The narrative which continues to defy history

While it will not matter to many people today except historians,via Glenn Reynolds I learned that new information is coming to light which demonstrates that the Watergate prosecutors — along with the sainted Judge Sirica himself — committed major ethical violations which denied the Watergate defendants their right to a fair trial.

Sirica’s meetings with WSPF prosecutors were never publicized or discussed in any way, because they would have raised substantive questions as to his objectivity. Virtually any ex parte meeting with an interested party, including prosecutors, is condemned by the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Ethics governing attorney conduct. Their substantive purpose, explicit judicial coordination with the prosecution, would certainly have been grounds for disciplinary actions — against Sirica for initiating them, and Jaworski for not refusing to participate in them.

Jaworski knew this, and chose to make no public disclosure. His risks became more complicated when the defendants attempted to have Sirica removed as their trial judge. Here is the dilemma he faced when they sought Sirica’s removal in Mitchell v. Sirica — and requested an evidentiary hearing into his alleged ex parte contacts with WSPF prosecutors: Had the meetings described above been disclosed, the resulting firestorm over Sirica’s injudicious conduct and Jaworski’s seeming acquiescence could well have jeopardized his license to practice law. This is why the WSPF reply brief, filed May 20, 1974, in response to the defendants’ appeal, did not directly respond to their requested evidentiary hearing in any manner whatsoever. The prosecutors could not represent to the appellate court that no such ex parte meetings had taken place or that they were ministerial in nature, so they chose to ignore the issue completely in their brief. This is highly questionable conduct for any officer of the court, who has an overarching responsibility not to deliberately mislead any judicial panel. Willful non-disclosure concerning a matter so squarely before the appellate court could be grounds for disbarment.

Caught between his own politically partisan staff and an exceptionally aggressive judge, Jaworski seems to have behaved in a way in which one can perhaps empathize — by making a record of these improper meetings which would eventually become public. Alternatively, he may simply have been keeping a thorough, contemporaneous record of events on which he could draw for his subsequent book. If so, then – much like Nixon’s similarly intended use of his White House tapes – the precise accuracy of the record he kept gives everyone pause for concern about what really took place. A third alternative is that Jaworski did destroy the final versions of his own memos once his book had been written, but didn’t realize that his secretary had kept earlier drafts in a separate file.

Regardless of the reasons that these records exist, they raise disturbing questions about the fairness of the Watergate trials. For the cover-up defendants, of course, these disclosures come far too late.

As revealing — and disturbing — as these Jaworski memos are, they are but the beginning. More material on Sirica and his conduct and coordination of the Watergate trials with interested parties has also come to light. For now, it is clear that Sirica should never have been allowed to preside over the cover-up trial, that Jaworski’s memos seem to indicate that he was cognizant of this at the time, and that he took pains to document Sirica’s judicial misconduct.

That’s just an excerpt.

It never ceases to amaze me how Nixon and his crew manage to remain such utter demons in the mainstream media. Nixon covered up a burglary committed by his subordinates, but his main crime in most people’s minds involved actions which were not crimes, like threatening to use the IRS against his enemies and compiling enemies lists.  (Sound familiar?)  If we compare what Nixon did to the massive surveillance and abuse of government power that is going on today, Nixon is a piker.

Might that explain the need to continue demonizing him as a mad emperor on the level of Nero or Caligula?

It’s as if they need a demonized Nixon to stand as a constant reminder that no matter what is happening now, what went on then was far worse.

That way, people forget that we had far more freedom in the evil Nixonian days than we do now.

Anyway, for those interested in 40-plus year old history, the piece is well worth reading.