Watergate Reporters Coming to Indianapolis

Hoosiers have the opportunity to hear in person about Watergate from the legendary journalists who first broke the story – on how it unfolded and the lasting lessons for the Oval Office.

On November 1, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward will take the stage at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce’s 23rd Annual Awards Dinner, discussing the Nixon presidency, politics and journalism with “Inside the White House: From Nixon to Obama.”

“With the passage of time, Watergate needs to be understood both by the generation that experienced it and future generations,” states Bernstein.

Speaking in general about Watergate’s legacy on the White House, Woodward offers, “I think each administration (since) has learned how to manage the information in the way they want.”

See the full Q&A article with the duo in the most recent edition of BizVoice.

The event, presented in partnership with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, takes place at the Indiana Convention Center in downtown Indianapolis.

Tickets can be purchased online or by calling (800) 824-6885.
 

Watergate Reporters Reflect on Audacity of Nixon

How awful were Richard Nixon’s actions as President? Apparently, he was bad enough to unify Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward on the same joint byline for the first time in 36 years. In this piece for The Washington Post, America’s most famous journalistic duo reflects on Nixon’s dubious legacy.

Also, get tickets now for our Annual Awards Dinner on November 1 to hear more from Woodward and Bernstein, who will be on hand to discuss the 40th anniversary of Watergate — and I’ll be interviewing the two for our September/October edition of BizVoice, as well. For now, here’s an excerpt from the aforementioned Washington Post article, but read the entire story for their list of five reasons why Nixon was worse than we thought.

As Sen. Sam Ervin completed his 20-year Senate career in 1974 and issued his final report as chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, he posed the question: “What was Watergate?”

Countless answers have been offered in the 40 years since June 17, 1972, when a team of burglars wearing business suits and rubber gloves was arrested at 2:30 a.m. at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Watergate office building in Washington. Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.”

History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice — the Watergate coverup — definitively established.

Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the coverup was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions.

Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the President of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.

Today, much more than when we first covered this story as young Washington Post reporters, an abundant record provides unambiguous answers and evidence about Watergate and its meaning. This record has expanded continuously over the decades with the transcription of hundreds of hours of Nixon’s secret tapes, adding detail and context to the hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives; the trials and guilty pleas of some 40 Nixon aides and associates who went to jail; and the memoirs of Nixon and his deputies. Such documentation makes it possible to trace the president’s personal dominance over a massive campaign of political espionage, sabotage and other illegal activities against his real or perceived opponents.

In the course of his five-and-a-half-year presidency, beginning in 1969, Nixon launched and managed five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Long before the Watergate break-in, gumshoeing, burglary, wiretapping and political sabotage had become a way of life in the Nixon White House.

John Dean and Ethics: An Interesting Combination

John Dean is going to teach an ethics course.

Now, if you’re less than 40 years old and/or not particularly a student of government history, that might not mean much to you. If you paid attention to Watergate, either during the actual downfall of President Nixon and so many others or studied it after the fact, you’ll understand.

A fascinating New York Times story last weekend (repeated on a number of legal web sites) revealed the very few choices the White House counsel at the time had when he learned of the scandal. The political scandal led to a wide array of ethics reforms.

Here’s a brief excerpt:

Learning ethics by studying Watergate might sound like learning about fiduciary duties by studying Bernard L. Madoff . That, Mr. Dean, 72, said in an interview, is the point. “I helped write the book of what not to do, so I’m hopeful that people can learn from that — and not make the mistakes I did.”

The half-day program focuses on the events of the week after the arrests of the burglars, when G. Gordon Liddy explained the extent of the White House “plumbers” operation to Mr. Dean, the White House counsel, and Mr. Dean’s involvement in obstruction of justice began. “That first week foreshadows everything, raises everything a lawyer can be confronted with, and it’s where the problems started,” Mr. Dean said.

The issues are complex, but come down to this: What are a lawyer’s obligations when his bosses are engaged in criminal acts?