302506018953592013-04-28T08:46:07.992-05:002013-04-28T08:46:07.992-05:00This is a really fascinating thread, and we all ap...This is a really fascinating thread, and we all appreciate the amount of work you've put into it. I'm curious as to why you might think that Nixon's crimes rose to the level of impeachment, while other presidents' have not. <br /><br />Was it because much of this was committed in the pursuit of re-election, as was explained to me as a child? <br /><br />Was it because, as you so thoroughly document, Nixon's people were convinced that he was perfectly willing to sacrifice them to save himself? Thus, Felt provided the means to push Nixon out?<br /><br />It's documented that Bush II and Cheney purposefully and knowingly committed the war crime of torture. And yet, not a whisper of prosecution. Were they saved by the fact of 9/11?<br /><br />Do you feel that it takes a perfect storm to oust a president? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com