Thank you!
Your support is sustaining the future of local news in our communities.

Watergate and showergate

Once, the catchword for the crime-of-the-century was Watergate.  So let’s call this one Showergate, because, well, damning evidence was found in a shower at the Mar-A-Lago estate.

I’m reminded of Watergate just now because exactly fifty years ago, in May of 1973, the Senate Watergate Committee, chaired by Democrat Sam Ervin, held two weeks of hearings.  The televised proceedings of witnesses being questioned by senators and their staff engaged a large fraction of the American voting public.  It also convinced that audience of President Richard M. Nixon’s guilt.  Prior to the hearings only 31% thought that Nixon had committed any crime; after the hearings, 59% did.

To my chagrin, there has been almost no celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of this important set of hearings, but the indictment of former president Donald Trump provides reasons to recall them.

Primary among the reasons is the behavior of the Republicans during that period. On the Ervin committee there were three: Howard Baker, the “ranking” member; Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker; and Ed Gurney, the first Republican elected to the Senate from Florida since the Civil War.  Fred Thompson, later a senator himself, was the minority counsel.  Of the senators, Baker was the most outraged by the behavior of men in the White House, and has been seen retrospectively as a scourge of Nixon.  However, initially his famous question, ‘What did the president know, and when did he know it,’ was designed not to expose Nixon’s guilt but to see if there was any possibility of pinning the problems on lower-ranked people who might not have informed the president of their illegal activities.  But Baker quickly became convinced of Nixon’s culpability.

To the contrary, Gurney’s constant position was to deny that Nixon had anything to do with crimes committed by his underlings, and to publicly refuse to concede that these were any real crimes.  Over the years, Gurney has been excoriated for having refused to believe the truth when it was staring him in his face — but his stance on Watergate is the model for today’s Congressional Republicans in the wake of the indictment of former president Donald Trump.

It should be noted that in 1973, too, most Congressional Republicans were more in the Gurney camp than in the Baker camp.  These included two future presidents.  Minority leader of the House of Representatives Gerald Ford had used his power in 1972 to quash inquiries that would have led earlier to the exposure of White House crimes, and remained a staunch Nixon defender through the period when much evidence of White House and Nixon crimes were being discovered.  Ford’s willful denial of Nixon’s criminality was among the reasons that Nixon chose him to replace the disgraced Spiro Agnew as vice-president.

George H.W. Bush, former congressman from Texas and former ambassador to the United Nations, was then chairman of the Republican National Committee, chosen because of his demonstrated fealty to Nixon.  During this period, Bush turned himself inside out many times to deny wrongdoing by the Republican president, long past the moment when the magnitude of the crimes had become too obvious to be dismissed.

Senator Barry Goldwater, noted for his personal integrity, was quite aggrieved by Nixon’s behavior and that of the White House staff; yet he took the position for the longest time that Watergate was petty shenanigans and a political matter for which the president should not be held accountable except by voters at the polls.

Just as a reminder, forty different people were eventually convicted of crimes relating to Watergate.

In the year following the Ervin hearings, the majority of Republicans in the voting public, and even some in Congress, did turn on Nixon.   Finally, it was this leaching away of political support among Republican senators — conveyed to Nixon by Goldwater in a meeting in the Oval Office in August 1974 — that convinced Nixon to resign before he was impeached, convicted and removed from office.   

Will that pattern be followed again?  Will Republicans ever decide that the evidence of Trump’s criminality is real and overwhelming?  It is those Republicans’ moral and civic integrity that is at stake now.

Salisbury resident Tom Shachtman has written more than two dozen books and many television documentaries.

The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Lakeville Journal and The Journal does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

Latest News

Our national parks, under threat

Our national parks, under threat
The idea of preserving in a national grouping such spots of scenic beauty and historic memory originated here in this country...In Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, other countries have followed our pioneering example and set aside their most magnificent scenic areas as national treasures for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
— Dwight D. Eisenhower

For the first century of our nation, there was an abundance of space, people sought gold in the territories, established farms on the flat lands of the mid-West, needed to surmount the Rockies to reach Pacific treasures, fought American natives who had inhabited these lands for 15,000 to 20,000 years. Struggles for the land, its ownership was paramount yet “spacious skies” and “purple mountain majesty” were not under threat. In 1872, the first national park, Yellowstone, 3,474 sq miles, in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined, was signed into legislature-The Yellowstone National Park Protection Act by Ulysess Grant. Yellowstone was not only the first US national park, it was first national park in the world.

Presidents over the centuries have been steadfast advocates of national parks. In 1916, the National Park Services was birthed to build capacity, expertise for managing burgeoning natural treasures, to protect these lands for the people of the United States – 330 million visitors a year to 433 units covering 85 million acres across 50 states, DC and US territories. National parks, their expansion and protection has never been partisan – from Grant to Teddy Roosevelt, to Harding, to FDR, to Eisenhower, to Carter, to Clinton, to the Bushes, to Obama, to Biden.National Parks have for over a century been irrefutably Presidential–associated with Presidents giving significant attention and funding to preserving the natural beauty of this nation – for the pleasure of the people, for prosperity.

Keep ReadingShow less

AI

AI
Cartoon by Steve Dutton

Letters to the Editor - October 15, 2026

Letters to the Editor - October 15, 2026

Why can’t the Bauer Fund be tapped for train station?

One of the pleasures—and prerogatives—of living in our town is the opportunity to participate in Town Meetings. Neighbors may disagree, sometimes passionately, but discussions are (usually) remarkably civil. In an era of poisonous national politics, it’s reassuring to participate in democracy on this local level.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

Let's Hear It - October 15, 2026

Let's Hear It - October 15, 2026

This Week

A recent survey on Region 1 schools’ organizational structure found residents evenly divided on whether to keep the current K–8 school system in each town or establish a regional middle school.

Keep ReadingShow less

Firing Squad

Firing Squad

The Census Bureau is shutting out local data experts

The Census Bureau is shutting out local data experts

Every ten years, the federal decennial census data informs two things that shape Connecticut’s future: how many seats we get in Congress and how many dollars go to our schools, roads and transit systems, and healthcare programs.

Right now, the U.S. Census Bureau is quietly rewriting the rules for how people will be counted in 2030. These rules will change 250 years of precedent and will disadvantage Connecticut. But instead of working with state leaders to get it right, federal officials have done something alarming: They have stopped talking to us altogether .

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.