Why did the Watergate break-in even happen?

[Bengalzona]

Speaking of Watergate...

Have you ever wondered why some of Nixon's people broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee during an election year? If you look at the way the election was going and how it turned out, it didn't make any sense.

Nixon's win in 1972 is still the biggest landslide presidential election in history. Nixon won 520 electoral votes and carried 49 states. No one has been close since. The Democratic Party was in shambles at the time. Despite protest movements, the majority of the people were behind the Nixon admin and how they were running the nation. And in June of 1972, Nixon and his re-election staff were well aware of their huge lead.

So why did they feel they needed to break in to the Democrat's office with such a huge lead and re-election an almost foregone conclusion?



The answer: Skeletons in the closet.

60 Minutes ran an expose on this back in 2005.

In 1968 when Nixon was running for President, he had a big fan: Howard Hughes. Hughes didn't particularly like Nixon. He liked what Nixon's policies would mean for his businesses. So Hughes sent $100,000 to Nixon through his surrogate, Bob Maheu (Hughes had become a recluse by that time). The money was to be delivered in two payments. Hughes ordered the money be given to Nixon's personal friend, Bebe Rebozo. This was a problem. If the money was given to Nixon's re-election committee, then it would be a campaign contribution. Perfectly legal. But by sending it to Nixon's friend instead, this is now a bribe.

It should be noted at this point, that Hughes was well-known for doing this type of thing. And party affiliation really didn't matter to him at all. Whoever was in a position to do favors for him and his businesses, he funneled money to them through close friends. It was his way of doing business.

An investigation by 60 minutes followed the money trail and it led to a remodeling project at Nixon's home in Florida. Obviously, this is not the type of thing that a Presidential candidate would want uncovered prior to an election. And, in reality, it never was. Not until 37 years later when people were made aware of the sum of money to look for (specifically $46,000).

But there were a couple of nagging thoughts on Nixon's mind. First, in 1956 Hughes had made a $205,000 loan to help save a hamburger franchise owned by Nixon's brother, Donald. Nixon just happened to be Vice-President under Eisenhower at the time. Because Hughes was a defense contractor, the loan raised a lot of ethics questions at the time and would come back to haunt Nixon in his unsuccessful Presidential bid against Kennedy in 1960. Nixon always felt that that was the main reason why he lost the election.

The second nagging thought was Larry O'Brien. O'Brien was a Washington insider whom the Democrats picked to lead their 1972 Presidential campaign. Nixon had some hard feelings against O'Brien as O'Brien had helped JFK in the 1960 election. But more than that, O'Brien was a well known figure around Washington and knew Bebe Rebozo and Bob Maheu. Nixon became increasingly paranoid that there was a connection between Hughes and O'Brien and that O'Brien would learn about the Hughes' bribe, revelation of which would seemingly be the only thing which could keep Nixon from being re-elected. According to his aides, Nixon was already convinced that O'Brien knew. Records show that for a full year before Watergate, Nixon ordered aides Dean, Halderman and Colson to investigate links between Hughes and O'Brien.

And so it was that on the night of June 17, 1972, the office that five burglars broke into just happened to be the head of the Democratic Committee.... Larry O'Brien.

The break-in was not about Nixon wanting to gain a larger victory margin. It was about Nixon trying to make sure that the biggest skeleton in his closet wasn't revealed during the election.

And that, as Paul Harvey used to say, was the rest of the story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watergate-aviator-connection/

[ballsofsteel]

Great post Bengalzona, I learned something new. 

This part here struck me funny .
"party affiliation really didn't matter to him at all. Whoever was in a position to do favors for him and his businesses, he funneled money to them"
Isn't this what Trump has done throughout the years?

[Bengalzona]

(06-10-2017, 06:40 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Great post Bengalzona, I learned something new. 

This part here struck me funny .
"party affiliation really didn't matter to him at all. Whoever was in a position to do favors for him and his businesses, he funneled money to them"
Isn't this what Trump has done throughout the years?

Thanks.

There is a difference between Trump and Hughes funneling money, though. Hughes would bribe politicians unabashedly. In his later years, he would even tell people that there no man that he couldn't buy. Trump, as far as I know, doesn't have a reputation for bribing politicians. No doubt he has made political contributions to politicians from both parties. But there is no reason to believe that he has tried to bribe any.

[Vlad]

(06-10-2017, 06:40 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Great post Bengalzona, I learned something new. 

This part here struck me funny .
"party affiliation really didn't matter to him at all. Whoever was in a position to do favors for him and his businesses, he funneled money to them"
Isn't this what Trump has done throughout the years?

You found this funny?

You would think businessman who is only looking out for the interests of their own business doesn't care what party affiliation the benefactor belongs to.

That said, "funneled money" and "donations" appear not to be the same thing. Donations are done openly, funneling covertly though various means.
Don't know if Trump funneled. I know he donated a lot.

A story about Trump donating money to two democrats in order to pave way for his new hotel.
But lets just keep this story under wraps...don't want to get any more democrats in trouble.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-family-donated-to-dc-politicians-who-helped-pave-way-for-trump-hotel

[GMDino]

There was a series on CNN called the 70's that covered this too.  I believe it was on last year.

The biggest takeaway from me was that it wasn't so much the break in as the cover up.

Deny, lie, say it wasn't illegal if the President does it.

Is there an echo in here? 

[xxlt]

(06-10-2017, 04:32 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Speaking of Watergate...

Have you ever wondered why some of Nixon's people broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee during an election year? If you look at the way the election was going and how it turned out, it didn't make any sense.

Nixon's win in 1972 is still the biggest landslide presidential election in history. Nixon won 520 electoral votes and carried 49 states. No one has been close since. The Democratic Party was in shambles at the time. Despite protest movements, the majority of the people were behind the Nixon admin and how they were running the nation. And in June of 1972, Nixon and his re-election staff were well aware of their huge lead.

So why did they feel they needed to break in to the Democrat's office with such a huge lead and re-election an almost foregone conclusion?



The answer: Skeletons in the closet.

60 Minutes ran an expose on this back in 2005.

In 1968 when Nixon was running for President, he had a big fan: Howard Hughes. Hughes didn't particularly like Nixon. He liked what Nixon's policies would mean for his businesses. So Hughes sent $100,000 to Nixon through his surrogate, Bob Maheu (Hughes had become a recluse by that time). The money was to be delivered in two payments. Hughes ordered the money be given to Nixon's personal friend, Bebe Rebozo. This was a problem. If the money was given to Nixon's re-election committee, then it would be a campaign contribution. Perfectly legal. But by sending it to Nixon's friend instead, this is now a bribe.

It should be noted at this point, that Hughes was well-known for doing this type of thing. And party affiliation really didn't matter to him at all. Whoever was in a position to do favors for him and his businesses, he funneled money to them through close friends. It was his way of doing business.

An investigation by 60 minutes followed the money trail and it led to a remodeling project at Nixon's home in Florida. Obviously, this is not the type of thing that a Presidential candidate would want uncovered prior to an election. And, in reality, it never was. Not until 37 years later when people were made aware of the sum of money to look for (specifically $46,000).

But there were a couple of nagging thoughts on Nixon's mind. First, in 1956 Hughes had made a $205,000 loan to help save a hamburger franchise owned by Nixon's brother, Donald. Nixon just happened to be Vice-President under Eisenhower at the time. Because Hughes was a defense contractor, the loan raised a lot of ethics questions at the time and would come back to haunt Nixon in his unsuccessful Presidential bid against Kennedy in 1960. Nixon always felt that that was the main reason why he lost the election.

The second nagging thought was Larry O'Brien. O'Brien was a Washington insider whom the Democrats picked to lead their 1972 Presidential campaign. Nixon had some hard feelings against O'Brien as O'Brien had helped JFK in the 1960 election. But more than that, O'Brien was a well known figure around Washington and knew Bebe Rebozo and Bob Maheu. Nixon became increasingly paranoid that there was a connection between Hughes and O'Brien and that O'Brien would learn about the Hughes' bribe, revelation of which would seemingly be the only thing which could keep Nixon from being re-elected. According to his aides, Nixon was already convinced that O'Brien knew. Records show that for a full year before Watergate, Nixon ordered aides Dean, Halderman and Colson to investigate links between Hughes and O'Brien.

And so it was that on the night of June 17, 1972, the office that five burglars broke into just happened to be the head of the Democratic Committee.... Larry O'Brien.

The break-in was not about Nixon wanting to gain a larger victory margin. It was about Nixon trying to make sure that the biggest skeleton in his closet wasn't revealed during the election.

And that, as Paul Harvey used to say, was the rest of the story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watergate-aviator-connection/

Here's your answer, in song:

[Bengalzona]

(06-10-2017, 08:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: There was a series on CNN called the 70's that covered this too.  I believe it was on last year.

The biggest takeaway from me was that it wasn't so much the break in as the cover up.

Deny, lie, say it wasn't illegal if the President does it.

Is there an echo in here? 

Well, for Nixon anyway.

But with keeping his bribe hidden as his primary goal, he sort of had to try and cover up the break-in rather than just distance himself from it.

The saddest thing for him is that no one would have probably ever know about his bribe anyway. His suspicions about Hughes or Maheu telling O'Brien were unfounded. There was no need to break into O'Brien's office as there was nothing to find there anyway. He was just acting paranoid and insecure. Unfortunately, that was behavior that he exhibited quite often during his time in office (ex. his "enemies list").

I don't see Trump as being paranoid at this time. It takes a certain fear of consequences for that to occur. He is more of a bull in a china shop.

[xxlt]

(06-10-2017, 04:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, for Nixon anyway.

But with keeping his bribe hidden as his primary goal, he sort of had to try and cover up the break-in rather than just distance himself from it.

The saddest thing for him is that no one would have probably ever know about his bribe anyway. His suspicions about Hughes or Maheu telling O'Brien were unfounded. There was no need to break into O'Brien's office as there was nothing to find there anyway. He was just acting paranoid and insecure. Unfortunately, that was behavior that he exhibited quite often during his time in office (ex. his "enemies list").

I don't see Trump as being paranoid at this time. It takes a certain fear of consequences for that to occur. He is more of a bull in a china shop.

I think in that last line you left a word out. Rhymes with spit or spitting...

[Dill]

(06-10-2017, 04:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, for Nixon anyway.

But with keeping his bribe hidden as his primary goal, he sort of had to try and cover up the break-in rather than just distance himself from it.

The saddest thing for him is that no one would have probably ever know about his bribe anyway. His suspicions about Hughes or Maheu telling O'Brien were unfounded. There was no need to break into O'Brien's office as there was nothing to find there anyway. He was just acting paranoid and insecure. Unfortunately, that was behavior that he exhibited quite often during his time in office (ex. his "enemies list").

I don't see Trump as being paranoid at this time. It takes a certain fear of consequences for that to occur. He is more of a bull in a china shop.

Fear of consequences is building though.

[GMDino]

(06-10-2017, 04:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, for Nixon anyway.

But with keeping his bribe hidden as his primary goal, he sort of had to try and cover up the break-in rather than just distance himself from it.

The saddest thing for him is that no one would have probably ever know about his bribe anyway. His suspicions about Hughes or Maheu telling O'Brien were unfounded. There was no need to break into O'Brien's office as there was nothing to find there anyway. He was just acting paranoid and insecure. Unfortunately, that was behavior that he exhibited quite often during his time in office (ex. his "enemies list").

I don't see Trump as being paranoid at this time. It takes a certain fear of consequences for that to occur. He is more of a bull in a china shop.

We are on a family vactcation this week and my mom and faf insisted on watching the news.  They did a little recap on Watergate and how it compares to whatever is going on with Trump (who really knows at this point) but my mom said:  "You know the worst thing is as paranoid and stupid as Nixon was with what he did at he knew how to govern and make policy."


She even mentioned his China visit.  

That's a big part of why many are disgusted with Trump.  Even if there is no there there with ALL of this investigations he STILL hasn't done anything worthwhile.

And, to me, Trump is ALWAYS paranoid. But only about his brand. He knows he will never do jail time or suffer anything other than some financial consequences for his normal lying and cheating, But if he goes down, impeached or not, for all this it hurts the brand. Then the boys can sell it.

[ballsofsteel]

(06-10-2017, 07:51 AM)Vlad Wrote: You found this funny?

You would think businessman who is only looking out for the interests of their own business doesn't care what party affiliation the benefactor belongs to.

That said, "funneled money" and "donations" appear not to be the same thing.  Donations are done openly, funneling covertly though various means.
Don't know if Trump funneled. I know he donated a lot.

A story about Trump donating money to two democrats in order to pave way for his new hotel.
But lets just keep this story under wraps...don't want to get any more democrats in trouble.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-family-donated-to-dc-politicians-who-helped-pave-way-for-trump-hotel

Yes I find it quite funny. Funneling or donating, whats the difference. Your still given someone money to do or not do something to benefit yourself in some fashion.

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2017, 04:28 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Yes I find it quite funny. Funneling or donating, whats the difference. Your still given someone money to do or not do something to benefit yourself in some fashion.

Pretty much, it's why they ought to get money out of elections. But neither party is willing to do that.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-10-2017, 08:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: There was a series on CNN called the 70's that covered this too.  I believe it was on last year.

The biggest takeaway from me was that it wasn't so much the break in as the cover up.

Deny, lie, say it wasn't illegal if the President does it.

Is there an echo in here? 

No there is not an echo.   They are saying it's not illegal for a President to exercise his constitutional authority.  Then they produce a column by Alan Dershowitz who is certainly no Trump fan.  Then others reply "Watergate".