Watergate Solved - Nixon & "Treason"...

[Baz Dane]

Watergate

Watergate was such a huge event that there are not too many people who do not at least know the basics of it.

The "basics" being that five burglers were arrested at the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972, and their arrest eventually led to the resignation of then U.S. President, Richard M. Nixon.

The big news was always the "WHO" of Watergate and the attempts at obstructing and covering-up the "WHO" that was behind it, which eventually led to President Nixon himself.

Lost in it all was the, "WHY" was Watergate broken into?

Different threories and stories have came about in an attempt to answer the "WHY" but none have sufficiently answered all the questions... until now.

(Note - all bolded text are direct quotes from accompanying links... Some links are repeated)

Watergate...

"WHY"

- "At about 5:15 p.m. on June 17, 1971, in the Oval Office, the president ordered a crime: “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

http://www.washingto...4f8a_story.html

That would be exactly one year, to the day, before the infamous Watergate break in.

But the real story is not the cover-up of Watergate, but the fact that the Watergate break-in was a mission, in part, to perform a cover-up of an earlier crime.

The real, and far greater crime that Nixon was trying to conceal was the fact that he did indeed take part in orchestrating the break down of the 1968 Paris peace talks that resulted in prolonging the Vietnam war for another four years.

Here's the real story behind Watergate and the Treason of U.S. President Richard Nixon...

On July 12, 1968, Nixon secretly met with South Vietnam’s Ambassador to the United States Bui Diem at the Hotel Pierre in New York. Also present were Nixon’s campaign manager John Mitchell and Anna Chennault, a big name in east Asian social and diplomatic circles at the time, who also was close to South Vietnam’s President, Nguyen van Thieu.

- "At the end of the meeting, “Nixon thanked me for my visit and added that his staff would be in touch with me through John Mitchell and Anna Chennault,” Bui Diem wrote."

- "According to Chennault’s account of the same meeting, Nixon also told Bui Diem that as President he would make Vietnam his top priority and “see that Vietnam gets better treatment from me than under the Democrats.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

According to Chennault's 1980 memoir titled, The Education Of Anna, it was at this meeting on July 12, where she states that Nixon made her...

- “the sole representative between the Vietnamese government and the Nixon campaign headquarters.”

https://consortiumne...ietnam-treason/

Even at this early point in history, with the Vietnam Ambassador Diem present, Nixon, being a private U.S. citizen at that point as well, makes what he's doing illegal under the Logan Act, which forbids any private citizen from dealing with a foreign government.

This would lead to a greater crime of Treason as time went on though, as interferring with the 1968 Paris peace talks led to their collapse and meant four more years of war in Vietnam with the death of another 20,000+ U.S. soldiers.

On July 26, 1968, then-President Lyndon B Johnson, informed the then next Presidential candidates... which included Nixon and the, at-the-time U.S. Vice President under Johnson(who was not going to run again himself) Hubert Humphrey, who would go neck and neck against Nixon late in the 1968 elections... that Johnson was pushing for negotiations on all sides to bring an end to the Vietnam war.

As things progressed, Henry Kissinger, who at that time was President Johnson's "adviser on Vietnam peace talks" secretly alerted Nixon that a truce may be imminent.

This would not do well for Nixon's campaign to have President Johnson and Vice President and election opponent Humphrey ending the Vietnam war at the last mintue and gaining advantage at the polls as a result. The talk of possible peace had elevated Humphrey to a near even pace with Nixon at the polls in the final weeks of the election.

Peace talks between the delegates from both North an South Vietnam were being orchestrated by President Johnson to take place in Paris. An agreement orchestrated by President Johnson was all but in hand with just the Paris meetings and signatures to take place.

Like Nixon being warned and updated secretly about the peace talks, President Johnson received a warning from none other than Alexander Sachs that Nixon was sabotaging the peace talks and Johnson looked into it.

According to N.S.A. and C.I.A. wiretaps, which were "bugging" Ambassador Diem in Washington and his home in Saigon, and South Vietnam's President's Thieu's office, respectively, on October 28, 1968, Ambassador Diem cabled South Vietnam President Thieu saying...

- “ still in contact with the Nixon entourage, which continues to be the favorite despite the uncertainty provoked by the news of an imminent bombing halt,”

- “I [explained discreetly to our partisan friends our] firm attitude.”

http://vietnamfulldi...n-samuel-warde/

President Johnson was furious, rightly so, and he called the highest ranking elected Republican at the the time, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, knowing the message would get back to Nixon's camp, and stated...

- “I really think it’s a little dirty pool for Dick’s people to be messing with the South Vietnamese ambassador and carrying messages around to both of them [North and South Vietnam]. And I don’t think people would approve of it if it were known.”

To which Dirksen replied “Yeah."

- “He better keep Mrs. Chennault and all this crowd tied up for a few days,” Johnson told Dirksen on Oct. 31, 1968, according to a tape recording of the call released in 2008. That night, Johnson announced a bombing halt intended to ensure North Vietnamese participation in the talks."

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

The election was coming on November 5, 1968.

President Johnson then ordered the F.B.I. to put a wiretap on "partisan friend" Anna Chennault.

- "The Smithsonian confirmed those newly released Johnson tapes from 1968 “detailed that the FBI had indeed ‘bugged’ the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and Chennault. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, ‘Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.’”

Three days before the election, the F.B.I. sent President Johnson the wiretaps of Chennault stating...

- "Mrs. Anna Chennault contacted Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem and advised him that she had received a message from her boss (not further identified) which her boss wanted her to give personally to the ambassador. She said the message was that the ambassador is to ‘hold on, we are gonna win’ and that her boss also said, ‘Hold on, he understands all of it.’”

http://vietnamfulldi...n-samuel-warde/

That same day, South Vietnam President Thieu announced they would not be taking part in the Paris peace talks "rendering any settlement of the war impossible for the time being and stalling Humphrey’s surge in the polls."

President Johnson then phoned Dirksen again to urge him to intervene with Nixon, stating...

“The agent [Chennault] says she’s just talked to the boss in New Mexico and that he said that you must hold out, just hold on until after the election,”

- “We know what Thieu is saying to them out there. We’re pretty well informed at both ends.”

- “I don’t want to get this in the campaign,”

- “They oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

Dirksen response ... “I know.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

The peace talks never took place and Nixon would go on to win the Presidency by a one percent edge in the Popular Vote, 43.42% to Humphrey's 42.72%.

On November 4, 1968, Johnson convened a conference call with National Security Advisor Walt Rostow and Defense Secretary Clark Clifford about going public with Nixon's treaon.

They agreed that President Johnson shouldn't go public as it would look bad for the United States govenrment in general.

Not to mention the foreign relations disaster that revelations of wiretapping foreign embassies and Presidential offices would create.

- “Some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story and then possibly have a certain individual [Nixon] elected,” Clifford said. “It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I think it would be inimical to our country’s interests.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

So in the best interests of the country, Nixon's Treason would go unreported and unpunished.

Of course Nixon must have known that President Johnson knew what Nixon had done, through Senator Dirksen, but perhaps it came as a shock when he learned there were wiretaps and documents still existing of the conversations between Chennault and Amassador Diem and President Thieu.

At the first meeting between President-elect Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, the long time F.B.I. chief, Hoover, told Nixon of the wiretaps and files handed over to the White House concerning Chennault, and more...

- "Hoover told Nixon that the FBI had also tapped Chennault’s home phone (in her penthouse apartment in the Watergate complex, for a second impure coincidence) and bugged Nixon’s own campaign plane."

http://historynewsne.../article/146770

This must have been pressing to Nixon in 1969 as he commissioned his aide Tom Charles Huston and other aides "to find what he believed was a special file in the Pentagon or elsewhere that detailed the government's knowledge" on his campaign's interference on the Paris peace talks.

Just recently released earlier this year(2015) was Huston's memo to Nixon with the results of his investigation back then...

- "The details were difficult to piece together, but available evidence suggested that an overt Republican attempt was being made to convince (the South Vietnamese government) to hold out against a bombing halt until after the elections."

http://www.usatoday....-halt/28035307/

This must have confirmed even more to Nixon that wiretaps and documents relating to his sabotage of the peace talks indeed still existed... Somewhere... But he did not know where.

What Nixon did not know was that outgoing President Johnson had removed the files on Nixon's Treason in January of 1969 when he left Office, and gave it to Walt Rostow and told him to keep it secret until after his(Johnson's) death.

The documents and wiretaps ...

- "... consisting of scores of “secret” and “top secret” documents. Rostow had labeled the file “The ‘X’ Envelope.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

By June 26, 1973, after President Johnson's death on January 22, and the day after fired White House Counsel, John Dean, had announced shocking testimony at the Senate Watergate Committee implicating Nixon in the now-boiling Watergate scandal, Rostow decided to send the file to the L.B.J. Library with a top secret note which read...

- “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”

A "typed cover letter" to L.B.J. Library Director Harry Middleton, Rostow had written...

- “Sealed in the attached envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate.

- “The file concerns the activities of Mrs. [Anna] Chennault and others before and immediately after the election of 1968. At the time President Johnson decided to handle the matter strictly as a question of national security; and in retrospect, he felt that decision was correct. …

- “After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

That is what happened to the files that Johnson had on Nixon and that Nixon was desperate to get ahold of, but didn't know where they were.

Those files and wiretaps were released by the L.B.J. Library in March 2013(and I believe earlier releases of parts back in 2008), and further evidence came out in August 2014 from the release of Nixon's own papers, which long time Republican supporting columnist George WIll, who read them and confirms this assessment...

- "Richard Nixon was a traitor."

http://www.commondre...vietnam-treason

At any rate, back in 1971, Nixon knew there were wiretaps and documents about his obstruction of the Paris peace talks, but he didn't know where they were. As well, the war in Vietnam was still raging on consuming large numbers of life on all sides.

Suddenly, on June 13, 1971, the New York Times started publishing a series of articles called the Pentagon Papers that "whistleblower", Daniel Ellsberg, had smuggled to the newspaper, which contained thousands of classified military and political documents and secrets on the Vietnem war.

On June 17, 1971, Nixon called in his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger to the Oval Office and asked them to locate the missing files again and asked...

- "I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”

- Haldeman replies... “We can’t find it.”

- Kissinger adds... “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”

- Nixon responds... “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.”

- "Nixon then added that he wanted a break-in of Brookings “implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

This is the same day Nixon issued the statement quoted at the begining of this post as well.

He would also include E. Howard Hunt and this would be the start of the "Plumbers" that would be caught a year later at Watergate.

- "On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in. “You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in.”

https://consortiumne...ietnam-treason/

Later, White House counsel Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, a leader of the "Plumbers" hatched a plan to rob and firebomb the Brookings Institute.

Ultimately, the break-in at the Brookings Institute never occurred, but one year later on June 17, 1972, the same "Plumbers" crew would be busted at the Watergate.

Interestingly enough, John Dean, who we mentioned above, and who was fired by Nixon for not going along with the Watergate cover-up just wrote an article for CNN just four days ago(June 17, 2015).

In it he states clearly that he doesn't have proof that Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in to steal documents, but he does know for sure, as we all do now thanks to the L.B.J. and Nixon libraries, that Nixon ordered the same "Plumbers" crew to break into the Brookings Institute a year earlier, Dean says, to steal a copy of the Pentagon Papers that Nixon believed to be kept hidden there.

This would make sense as well, as Nixon was worried the Pentagon Papers contained the wiretaps and documents relating to his "October Surprise" of sabotaging the 1968 Paris peace talks, and he needed to know for sure.

Something else Dean says is...

- "Today, the tapes and written documents show that had the Watergate burglars not been arrested at the Democratic headquarters the night of June 17, they would have gone on to their true mission that night, which was to break in and bug the campaign headquarters of Nixon's Democratic opponent, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. That mission is traceable directly to the Oval Office, for Nixon wanted "a plant" placed in McGovern's campaign -- and he was not talking about a flower."

http://www.cnn.com/2...gate/index.html

(my underline)

(Some of Dean's testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee is on the accompanying video on the webpage)

This would explain the theory that the "Plumbers" were in the Watergate hotel to plant recording devices, or "bugs" at the Democratic National Headquarters, which were situated at the Watergate at the time. They weren't there to plant the "bugs" at Watergate, they were ther to steal the documents showing Nixon's 1968 peace talks Treason. The listening devices found on the "Plumbers" were meant for McGovern's offices.

George Mcgovern's campaign headquarters were located at 1910 K Street, Washington D.C., just a few miles away from the Watergate Hotel.

It would seem more than likley that Dean's assessment of the reason for the Watergate break-in to happen was to steal documents indeed.

And those documents were never there, and it may be that Nixon's own paranoia over where those documents were, is what led to his ultimate downfall as President. Had he not been so desperate to find the documents, Watergate would not have happened.

But in considering the nature of what those documents contained, and Nixon certainly knew, and also considering that U.S. troops were dying by the thousands as a direct result of Nixon's interference, it is understandable that Nixon would desperately want to make sure those documents never saw the light of day.

The digrace Nixon eventually went through is nothing compared to what he could have faced had Walt Rostow not decided to seal the documents at the L.B.J. Library.

As a result of the sabotaged, and failed 1968 Paris peace talk, more than 1 million people would go on to die in the Vietnam war including over 20,000 U.S. troops.

Violation of the Logan Act(private citizens negotiating with a foreign government) carries with it a 3 year maximumm prison.

Treason was punishable with the death sentence.

The actions of Nixon and his people were convictable on both counts.

Walt Rostow may have helped the Watergate investigations blow the lid open on Nixon's Treason had he given the files to the Senate Watergate Committee, but his actions, following the wishes of Johnson, kept the lid on the secret for 40 more years.

As noted at the begining of our journey...

The Watergate scandal has always focused on the "WHO" involved, and to the public at the time, the scandal was, that "WHO", led all the way to the White House, to Nixon, with attempts to cover-up that fact.

That became the big news of "Watergate" and lost in it all was the "WHY" ... "WHY" was Watergate broken into.

Now we know.

Nixon was trying to retrieve the documents that President Johnson gave to Walt Rostow to conceal, that show that Nixon committed Treason back in 1968.

Edit - Name spelling correction and grammar.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Lemieux

[Baz Dane]

Henry Kissinger

Let's have a look at Kissinger's role in the Watergate history now.

As noted above about Kissinger working for President Johnson originally, Kissinger...

- "was then a trusted advisor to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson at the critical Vietnam peace negotiations in Paris. But the brilliant foreign policy expert actually had dual loyalties in that sensitive mission: He also served as a mole for Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon."

(link below)

Kissinger was constantly feeding information to Richard Allen who was on Nixon's campaign team, and then Kissinger went on to become President Nixon's National Security Advisor.

Allen himself would go on to become President Reagan's National Security Advisor as well.

Interesting that people who are breaching National Security and later put in postions of power involving National Security.

Equally interesting is how "National Security" affects us today in instances such as the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, that still remains classified under the false pretenses of "National Security".

Kissinger participated in secretly passing the peace talks information to the Nixon camp of his own accord...

- "Indeed, as Nixon-Kissinger go-between Richard Allen later observed, the esteemed academic had “on his own, volunteered information to us” on the negotiations. This account jibes with that of Nixon biographer Stephen Ambrose, who writes that Kissinger “approached John Mitchell … and said he was eager to pass on information to the Nixon camp, if his role could be kept confidential.”

http://www.crimemagazine.com/henry-kissinger-president-johnson%E2%80%99s-benedict-arnold

Ironically, Kissinger would be awarded with the 1973 Nobel Prize for his "peace talks" with Vietnam that was essntially the same settlement he had helped to sabotage himself in 1968.

- "But in 1973, Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the same settlement he helped sabotage in 1968."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason

There was controversy over the award, but not because of his traitorous role in 1968 with Nixon, but because of his role at the time in the secret bombing of Cambodia.

Kissinger wrote the Nobel Committee that he accepted the award "with humility".

Good thing the 9/11 families called out Kissinger when he was originally intended to lead the 9/11 Commission. His "clients" at the time included the bin Laden family.

- "Kissinger is still “at large,” however. But, sadly, he’s still too highly admired as an international celebrity and legendary diplomat to realistically fear being punished for any crime at this late date."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/henry-kissinger-president-johnson%E2%80%99s-benedict-arnold

He too should have faced charges of Treason for his role in the obstruction of the 1968 Paris peace talks.

[Imaginarynumber1]

TL;DR

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

TL;DR

Here is what I got from a brief look: Something about Nixon sabotaging peace talks with North vietnam before he got elected president. Which.......a lot of words later....... led to Watergate.

PS: I had to look up your abbreviation, so at least I learned something new in this thread.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Space Commander Travis]

It's the "TL:DR" mentality, and similar annoying internet speak, that lets politicians get away with this kind of thing, you know, since no one does have the patience to take any notice of what people say, and unless it can be summarised on Fox News in short sentences consisting of words of no more than two syllables at most, and presented by a blonde female presenter chosen for the job merely by virtue of being telegenic, and of course having no opinions of their own and really not having the faintest idea what any of the stuff they're reading off the autocue actually means, they're not bothered about it, so therefore politicians, such as the former and current Presidents, can literally get away with murder.

[Leo Krupe]

It's the "TL:DR" mentality, and similar annoying internet speak, that lets politicians get away with this kind of thing, you know, since no one does have the patience to take any notice of what people say, and unless it can be summarised on Fox News in short sentences consisting of words of no more than two syllables at most, and presented by a blonde female presenter chosen for the job merely by virtue of being telegenic, and of course having no opinions of their own and really not having the faintest idea what any of the stuff they're reading off the autocue actually means, they're not bothered about it, so therefore politicians, such as the former and current Presidents, can literally get away with murder.

A summary would be nice, however. That's essentially what headlines are. As for the telegenic blonde, that's a fallacy -- in that a blonde is necessary for people to pay attention. Yes, Fox has more than its share of telegenic blondes, that's not my point. But if the OP had summarized what he was trying to convey, it would'nt end up being TL;DR.

Which presidents have gotten away with murder, as you referenced? Are you saying Obama has? Who has he killed?

By the by, I do intend to take the time to parse the OP, and I'll try to return if I have anything to say to drive the conversation forward. If I don't, I won't.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Leo Krupe

[Baz Dane]

A summary would be nice...

Actually I put a summary in there before the whole story...

- "But the real story is not the cover-up of Watergate, but the fact that the Watergate break-in was a mission, in part, to perform a cover-up of an earlier crime."

- "The real, and far greater crime that Nixon was trying to conceal was the fact that he did indeed take part in orchestrating the break down of the 1968 Paris peace talks that resulted in prolonging the Vietnam war for another four years."

That was right before I put the FULL story down starting with...

- "Here's the real story behind Watergate and the Treason of U.S. President Richard Nixon..."

BUT, I did not, in fact use the word or headline "Summary" and perhaps I should have in hindsight.

My apologies to those who don't want to read the full story, and to be honest, that is not the FULL story. I left out quite a lot actually, but I tried to include the main players and the chronology that shows the story and gives a complete understanding of Watergate and what it was really about.

For the longest time, Nixon's involvement in the 1968 Paris peace talks was a "conspiracy theory", but with the recent release of all the documents from the L.B.J. Library and Nixon papers, we now know there is no "theory" involved and the wiretaps tell the story.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to read the whole story and will dig even further into it all.

Equally, I'm sure there are a lot of people who like myself, did not fully understand WHY the Watergate break-in happened to begin with.

From the Wiki page into WHY the break-in happened...

- "Despite the enormous impact of the Watergate scandal, the actual purpose of the break-in of the DNC offices has never been conclusively established..."

https://en.wikipedia...of_the_break-in

Considering, this information is reletively new, and was not exploited through the mainstream press as of yet... and not likely to be anytime soon... I can see why people, including myself had trouble understanding Watgergate fully.

I've looked into it in the past, but I'm glad I looked into again over the last week and with things like John Dean's article on CNN just 4 days ago, everything just finally fell into place. Now I completely understand Watergate and Nixon's true crimes of Treason.

The ramifications of it all are enormous considering how close the 1968 election was, and the public protests and sentiment against the Vietnam war, and the resulting history of that war being prolonged etc...

It's nice to finally understand why it all happened.

Cheers.

Edit - Bolding + spelling

Edited June 22, 2015 by Lemieux

[Leo Krupe]

A better summary would've been the last line in the OP.

Nixon was trying to retrieve the documents that President Johnson gave to Walt Rostow to conceal, that show that Nixon committed Treason back in 1968.

I still think you were a bit wordy. I've looked at your posts, and did a little reading on my own. Here's a link to Politico Magazine's article:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623.html#.VYdsAVJH5q8

Did Richard Nixon’s campaign conspire to scuttle the Vietnam War peace talks on the eve of the 1968 election to capture him the presidency?

Absolutely, says Tom Charles Huston, the author of a comprehensive, still-secret report he prepared as a White House aide to Nixon.

While it's fascinating history, that article is a year old. Even USA Today's page on it: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/10/senators-letter-doesnt-rise-to-nixons-level/24695093/

is from March of this year.

This isn't exactly breaking news. Nixon was scum, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that he had a hand in derailing the peace talks.In fact, this information has been leaking out for several years.

[Leo Krupe]

I got to thinking more about this overnight. Nixon was about to be impeached, there's no doubt about that, which is why he resigned instead.

The country was already extremely divided over Vietnam.

What would've happened to the country had Nixon been found guilty of treason? Bear in mind it was either the Watergate coverup or treason, not both.

Without a doubt, Nixon got off lightly. But any thoughts as to how the country would've reacted had he been found guilty of treason? The situation was volatile enough. Just like what would happen if Congress impeached Obama? Two Democratic presidents in a row impeached? For one thing, that would hurt both parties, but I think the Republicans more.

But let's not get off on a tangent. I'll stick to Nixon. Surely it can be shown, if not outright proved, that he was a treasonous b******, I don't think it would've done any good to find him guilty of the charge. The fallout was bad enough from the resignation (and subsequent pardoning by Ford), that I don't want to think about the consequences of a real trial for treason, then prison and/or execution.

However, if George W. Bush et al has not been charged, much less investigated, for war crimes and lying to the public about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it's absolutely inconceivable that any US president, at any time in our history, would actually be executed. The only possible exception would've been during the Civil War, when Booth and his compatriots planned to kidnap and possibly execute Lincoln. But that was technically another country at the time, not the United States as during Nixon's term.

[travelnjones]

Can i come up with a new one PC; DU - poorly collated didn't understand.

Maybe doing a timeline of relevant events

[Zalmoxis]

Thanks for the info. It was never explained clearly in the shows I've seen that featured the Watergate scandal. Simply put, Nixon ordered the break-in to take the files that contained info on his treason to prolong the Vietnam war.

[upisdown]

Lemieux --

Thank you --

I think Americans are always interested in these reports as they know that criminals have been in

charge of our government for quite some time now.

There's a good possibility we may one day know the exact reason, but not sure it will be a single reason.

Besides blasting into Brookings Institute, what was Nixon going to do about the Pentagon?

No wonder so much is missing from our National Archieves.

Yes, this was treason -- Nixon was a traitor.

Certainly the CIA would have known what he was doing -- and probably about LBJ's efforts, as well.

Would they have cared if the VN war had been stopped? YES

They betrayed Ike a number of times to prevent peace -- the U-2 flight was one example where Ike had

told them not to fly it for a period of time before the Paris Peace talks scheduled then.

Oswald, who worked for the CIA on high level assignments, is also suspect in aiding the take down of the U-2.

We should also keep in mind re Watergate that the Secret Service made TWO copies of the Nixon tapes.

I read that somewhere, but you also get a hint of it in Oliver Stone's NIXON where Haig warns him of that

possibility developing as he tries to get him to resign.

The point of the treason and the break in were to Shanghai the election.

Tom Huston follows later with "The Huston Plan" which is also intended to stop the '72 election if needed.

It's based on "Operation Northwoods." Carrying out violence if necessary to do it.

As for elections, we should all have firmly in our minds that we are still voting on the hackable Electronic

voting machines. Germany banned them as "Un-Constitutional."

Since the assassination of JFK and the criminal take over of government, we have been watching the

rise of the right wing as the right wing has succeeded in putting themselves in office, without any help

from voters.

These Electronic voting machines didn't arrive on the scene in 2000 --

They began to come in during the mid-and-late1960's.

In fact, the large computers used by MSM came in about 1965 -- and we saw what they

could do when Florida was recalled from Gore in the 2000 election.

In the late 1960's, two journalists in Florida began to notice the very odd results these electronic

voting machines were producing. They began an investigation and it resulted in a book under contract....

and delivered to stores. It's called "VOTESCAM -- The stealing of America."

It was quickly removed from the bookstore shelves and the public never made aware of it ...

nor did the public ever hear much about that issue at that time.

I'll give a link to the website where the book can be read for free --

The daughters of the journalists run the website.

But at any rate, just before Watergate, the journalists took their information to Democratic HQ's to

give their information to the Chair of the DNC -- can't think of his name at the moment -- but he

wasn't there at the time and the information was left for him.

If we consider that there probably never was a "Southern Strategy" -- we might begin to more

seriously fight against these Electronic Voting Machines.

Of course, Nixon was a traitor -- but I doubt that LBJ kept the info secret as a favor to the nation.

LBJ may have had some concerns/fears about Nixon as while LBJ certainly orchestrated the

JFK assassination . . . Nixon was also involved in the planning and approval -- as were many

other notables. They were present that day in Dallas -- highly identifiable to anyone concerned

and involved -- and lending their nod to the proceedings.

A good source for Nixon's involvement -- among many others -- is Madelaine Brown who was

one of LBJ's mistresses. She was present the night before the assassination at a social event

at Clint Murchison's home. At the end of the evening, many began to arrive for a private meeting

which took place -- Hoover, LBJ, Nixon and many others were in attendance.

VOTESCAM -- The Stealing of America

http://www.votescam.org/

PS -- Also haven't read Dean's article at CNN and no one seems to be commenting on it?

.

Edited June 23, 2015 by upisdown

[acidhead]

TFTR;LOP;TMMTGT

translation: thanks for the read, laid out perfectly, took mere minutes to get through

[kartikg]

I got to thinking more about this overnight. Nixon was about to be impeached, there's no doubt about that, which is why he resigned instead.

The country was already extremely divided over Vietnam.

What would've happened to the country had Nixon been found guilty of treason? Bear in mind it was either the Watergate coverup or treason, not both.

Without a doubt, Nixon got off lightly. But any thoughts as to how the country would've reacted had he been found guilty of treason? The situation was volatile enough. Just like what would happen if Congress impeached Obama? Two Democratic presidents in a row impeached? For one thing, that would hurt both parties, but I think the Republicans more.

But let's not get off on a tangent. I'll stick to Nixon. Surely it can be shown, if not outright proved, that he was a treasonous b******, I don't think it would've done any good to find him guilty of the charge. The fallout was bad enough from the resignation (and subsequent pardoning by Ford), that I don't want to think about the consequences of a real trial for treason, then prison and/or execution.

However, if George W. Bush et al has not been charged, much less investigated, for war crimes and lying to the public about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it's absolutely inconceivable that any US president, at any time in our history, would actually be executed. The only possible exception would've been during the Civil War, when Booth and his compatriots planned to kidnap and possibly execute Lincoln. But that was technically another country at the time, not the United States as during Nixon's term.

Not to hijack the thread but I think the average American knew that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and ignored the war. Either they were greedy that with attack on Iraq they will have access to cheap oil or totally ignorant. American if not equally but to lesser extent are also responsible for the war crimes committed in Iraq and elsewhere.

[skyeagle409]

Watergate

Watergate was such a huge event that there are not too many people who do not at least know the basics of it.

The "basics" being that five burglers were arrested at the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972, and their arrest eventually led to the resignation of then U.S. President, Richard M. Nixon.

The big news was always the "WHO" of Watergate and the attempts at obstructing and covering-up the "WHO" that was behind it, which eventually led to President Nixon himself.

Lost in it all was the, "WHY" was Watergate broken into?

Different threories and stories have came about in an attempt to answer the "WHY" but none have sufficiently answered all the questions... until now.

(Note - all bolded text are direct quotes from accompanying links... Some links are repeated)

Watergate...

"WHY"

- "At about 5:15 p.m. on June 17, 1971, in the Oval Office, the president ordered a crime: “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

http://www.washingto...4f8a_story.html

That would be exactly one year, to the day, before the infamous Watergate break in.

But the real story is not the cover-up of Watergate, but the fact that the Watergate break-in was a mission, in part, to perform a cover-up of an earlier crime.

The real, and far greater crime that Nixon was trying to conceal was the fact that he did indeed take part in orchestrating the break down of the 1968 Paris peace talks that resulted in prolonging the Vietnam war for another four years.

Here's the real story behind Watergate and the Treason of U.S. President Richard Nixon...

On July 12, 1968, Nixon secretly met with South Vietnam’s Ambassador to the United States Bui Diem at the Hotel Pierre in New York. Also present were Nixon’s campaign manager John Mitchell and Anna Chennault, a big name in east Asian social and diplomatic circles at the time, who also was close to South Vietnam’s President, Nguyen van Thieu.

- "At the end of the meeting, “Nixon thanked me for my visit and added that his staff would be in touch with me through John Mitchell and Anna Chennault,” Bui Diem wrote."

- "According to Chennault’s account of the same meeting, Nixon also told Bui Diem that as President he would make Vietnam his top priority and “see that Vietnam gets better treatment from me than under the Democrats.”

https://consortiumne...nixons-treason/

According to Chennault's 1980 memoir titled, The Education Of Anna, it was at this meeting on July 12, where she states that Nixon made her...

- “the sole representative between the Vietnamese government and the Nixon campaign headquarters.”

https://consortiumne...ietnam-treason/

Even at this early point in history, with the Vietnam Ambassador Diem present, Nixon, being a private U.S. citizen at that point as well, makes what he's doing illegal under the Logan Act, which forbids any private citizen from dealing with a foreign government.

This would lead to a greater crime of Treason as time went on though, as interferring with the 1968 Paris peace talks led to their collapse and meant four more years of war in Vietnam with the death of another 20,000+ U.S. soldiers.

On July 26, 1968, then-President Lyndon B Johnson, informed the then next Presidential candidates... which included Nixon and the, at-the-time U.S. Vice President under Johnson(who was not going to run again himself) Hubert Humphrey, who would go neck and neck against Nixon late in the 1968 elections... that Johnson was pushing for negotiations on all sides to bring an end to the Vietnam war.

As things progressed, Henry Kissinger, who at that time was President Johnson's "adviser on Vietnam peace talks" secretly alerted Nixon that a truce may be imminent.

This would not do well for Nixon's campaign to have President Johnson and Vice President and election opponent Humphrey ending the Vietnam war at the last mintue and gaining advantage at the polls as a result. The talk of possible peace had elevated Humphrey to a near even pace with Nixon at the polls in the final weeks of the election.

Peace talks between the delegates from both North an South Vietnam were being orchestrated by President Johnson to take place in Paris. An agreement orchestrated by President Johnson was all but in hand with just the Paris meetings and signatures to take place.

Like Nixon being warned and updated secretly about the peace talks, President Johnson received a warning from none other than Alexander Sachs that Nixon was sabotaging the peace talks and Johnson looked into it.

According to N.S.A. and C.I.A. wiretaps, which were "bugging" Ambassador Diem in Washington and his home in Saigon, and South Vietnam's President's Thieu's office, respectively, on October 28, 1968, Ambassador Diem cabled South Vietnam President Thieu saying...

- “ still in contact with the Nixon entourage, which continues to be the favorite despite the uncertainty provoked by the news of an imminent bombing halt,”

- “I [explained discreetly to our partisan friends our] firm attitude.”

http://vietnamfulldi...n-samuel-warde/

I place the blame on the extension of the Vietnam War mainly on President Johnson..He tied our hands under his "Rules of Engagement" which infuriated those of us who fought in that war. We could not engage SAM sites as long as they were under construction because they were off-limits whereas, they became authorized targets only after construction was completed, which eventually resulted in aircraft losses on those now, operational SAM sites.

Johnson's bombing halts also aided the communist as well and allowed the enemy to rebuild during the halts. In regard to President Nixon, at least he allowed Linebacker II to take care of business, which brought the communist down to its knees.

There are those who claim that Nixon prolonged the war but amazingly, it was the communist top military leader, who was amazed that Nixon stopped the bombing too soon. You can take a look here.

General Võ Nguyên Giáp

The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the Vietnam War memorial in Hanoi:

* "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes.

* If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

http://www.mnvva.org/wfacts.html

Those of us who fought in Vietnam were frustrated with President Johnson and his policies in Vietnam, not to mention the protest marchers in the streets back home, which in themselves, aided the enemy..

Nixon was no angel by any means and he got what he deserved in regards to Watergate, but there were those who said that he stopped the Linebacker II bombings too soon.

Edited June 24, 2015 by skyeagle409

[upisdown]

On every level, Vietnam was wrong --

It was a French colony and the French tried to hold it with war -- which at one point US was financing for them.

Post-WW II they could no longer afford it.

It was a United Nations concern -- unfortunately once again with interference from US.

The lie of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was another faked attack intended to blame others for what US orchestrated.

At the least Vietnam was a cesspool, intended to enrich the US and weapons manufacturers and those invested in

war. And, expand the MIC and Intelligence Complex here.

The making of the war relied on people of color -- disproportionately African Americans -- and those

unable to afford college.

And finally American resistance stopped the war, but only after much blood had been spilled: 4 million

Vietnamese dead and their land poisoned with deadly chemicals -- Agent Orange, Napalm.

American soldiers killed and maimed.

And, yet that wasn't enough ...

Once again, we are involved in wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan; once again relying on people

of color/the poor. Once again with huge profits for the corporations making weapons.

Once again with huge expansion of the MIC/Intelligence Complex.

Bombing Hanoi?

Nixon was pushing Kissinger to use the Atomic Bomb -- !!

Nixon: "Just want to be sure that you're thinking big, Henry."

And how could I forget to mention drugs?

There's an interesting video where a British Officer is looking over a horde of drugs --

and commenting on how, "the US government loves to sell drugs."

.

Edited June 24, 2015 by upisdown

[SHaYap]

• History Place link
  

...the decision evoked sympathy for Nixon, the only President ever to resign. Many saw Nixon as a victim of political infighting in Washington and considered much of Nixon's behavior to be no worse than that of his predecessors in the Oval Office.

The result was a further polarization of a nation already traumatized by the events surrounding Watergate.

italics mine

'no worse' ... well ... that's a consolation I guess ...

~

[Space Commander Travis]

I've often thought ol' RMN was badly treated. Certainly LBJ was no saint; the way that he'd handled the war in Vietnam was rather like the way BHO has handled the wars in Iraq and Syria; i.e. in a decidedly half-arsed fashion that just tied the American forces' hands behind their backs and ensured that things dragged on for longer and resulted in higher casualties. And that's before we even consider his resentment toward JFK and the all sorts of questions that could be asked about the circumstances that led to him becoming President ...

[upisdown]

If anyone read my comments, I hope that you might have also looked at this website --

maybe even read a bit of the book. Easy to read; recites the many ways that machines

have always been hacked to steal elections . . . but how much more easily and

conveniently the thievery goes on when hackable computers are used.

VOTESCAM -- The Stealing of America

http://www.votescam.org/

[upisdown]

Leo --

It seems the name of the game could easily be called: "Keep the public confused."

The country was divided over Vietnam because they were being lied to, including by our press,

and presumably some of our Reps and Senators who visited VN to try to figure it out were also being lied to.

Some knew the truth and lied.

LBJ opened the gates to hell in VN immediately after the assassination of JFK, reversing

JFK's orders to bring troops out and giving the Joint Chiefs the war they wanted.

It took quite some time before Nixon actually resigned -- you could say it was almost a miss . . .

until the James McCord statement: on March 19, 1973 --

On 21st December, 1972, McCord wrote a letter to Jack Caulfield: " Sorry to have to write you this letter but felt you had to know. if Helms goes, and if the WG (Watergate) operation is laid at the CIA's feet, where it does not belong, every tree in the forest will fall. It will be a scorched desert. The whole matter is at the precipice right now. Just pass the message that if they want it to blow, they are on exactly the right course. I'm sorry that you will get hurt in the fallout.”

Caulfield was unable to persuade Richard Nixon to leave the CIA alone. On 30th January, 1973, McCord, Gordon Liddy, Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, and Bernard L. Barker were convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping.

In February, 1973, Richard Helms was sacked by Nixon. The following month McCord carried out his threat. On 19th March, 1973, McCord wrote a letter to Judge John J. Sirica claiming that the defendants had pleaded guilty under pressure (from John Dean and John N. Mitchell) and that perjury had been committed.

The Spiro Agnew/VP resignation had occurred on 8/9/73; almost a full year before Nixon's resignation.

Nixon appointed Gerald Ford/VP 10/12/73.

Only the public were upset about the Ford Pardon of Nixon -- clearly he was being protected.

Gordon Liddy later claimed that "the real reason for the 2nd break-in was to find out what Larry O'Brien

(Chairman of the DNC) had of a derogatory nature about us; not to get something on him."

Had Nixon ever been put in a situation where he was truly threatened with loss of pension, prison -

he would have done the same thing that McCord had done and E. Howard Hunt were threatening --

to tell all he knew.

And, thus, the murder of Dorothy Hunt.

W is another matter.

No sign of Obama or our DOJ doing anything about those lies and war crimes.

If there had been any real threat from Obama on that score, he would not have made it

to presidency.

While the names of the presidents may change, the names of those they serve remain

the same.

http://www.historyco..._to_white_house

http://spartacus-edu.../JFKmccordJ.htm

.

Edited June 28, 2015 by upisdown

[upisdown]

Agree, the public knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor WMD.

The public is anti-war -- over 80%+ as I recall -- and that was true before the war on Iraq.

(Internationally, numbers are even higher -- about 90%.)

They know these wars are about control of Middle Eastern OIL.

Cheney was doling out that control and mapping out the shares as soon as he reached

the White House, long before 9/11.

Not to hijack the thread but I think the average American knew that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and ignored the war. Either they were greedy that with attack on Iraq they will have access to cheap oil or totally ignorant. American if not equally but to lesser extent are also responsible for the war crimes committed in Iraq and elsewhere.

Edited June 28, 2015 by upisdown

[Maureen_jacobs]

Well, I for one, read all of it. Tyvm

[Leo Krupe]

Agree, the public knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor WMD.

The public is anti-war -- over 80%+ as I recall -- and that was true before the war on Iraq.

(Internationally, numbers are even higher -- about 90%.)

They know these wars are about control of Middle Eastern OIL.

Cheney was doling out that control and mapping out the shares as soon as he reached

the White House, long before 9/11.

Incredible how, with the information available, so much is lost.

Two cites: http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

In 2003, over 70% of those polled thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. That number fell dramatically though.

And from Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed. Roughly the same number approve of the job President George W. Bush is doing.

That was posted in March of 2003.

To put the cause simply on the back of oil is misguided. To George W. Bush, it was also personal:

Disarming and ousting Saddam Hussein is a uniquely American concern, President George W Bush said late today, citing the Iraqi leader's ties to an assassination attempt on Bush's father.

"Other countries of course, bear the same risk. But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said at a political fundraiser in Houston, Texas. "After all this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734315453.html

That was posted in September 2002.

[Space Commander Travis]

Incredible how, with the information available, so much is lost.

Two cites: http://www.pewresear...-iraq-20032008/

In 2003, over 70% of those polled thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. That number fell dramatically though.

And from Gallup:

http://www.gallup.co...ainst-iraq.aspx

That was posted in March of 2003.

To put the cause simply on the back of oil is misguided. To George W. Bush, it was also personal:

http://www.smh.com.a...2734315453.html

That was posted in September 2002.

That's what you get when you have a monopoly on "news" (i.e. propaganda) by two or three suppliers, all of whom are in the pocket of the Government, see. It makes me smile in a wry fashion when I see people saying things like "you can't take Russia Today (for example) seriously because it's in the pocket of the Government, we know what it's really like, i saw it on Fox News". <-- wry face

[Space Commander Travis]

Disarming and ousting Saddam Hussein is a uniquely American concern, President George W Bush said late today,

Well, and this may be wandering off topic, he was right there, no one else imagined for a moment that there was any danger or menace from the little man with the moustache, apart from T. Blair of course, who was to all intents and purposes part of the Bush Adminisatration in any case.