AS Donald Trump once again faces disturbing allegations over his ties to Russian hackers, today marks the 44 year anniversary since America’s most notorious presidential scandal.
On July 13, 1973, the existence of the “Nixon tapes” was confirmed to the Senate investigators by White House deputy chief of staff, Alexander Butterfield. Less than two years after being elected for a second term in office, The US president was under suspicion of interfering with an FBI investigation – namely, a burglary at Democratic party HQ, the Watergate hotel. Three days later, Butterfield’s filmed testimony was broadcast to the nation. By August 8, 1974, Nixon had resigned in disgrace.
HOW SIGNIFICANT WERE THE TAPES?
WHAT senate investigators didn’t realise 44 years ago, is that the recordings mentioned by Butterfield would prove the president’s involvement in an attempted cover up of a break-in at Democratic HQ at the Watergate hotel on June 17, 1972.
Butterfield’s revelations led to the House Judiciary Committee to subpoena the tapes. Initially, Nixon avoided the submission of evidence by citing executive privilege and national security concerns.
By July, 1974, however, subpoenaed tapes had been released. Aside from exposing Nixon’s homophobia and prejudice, the tapes provided the “smoking gun” of recordings from six days after the Watergate burglary which proved his guilt. The tape was made public on August 5. It destroyed the president’s political credibility, forcing him to resign before he was impeached.
WHY WERE CONVERSATIONS RECORDED?
ALTHOUGH recording your own incriminating conversations appears, in hindsight at least, to be a monumental misstep, it was not an unprecedented move by Nixon. Franklin D Roosevelt initiated the trend, recording White House conversation from as early as 1940.
Nixon’s predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson was another to do so – taping both face-to-face and telephone conversations in the White House.
The technophobic Nixon initially feared the possible pitfalls of such a system and ordered that the hardware be removed. The president reversed his decision after two years in office, however. With the help of advisors, he was convincied of the value of tape recording devices, primarily for ensuring his comments were not misreported after White House interviews.
Interestingly, Nixon often insisted on the absence of his own interpreter when meeting foreign diplomats. The tape recorder proved useful in these situations also, allowing him to retrospectively analyse the accuracy of foreign translators. The president was also fond of the idea that the audio recordings would help produce his memoirs once he had fulfilled his time in office. By 1972, taping systems were installed in the Oval Office, and cabinet room as well as a private office and residence of the president. The systems begun taping upon detecting conversation, and were activated exclusively while Nixon was present.
HOW MUCH DO WE REALLY KNOW?
IN total, around 3,700 hours of conversation were recorded, of which 3,000 have been released while the rest remains off-limits in the interests of family privacy and national security.
The percentage of the recordings to be published, currently stands at less than five percent.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here