Skip to main content

The Saturday Night Massacre

“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”—Richard Nixon, 1977

President Nixon in the famous Nixon/Frost interview, 1977
On June 17, 1972, a group of men were caught breaking into Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC.  This was the beginning of the famous Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon hired agents to conduct espionage on the Democratic Party, hoping to give himself an extra advantage in the presidential election that year.  When the election took place that November, Nixon won in a landslide, carrying 49 states.  Only Washington, DC and Massachusetts voted for his Democratic rival, Senator George McGovern.  Needless to say, Nixon was probably being a little too cautious where his reëlection was concerned.

Word got out, and the people and Congress started to call for an investigation.  Facing growing pressure, President Nixon asked Attorney General Elliot Richardson to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate.  Though the president appoints a special prosecutor, the point is to find someone whose loyalties aren’t to the president or to anyone else.  This is important, because it’s reasonable to assume that the White House can’t be expected to conduct an impartial investigation into itself.

The man appointed to be the special prosecutor was prominent lawyer Archibald Cox.  He got the job on May 18, 1973, well after Nixon began his second term.  Cox got right to work.  It was well known that kept tapes of conversations held in the Oval Office.  Cox asked Nixon for the tapes so he could judge for himself what happened, but Nixon refused.  By July 18, Cox felt he had to issue a subpoena through the District Court of Washington, DC, to force the White House to deliver the tapes to him.  Nixon responded in a letter the next week stating that he felt it would be inappropriate for him to comply with the request, due to the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch.

Image result for archibald cox
Cox and Nixon

Cox did not give up.  He took his case to the Supreme Court, which agreed that the White House should send him the tapes.  The White House again refused to comply, and appealed the decision.  By September 1973, it was looking pretty bad.  Sentiment was starting to shift toward Cox and the Watergate investigation, and the White House’s stonewalling wasn’t helping.

Nixon decided he had to give the public something.  On October 19, 1973, he proposed what came to be known as the Stennis Compromise.  Nixon suggested that the tapes be reviewed by Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi, so that he could summarize them and provide Cox with what he found.  Worth noting is that Senator Stennis was famously hard of hearing, which might mean he’s not the best candidate to transcribe and annotate utterances.

Archibald Cox did not take the bait.  Instead he promptly refused the compromise.  Nixon couldn’t have expected Cox to react in any other way, but Nixon’s response to Cox’s refusal surprised everyone.  Upon Cox’s refusal, Nixon asked Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox.  Richardson resigned in protest.  Then Nixon turned to Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus and ordered him to do it.  Ruckelshaus refused, too, and also resigned in protest.  Then Richard Nixon turned to Deputy Attorney General Robert Bork and asked him to fire Cox, and Nixon found his man.  In the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973, three men were out of work, and the Saturday Night Massacre was complete.

The New York Times’ front page on the morning after the Saturday Night Massacre.

Following the Massacre, Nixon’s fortunes suddenly shifted.  Public opinion turned sharply against him, and Nixon’s esteem only continued to decline.  Calls to impeach the president increased.  The public saw Nixon’s move against Cox as inappropriate.  Weeks later, a federal court found Cox’s dismissal illegal.  Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, were furious with Nixon.

A special prosecutor is not a permanent position, like the Director of the FBI.  They only have their job for as long as the case they’re on is still in the courts.  Still, obstruction is obstruction.  On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee charged Nixon with obstruction of justice—an impeachable offense.  Two more articles of impeachment came soon after, and there was, by this point, a bipartisan taste for it.  President NIxon could see the writing on the wall.  He knew impeachment was coming, and saw that it was time to get out of the way.  On August 8, 1974, he announced on national television that he would resign the presidency at noon the next day.  He followed through on that promise, and on August 9, 1974, Vice President Gerald Ford became the 38th President of the United States.

Nixon could have been charged for obstruction of justice after he resigned, but President Ford decided that, for the good of the country that had just gone through such an ordeal, he would pardon him.  The country, on the other hand, didn’t seem to appreciate Ford’s kindness to his former boss, and voted Ford out in the 1976 election.
Image result for Gerald Ford pardon me
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was not well received by everyone.

After Nixon’s death, his personal papers revealed that he’d promised Bork the next Supreme Court nomination if he carried out his order to fire Cox.  Nixon never got the chance to appoint another Supreme Court justice.  Gerald Ford did, however, and he passed over Bork for John Paul Stevens.  President Ronald Reagan would later nominate Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1986, but the Senate refused to approve him.  Bork’s nomination was charged with partisan rancor, possibly due in part to his connection to the Watergate scandal, but more due to his fierce opposition to abortion rights.  After this nomination failed, sometimes a fiercely fought partisan opposition to a nominee is referred to as “Borking”.


Popular posts from this blog

How the Lemon was Invented

Lemons How do you make a lemon?  Silly question, isn’t it?  You just take the seeds out of one and plant them, and wait for the tree to come up, right?  That’s true, but it hasn’t always been that easy.  Lemons today are a widely cultivated citrus fruit, with a flavor used in cuisines of countries where no lemon tree would ever grow.  You might think that it was just a matter of ancient peoples finding the trees, enjoying their fruit and growing more of them, but that’s not true.  The lemon is a human invention that’s maybe only a few thousand years old. The first lemons came from East Asia, possibly southern China or Burma.  (These days, some prefer to refer to Burma as Myanmar .  I’ll try to stay out of that controversy here and stick to fruit.)  The exact date of the lemon’s first cultivation is not known, but scientists figure it’s been around for more than 4,000 years.  The lemon is a cross breed of several fruits.  One fruit is the bitter orange, best known in the west for

Origins of the Word Hoser, eh?

Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas as cultural icons Bob and Doug McKenzie These days we often hear Canadians referred to as “Hosers”.  It’s a strange word, and it sounds a little insulting, but it’s sometimes used more with affection than malice.  Any such word is difficult to use correctly, especially if you don’t belong to the group the word describes.   I can’t say I feel comfortable throwing the word around, myself, but I can offer a little information about it that might shed some light on what it means. First off: is it an insult?  Yes… and no.   The word hoser can be used as an insult or as a term of endearment; the variation hosehead , is certainly an insult.  It’s a mild insult, meaning something like jerk or idiot or loser .  Its origin is unclear, and there are several debatable etymologies of the word.  One claims that it comes from the days before the zamboni was invented, when the losing team of an outdoor ice hockey game would have to hose down the rink in or

The Whoopie Cap

What can you do with your father’s old hats?  If you were born after, say, 1955, the answer is probably “Not much.”  Men were still wearing fedoras in the 1970s and 1980s, but by 1990, fashion had turned to the point where unless you were Indiana Jones, the hat didn’t look right.  Some blame Jack Kennedy for starting it all, strutting around perfectly coiffed and bare-headed in the early 1960s.  In 1953, Harry Truman, a haberdasher by trade, stepped out of office, and just eight years later we had a president who didn’t care for hats?  The times, they were a-changin’. If you set the WABAC machine to the 1920s or 1930s (when Indiana Jones was supposed to have lived), you would see the fedora was still very much in style.  Men just didn’t leave the house without a hat of some kind, and for what remained of the middle class, the fedora was the topper of choice.  But like any other piece of clothing, hats wear out, too.  When that happened, you’d just throw it away.  Though if there were