#watergate

YAYYYYYY

Georgetown, Federal Power Plant and Watergate from the Terrace of the Kennedy Center, 1975.

Katie Phang:

In 1971, then-President Richard Nixon secretly installed a voice-activated recording system throughout the White House. Hidden microphones captured Oval Office meetings, Cabinet discussions, telephone calls, even conversations at the Aspen Lodge at Camp David. By the time the system was dismantled in 1973, it had preserved nearly 3,700 hours of presidential history. Nixon believed he was creating a legacy. Instead, he created the Prosecution’s Exhibit A. Then, he tried to bury it. During the Senate Watergate Committee’s investigation into the break-in of the DNC headquarters, former White House counsel, John Dean, testified that he suspected Nixon had a secret recording system. The Committee then asked Deputy Assistant to the President, Alexander Butterfield, in a closed-door meeting if he knew if such a system existed. His answer: “I’m sorry you asked…But, yes, there was a taping system that taped all presidential conversations.” Three days later, Butterfield testified on live TV and confirmed the existence of Nixon’s secret recording system.

On July 23rd, in 1973, Nixon refused to produce these tapes to Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox. What’s incredible is that he didn’t deny their existence or their authenticity. He didn’t argue that they had been manipulated or altered in any way. Nixon simply insisted that because he was the President of the United States, he, alone, could decide whether prosecutors and the courts were entitled to listen to the tapes. That wasn’t unitary executive theory on steroids. That was just obstruction of justice.

Now, at first blush, Nixon’s legal defense sounded like it could pass for plausible: he argued that presidents require the ability to conduct confidential conversations. He expressed the concern that advisers could not speak candidly if every Oval Office discussion risked becoming tomorrow’s headline. Executive privilege was not merely convenient; it was essential to the presidency, itself.

He wasn’t entirely wrong. A president should, and I submit, must, receive candid advice. In some ways, confidentiality is often indispensable to governing. But, the Constitution doesn’t recognize a president’s unilateral authority to decide whether EVIDENCE relevant to a criminal investigation remains forever beyond the reach of the courts.

[...] Those principles had a head-on collision when the US Supreme Court decided United States v. Nixon. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee, no less) recognized that executive privilege exists. But, he also recognized that there’s something even more fundamental and decent at play: the fair administration of criminal justice outweighs a generalized claim of presidential secrecy. When evidence is needed in a criminal prosecution, the President doesn’t get the last word, the judiciary does. US v. Nixon remains one of the clearest affirmations of the rule of law in our constitutional history. Eight Supreme Court justices, appointed by Republican presidents and one appointed by a Democratic president, reached precisely the same conclusion. They didn’t ask whether producing the tapes would embarrass President Richard Nixon, cripple his presidency, or reshape the balance of power.

They asked one question: Is the President above the law? And their answer was unanimous: No.

It’s worth noting that the irony here borders on being Shakespearean: Nixon wasn’t trying to suppress conversations secretly intercepted by political enemies. He was trying to suppress his own recordings created by his own White House, using a system he personally ordered installed. The tapes were intended to preserve history on his terms. What Nixon couldn’t deal with was once those recordings became evidence in a criminal investigation, history no longer belonged to him. It belonged to the American people and to justice. Without the tapes, Watergate might have remained an endless political shouting match, with accusations answered by denials and denials answered by accusations. The recordings changed that because evidence has this remarkable way of ruining carefully crafted and often-false narratives.

Evidence doesn’t vote. It has no party registration, no campaign consultants, and no social media strategy. Evidence simply exists, stubbornly and beautifully indifferent to the ambitions of the powerful. That is precisely why obstruction of justice is so dangerous.

[...] Half a century later, SCOTUS, in Trump v. United States, took a different track in recognizing substantial presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision does not overrule United States v. Nixon, nor does it hold that a president may ignore a lawful subpoena or conceal evidence. The two cases answer technically different legal questions: Nixon concerns access to evidence, while Trump concerns criminal liability and immunity for same.