“All the President’s Men” and United States v. Nixon The film “All the President’s Men” is the story of the actual events that led to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and the ineludible resignation of President Nixon. “All the President’s Men” is centered on the work of two investigative reporters from the Washington Post. Bob Woodward, played by Robert Redford, was the reporter that initially began investigating the break in at Democratic National Headquarters, located at the Watergate Hotel. He is later teamed with a more seasoned reporter, Carl Bernstein, who is played by Dustin Hoffman (IMDb- All the Presidents Men). Woodward attends the arraignment of the men arrested at the Watergate, and discovers that they are being represented by high-end attorneys without having made any phone calls. When asked their profession, one of the assailants responded that he was an Anti-Communist, and another said he was formally with the Central Intelligence Agency. Later, a contact informed Woodward of notations found in an address book belonging to one of the suspects. The name H. Hunt and initials W.F., led Woodward to a former CIA agent named Howard hunt. Howard Hunt, amongst other things, worked for Charles Coleson, who was Special Counsel to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon. A few phone calls to the White House prompted immediate denials. Another contact let Bernstein know that Hunt and Coleson were investigating high profile Democrats. Woodward and Bernstein wrote a story together on the information they had, but it was buried in the middle of the paper (Pakula, 1976). Next Bernstein got a tip that a Miami District Attorney had subpoenaed the bank records of one of the men arrested at the Watergate, Bernard Barker. When Bernstein was able to reach the District Attorney, the DA revealed a cashier’s check made out by a Kenneth Dahlberg. Dahlberg was the Midwest Finance Chairmen for the Committee to Reelect the President. When asked how the check arrived in Barker’s account, Dahlberg responded that he gave it to a Maurice Stands, the head of President Nixon’s finance. Further investigative work, added by advice from Woodward’s secret White House contact, nicknamed Deep Throat, linked the money that paid the Watergate burglars to an illegal, unreported Slush Fund. This money was embezzled form money gathered by the Committee to Reelect the President of the United States, and used to fund efforts to spy on and discredit the Democratic Party. Woodward and Bernstein were able to get a list of people that worked for the Committee to Reelect the President, and were able to eventually confirm that the Slush Fund, which was millions of dollars, was controlled by five men. Off these five men were former Attorney General John Mitchell, and Senior White House Aid H.R. Haldeman, proving that people inside the White House had knowledge of the Slush Fund and the activities it was intended for. By this time, the ongoing news story, which had been refuted by the White House, had begun to receive a lot of national attention (Pakula, 1976). In the last meeting depicted in the film that Woodward has with Deep throat, Woodward is told of the vast scope of the secret war against the Democrats the Nixon Administration is waging, and how much bigger the cover up is. Deep Throat warns Woodward that he and Bernstein are in danger. When the two reporters meet with their editor, Ben Bradlee, played by Jason Robards, and inform him of their plight, Bradlee gives his insight. He says that “nothing is riding on this but the First Amendment of the Constitution, Freedom of the Press, and the future of the country” (Pakula, 1976). What Robards meant was that the threats that the men were receiving were an attack at the First Amendment and an attempt to muzzle the press. Not continuing to pursue the story could influence the future of the country. I agree with this sentiment. The events depicted in the “All the President’s Men” were the catalyst to a massive Federal Investigation. One by one, each of those involved with the Slush Fund and cover-up were brought up on charges. In May of 1973, John Dean III testified that President Nixon had knowledge of the Watergate incident and the cover-up that followed. Then, Alexander Butterfield testified that President Nixon had installed a secret tape recorder in the Oval Office to record all conversations, and that tapes of these recordings would prove President Nixon’s knowledge of the Slush Fund (Epstein, 2013). The Special Prosecutor, a Mr. Cox, asked President Nixon for the tapes, and he refused. Cox was able to get a court order for the tapes, and President Nixon offered an edited transcript of the recordings. That was not enough for Cox, who pressed the issue. President Nixon ordered Cox fired. Two people quit rather than complying with President Nixon’s order to fire Cox, but the third did, and another Special Prosecutor, named Jaworskis took over the case. Jaworskis also pursued unedited versions of President Nixon’s Oval Office tapes with a court order. This time, President Nixon declared that the tapes were protected by Executive Privilege. The United States and Nixon soon asked the Supreme Court to clarify the Issue (Epstein, 2013). In Untied States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court was faced with a critical decision on a monumentally important constitutional issue. The Court knew going into deliberations that if the decision was not respected by the Executive, there would be continued considerable strain put on the relationships between the three branches of the Federal Government. The concept of Executive Privilege is not explicitly mentioned in Article II of the Constitution; however, Executive Privilege is considered to be inherent to the office of the President (Epstein, 2013). The idea is that the President has the right to withhold information form the other branches of government, due to their sensitive nature, and the impact they would have on the workings of government. This typically applies to matters of foreign policy and national defense (Epstein, 2013). Before giving its verdict, the Court asked President Nixon’s Attorney if the President would hand over the tapes willingly, if the Court ruled so. President Nixon’s Attorney responded that “the President would, if the Court issued a definitive ruling” (Epstein, 2013). The Court returned a unanimous verdict, with the opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon. The Court held that while the President did have inherent Executive Privilege, the prosecutor was able to establish that the censored information form the White House was necessary for deciding a case. (United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). Furthermore, the court struck down President Nixon’s concept of an all-encompassing Executive Privilege that gives the President complete immunity from the Judicial Processes. Id. Over all, the Court established that the needs of proper administration of the Criminal Justice System were a priority over the President’s desire to remain confidential (Epstein, 2013). The Court wanted the opinion to stand firm, so that President Nixon would be less likely to disregard the ruling. This is why the court made a point to work together drafting a unanimous opinion, written by a Justice that President Nixon had appointed (Atkins, 2013). Knowing that he legally had to hand over the tapes and face impeachment, President Nixon chose to save himself and the country the burden of a trial, and was the first to ever resign the Presidency (Epstein, 2013). There were far reaching implications of the Watergate Scandal. In 1974, Congress made amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. This was an effort to insure the President did not have complete authority to nominate to the Federal Elections Commission, by splitting the authority to the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and President. Each could pick two nominees. (Epstein, 2013). This controversial measure was later found unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), because it violated the Appointments Clause, found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution. All of this history was escalated by the efforts of two ambitious reporters from the Washington Post named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Posted on: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:18:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015