Five men broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in an office/apartment complex called "The Watergate". It was later shown that the men had ties to the Nixon White House. They were bugging the telephones and other communications devices in order to learn the Democrats tactics in their campaign for the Presidency.
While it was never proven that Nixon had any direct knowledge of the break in before it took place, there was absolute proof that he tried to cover up the connection between the men who broke in and the staff in the White House.
It was also discovered that there were many other covert activities that were being run by White House staffers. They had an "enemies list". Many of the people on that list found themselves getting audited by the IRS, their phones were illegally tapped, etc. They has a "slush" fund of millions of dollars they used to fund all of their illegal activities and "hush money" payoffs.
At some point, it became impossible to believe that President Nixon wasn't fully aware of those activities. He may have told staffers to "go ahead" but also to keep him in the dark as to the exact details so he could claim that he had no knowledge of a particular wire tap or break in.
Eventually, a tape was found where Nixon and Haldeman (one of Nixon's top aides) were discussing the possibility of ordering the CIA to tell the FBI that Congress should stop their investigations because of National Security concerns. Of course, that was ridiculous and proved that Nixon had been lying for weeks after the Watergate break in when he said he had no knowledge of it.
Then it became clear that Nixon would be impeached by Congress for "Contempt of Congress", "Abuse of Power", and "Obstruction of Justice". Nixon wanted to still go on fighting but nearly every one of his aides insisted that there was no hope so he resigned.
2007-11-01 05:33:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rick 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nixon had assembled a rather paranoid group of ex intelligence people around him, such as Haldeman and Erlichman, who considered themselves above the law. They set up a group operating from the White House that violated the law to accomplish political dirty tricks. Given how that appears to be accepted today, I can understand how it may be confusing to understand, but in those days the President was required to obey the law just like the rest of us.
There were several instances of break ins and sabotage, but the cumulating incident was when a group of burglars was caught while they were attempting to bug the Democratic National headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. These people were directly employed by the White House, and by Nixon's staff.
There is no evidence that Nixon was told in advance of the crime. However, his own tapes clearly showed that he was advised afterwards what had happened and that he cooperated in the attempted cover up. This made him guilty of being an accessory after the fact, and therefore impeachable.
Nixon was, by his own admission, guilty. It is ironic, however, that while his despicable red baiting of innocents and his cozy relationships with lobbyists could never be used to bring him down, what his enemies finally got him for was a crime motivated not by greed but by loyalty to his subordinates.
Nixon was in many ways a despicable weasel, but his weakness turned out to be what in any other man would be a virtue. History loves irony.
Put simply, though, Nixon was forced to resign because the President must obey the law at all times, and he did not. He also did not have the brazen gall to pardon his subordinates for their wrongdoings as George W. Bush has pardoned Scooter Libby.
By resigning, Nixon proved himself a better President that one who would not, and therefore brought the Presidency into great disrepute. Did I mention that history loves irony?
2007-11-01 05:22:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
During the election campaign, some of President Nixon's supporters broke into his opponents campaign office in the Watergate hotel to steal campaign plans.
Since this basically amounts to cheating in the election, he lost what little credibility he had left and ended up not being President for long.
2007-11-01 05:08:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by rohak1212 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
to a pair quantity, definite. My husband works the Chicago Marathon each year, and he commented final nighttime that if he'd been doing a similar interest in Boston, he could have been suitable in the location of the explosions. of direction this introduced homestead the actuality of the attack in a manner no longer the rest could have, and that's made me demanding on the subject of the opportunity of a copycat attack in October, whilst the Chicago Marathon would be run. apart from, I as quickly as talked approximately as Boston homestead and know the section the place the explosions occurred extremely nicely. I lived close by and used to flow out to cheer on the Marathon runners each Patriots' Day. That, too, made the form extra actual to me. even nonetheless, I knew somebody who died on 9/11, and as undesirable as this tragedy is, it pales in assessment, nonetheless no longer, I comprehend, for the relatives of the lifeless and critically wounded. to boot, my instincts are telling me that this grew to become into no longer an attack via distant places terrorists yet particularly the paintings of a homegrown nutcase. That by some ability places a distinctive complexion on the situation, nonetheless of direction i could desire to be completely incorrect.
2016-12-30 12:39:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by fraccola 3
·
0⤊
0⤋