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

Kick the Football, Charlie Brown

What's the lesson here? For nearly the entire run of Charles Schulz's Peanuts  comic strip, one running gag has been the football gag.  The gag is simple: Lucy Van Pelt kneels down on the grass, holding a football in place, and tells Charlie Brown to kick it.  Charlie Brown gets a good running start, ready to give it a good, solid kick, but at the last minute, Lucy pulls it away.  The final panel usually has a miserable Charlie Brown laying on the ground while Lucy looks over him, holding the football, telling him in one way or another that he obviously shouldn't have trusted her. The gag first appeared on November 14, 1951, when the strip was just over a year old.  In the first occurrence, the football was not held by Lucy but by Violet Gray, another little girl in Charlie Brown’s neighborhood.  (Violet would later become a minor character in the strip, and Lucy would become a major one.   Lucy wouldn’t appear in the strip until the following year.)  The f

43-Man Squamish: An Innovation in Athletics

For some people, one of the most tantalizing challenges is being told, explicitly or implicitly, that you can’t do something.  In 1965, MAD magazine writer Tom Koch laid down one such challenge.  He wrote an article laying out the rules of a sport he invented called 43-man squamish.  The article was illustrated by artist George Woodbridge, and judging by the mail MAD received from its readers, it was a huge hit.  Of course, Koch didn’t really intend the article to b e a challenge.  His idea was to invent a sport that was complex, convoluted, absurd, and ultimately unplayable.  It featured the kind of text readers of MAD, not athletes, would expect.  It’s an uncommon sport that has instructions like, “The offensive team, upon receiving the Pritz, receives five Snivels in which to advance to the enemy goal.  If they do it on the ground, it’s a Woomik and counts as 17 points.  If they hit it across with their Frullips it’s a Dermish which only counts points.  Only the offensive Nibling

Synanon: Self-Help Through Shame and Berating

In 1958, a recovering alcoholic named Chuck Dietrich discovered he had a talent for public speaking.  He was always a big hit at his Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, so he figured he’d take his talents and his $33 monthly unemployment check and try to give back to society.  Dietrich found he’d benefited greatly from A.A., but he was concerned about drug addicts, who weren’t admitted to the organization, because, as A.A. says, drug addiction is fundamentally different from alcohol addiction, and thus would require wholly different kinds of treatment.  Dietrich set out to help drug addicts and anyone else who needed support and organization in their lives.  That’s why he founded a two-year program called Synanon. The idea behind Synanon was to hold nothing back, because your chemical dependency was probably a symptom of your repressed emotions.  Synanon’s main activity was something Dietrich called The Game, which was designed to release these emotions.  To play The Game, all you did