The Watergate Break-In
On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested for breaking into the Democractic National Committee offices located in the Watergate office complex on the banks of the Potomac River. Investigations led to G. Gordon Liddy, a key member of Nixon’s re-election campaign, and then to the President himself as an accomplice to the act. Nixon and Liddy responded by leveraging their political influence to attempt a large-scale cover up of their more aggressive and legally questionable campaign tactics.
At Nixon’s urging, the FBI suspended its investigation into the break-in, but several journalists embraced the story and continued digging and searching. Most notably, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Postcontinued the search for information, acquiring and publicizing evidence of wiretapping, illegal use of campaign contributions, forged documents meant to embarrass rivals, and other political misdeeds.
Drip by drip, the legal case against President Nixon began to grow. When the Senate appointed a committee to further the investigation, many of Nixon’s top aides were called to testify. These hearings produced a bombshell: President Nixon had a vast store of voice recordings of White House conversations. The substance of these conversations –and implications of the missing tapes — increased the pressure on Nixon and his administration.
In time, Nixon was accused of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and refusal to turn over evidence to Congress. As his support among Republican leaders in Congress collapsed and the reality of impeachment proceedings loomed, Nixon resigned his office on August 9, 1974. His successor, President Gerald R. Ford, pardoned President Nixon in 1974.
The Lasting Effects
Much has been written about the influence of the Watergate break-in on our culture, politics and perception of media. Many changes were implemented to tighten financial reporting for administration officials and campaigns, while the investigative powers and resources of the government grew exponentially. Despite the measures taken to institute greater accountability, a pervasive mistrust of government officials began in the Watergate years. Many would argue it has never recovered.
- United States. Watergate Special Prosecution Force. Nixon Grand Jury Records. College Park, Md.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2011. Print. (found via Public Documents Masterfile)
- “Watergate investigation” The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. (found via Reference Universe)
- Leonard Garment “Watergate” The Oxford Companion to American Law. Kermit L. Hall, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press (found viaReference Universe)
- Gouran, Dennis. “The Watergate Cover-up: Its Dynamics and Its Implications.”Communication Monographs 43.3 (1976): 176-86. ERIC. (found via Public Documents Masterfile)
- Stovall, J. G. “Conflict in the Colonies the London Times Coverage of Watergate From the Break-in To the Pardon.” International Communication Gazette 25.4 (1979): 209-18. ERIC. (found via Public Documents Masterfile)
- Knight, Peter. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003. (found via Reference Universe)
- Cornwell, Nancy C. Freedom of the Press: Rights and Liberties under the Law. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004. (found via Reference Universe)
- “Watergate.” A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 14 June 2012. (found via Reference Universe)
- Dirck, Brian R. The Executive Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2007. (found via Reference Universe)
- The Oxford Guide to the United States Government