The concept of executive privilege can be used to define the Watergate scandal. Watergate is the name given to the scandal that involved President Richard M. Nixon and members of his administration. The name is from the Watergate apartment, located in Washington, D.C, America. In 1972, this apartment was the location of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). On June the same year several burglars tried to break in to the DNC headquarters, unfortunately they were caught. The president of the commission, Richard M. Nixon, tried to cover up the information about break in and this led to his resignation in 1974. The departure prevented his impeachment which was being initiated by the senate. Further, the Presidential pardon of Nixon a few weeks later protected Nixon from answering to any criminal charges. President Nixon was then asked why there could be no charges filed against him and in response he said that it was due to executive privilege.[1]
As a result, there was public outcry as the investigation on the scandal could not be conducted actively. After a security breach with Watergate, the relationship the government had with the public changed drastically due to the government's actions, how the media portrayed it and how the people reacted.
The people were amazed by such an executive power because the president was expected to be responding to the matters concerning the security breach. The president withheld information that could have been useful in investigation. Nixon felt there was no need to respond to the “third-rate burglary” that happened at the headquarters. The political scandal negatively portrayed the then President of the United States of America as it was believed that he had cleaned someone’s mess inappropriately. The Watergate scandal was never resolved in a constitutional manner. Therefore, the public did not support the action of the government in whole this scandal.[2]
A brief summary of the scandal can illustrate why the public reaction towards the government was not good
First, the motive of the burglars who had breached the security at DNC headquarters was never disclosed, but they were believed to be acting on the orders from Nixon’s attorney general, John N. Mitchell. Mitchell was chairing Nixon’s reelection campaign committee with other high officials at the White House.[3] Nixon may not have known about the break-in before, but afterwards he participated in the cover-up. It means that after the breach he attained the full information on the scandal and came up with cover-up strategies. Such an act was evident six days after the occurrence of malpractice when Nixon ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to stop looking into the case. In doing this, he stopped the security departments from getting to the main point behind this breach.[4] It showed that the public were not going to get any accurate response from the authorities.
Such a shutdown was not favored by the people as they gave all kinds of reaction. They felt the government was responsible for the breach and so they were not willing to give the facts. However, the media played an important role as they did various interviews and investigations and informed the people appropriately on what might have occurred.[5]
Nixon then said that such investigations would endanger the national security, which was true, but still the public were entitled to some information. They ought to have told what the burglars were seeking in doing such an act. Therefore, the people rejected such a reason, but Nixon and his associates managed to bear the damage till the time of presidential election.[6] Nixon won in the election over the Democratic senator George S. McGovern in 1972.
The first two months of 1973, Watergate scandal faded from the public memory and eye. However, on March 23 same year Judge John J. Sirica, of the District Court for the District of Colombia sentenced the Watergate burglars. Sirica was convinced that the burglars were acting on orders from other officials who had not been revealed in the court. In his judgement, he told the burglars that he would reduce their sentences if they cooperated with the investigation agencies and the senate. He as well exposed the letter from one of the burglars, James W. McCord saying that they were under pressure not to reveal all that they knew including the administration officials who had been who were alleged to have committed perjury.[7]
With this judgement, the public’s hope of getting justice was revived.
After some time before the year end, the federal Grand Jury began receiving information the officials about the White House involvement in the cover-up and the campaign matters. Further, to strengthen the ongoing information, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein provided a detailed information about the inner workings of Nixon’s campaigns in the 1972 election and how it is connected to White House.[8]
Also, the Senate investigating committee began inviting Nixon’s aid to come and testify. With the investigations successful progression, Nixon felt pressure and planned to have his chief aids, John D. Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman to make John Mitchell the scapegoat. However, such an initiative was firmly opposed by the public and Nixon was forced to accept the resignations of the Ehrlichman and Haldeman.[9]
The Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst and the White House counsel John W. Dean also resigned.
Nixon, who had, referred to the breakin as “third-rate burglary” was beginning to see how the public were fierce over this scandal. Nixon appointed a new Attorney General, Elliot L. Richardson to succeed Kleindienst who resigned. Richardson then appointed Archibald Cox a law professor to head the Watergate investigations as the prosecutor. Richardson what to find out whether the federal laws were broken in connection with the breach of security at the DNC and the attempted cover-up. Richardson promised to ensure complete independence in handling the case. At the senate, Dean and other officials disclosed the “dirty tricks” used by Nixon’s political aids to cover-up the break-in.[10]
In July 1973, the investigations took a different turn after Alexander Butterfield, Haldeman aid, said that Nixon secretly taped all the conversations especially those concerning this scandal. The tapes of conversation were subpoenaed, but Nixon refused to honor the subpoena. Judge Sirica ordered Nixon to provide the tapes, instead Nixon agreed to write summaries of the conversation in agreement that Cox was not release more of the presidential information.[11]
At this point, the investigations were heading towards Nixon as it was evident that he covered-up the break-in. Cox declined Nixon’s proposal. Nixon then ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Instead of carrying out the order, Nixon and his deputy attorney general, William D. Ruckelshaus resigned. Cox was well fired by the solicitor general Robert H. Bork the same day in the evening. The two resignations and the firing of Cox was referred to as the Saturday Night Massacre.[12]
The public outrage forced Nixon to appoint another prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who also requested the tapes of conversation.
Nixon was forced to provide the tapes, except he released the edited versions of the Subpoenaed conversation and refused to submit the unedited ones. He said that his refusal was on ground of Executive Privilege. He contended with the doctrine of executive privilege through which he could withhold the documents from the courts and Congress.[13]
The Supreme Court admitted to such privilege, but held that the disclosure of materials needed for criminal prosecution was not prevented. The court ordered the Judge to review the Subpoenaed tapes and see which portion can be released to the prosecutor. However, it was evident that executive privilege would prevent disclosure of irrelevant and sensitive information. Nonetheless, the court ordered for the tapes to be submitted. The order was made on July 24, 1974, the same time the House Judiciary Committee was almost completing the impeachment hearings.[14]
Despite all the damaging information disclosed, many of the congressional Republicans were still loyal to the president. The republicans argued that he had committed no crime that would held him liable for impeachment. Such support was resented by the citizens who saw no justification to Nixon’s actions. Nixon Complied with the Supreme Court Order to turn over the tapes and the prosecutors found a damaging conversation which was enough to connect Nixon to the Cover-up. Nixon faced impeachment trial and resigned on August 8, 1974 before being impeached. The public outcry was not completely solved as they expected Nixon to be charged in Court and even sentenced. The concept of executive privilege is believed to have delayed the process of justice.
Bibliography
Olson, Keith W. Watergate: the presidential scandal that shook America. University Press of Kansas, 2016.
Schudson, Michael. "Notes on scandal and the Watergate legacy." American Behavioral Scientist 47, no. 9 (2004): 1231-1238.
Pollock, John L. Subjunctive reasoning. Vol. 8. Springer Science " Business Media, 2012.
Olien, Clarice N., Phillip J. Tichenor, and George A. Donohue. "A guard dog perspective on the role of media." In The Media, Journalism and Democracy, pp. 21-38. Routledge, 2018.
Thompson, John B. Political scandal: Power and visability in the media age. John Wiley " Sons, 2013.
Thompson, John B. "The new visibility." Theory, culture " society
22, no. 6 (2005): 31-51.
[1] Olson, Keith W. Watergate: the presidential scandal that shook America. University Press of Kansas, 2016.
[2] Olson, Keith W. Watergate: the presidential scandal that shook America. University Press of Kansas, 2016.
[3] Schudson, Michael. "Notes on scandal and the Watergate legacy." American Behavioral Scientist 47, no. 9 (2004): 1231-1238.
[4] Schudson, Michael. "Notes on scandal and the Watergate legacy." American Behavioral Scientist 47, no. 9 (2004): 1231-1238.
[5] Olien, Clarice N., Phillip J. Tichenor, and George A. Donohue. "A guard dog perspective on the role of media." In The Media, Journalism and Democracy, pp. 21-38. Routledge, 2018.
[6] Schudson, Michael. "Notes on scandal and the Watergate legacy." American Behavioral Scientist 47, no. 9 (2004): 1231-1238.
[7] Pollock, John L. Subjunctive reasoning. Vol. 8. Springer Science " Business Media, 2012.
[8] Olien, Clarice N., Phillip J. Tichenor, and George A. Donohue. "A guard dog perspective on the role of media." In The Media, Journalism and Democracy, pp. 21-38. Routledge, 2018.
[9] Pollock, John L. Subjunctive reasoning. Vol. 8. Springer Science " Business Media, 2012.
[10] Thompson, John B. Political scandal: Power and visability in the media age. John Wiley " Sons, 2013.
[11] Thompson, John B. Political scandal: Power and visability in the media age. John Wiley " Sons, 2013.
[12] Thompson, John B. "The new visibility." Theory, culture " society
22, no. 6 (2005): 31-51.
[13] Thompson, John B. "The new visibility." Theory, culture " society
22, no. 6 (2005): 31-51.
[14] Thompson, John B. "The new visibility." Theory, culture " society
22, no. 6 (2005): 31-51.
