if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    when president nixon agreed to turn over only some of the watergate tapes to the special prosecutor, the prosecutor refused to accept any of the tapes. the prosecutor’s case against nixon was heard by the supreme court. the supreme court put an end to the watergate senate hearings. the supreme court took charge of conducting the watergate hearings.


    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get when president nixon agreed to turn over only some of the watergate tapes to the special prosecutor, the prosecutor refused to accept any of the tapes. the prosecutor’s case against nixon was heard by the supreme court. the supreme court put an end to the watergate senate hearings. the supreme court took charge of conducting the watergate hearings. from EN Bilgi.

    U.S. Senate: Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities

    Watergate Committee

    Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities

    ()Resolution passed: February 7, 1973Report issued: June 27, 1974Chairman:  Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D-NC)Vice Chairman:   Howard H. Baker (R-TN)Committee members:

    Edward J. Gurney (R-FL)

    Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

    Joseph M. Montoya (D-NM)

    Herman E. Talmadge (D-GA)

    Lowell P. Weicker (R-CT)

    Chapter 1: Origins Chapter 2: Process

    Chapter 3: Public Relations

    Chapter 4: Investigation

    Chapter 5: Outcome


    Early on the morning of June 17, 1972, five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel and office complex in Washington, D.C. A security guard discovered the team and alerted the metro police, who arrested the burglars, who carried more than $3,500 in cash and high-end surveillance and electronic equipment.

    While the burglars awaited their arraignment in federal district court, the FBI launched an investigation of the incident. The dogged reporting of two journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, raised questions and suggested connections between Nixon’s reelection campaign and the men awaiting trial in federal district court. The White House denied any connection to the break-in, and President Richard Nixon won reelection in a landslide in November 1972.

    On January 10, 1973, the trial of the Watergate burglars and two accomplices began. After weeks of testimony, Chief Federal District Judge John Sirica expressed skepticism that all the facts in the case had been revealed. Five men pleaded guilty and two were convicted by a jury. Judge Sirica urged those awaiting sentencing to cooperate with the soon-to-be-established Senate select committee.


    On February 5, 1973, Senator Edward Kennedy offered Senate Resolution 60 to establish a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities to investigate campaign activities related to the presidential election of 1972. Traditionally the sponsoring member presides over an inquiry. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield wanted to avoid the possibility that the committee would seem unduly partisan because of Kennedy's presidential aspirations and instead offered the chair to Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina.

    Well-qualified to head the investigation, Senator Ervin was a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice, a self-proclaimed “country lawyer” with a degree from Harvard Law School, and widely regarded as the Senate’s constitutional expert. At 76 years old he did not aspire to the presidency. His reputation among his Senate colleagues was, according to Secretary of the Senate Frank Valeo, “unassailable.” As chairman of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ervin had investigated a number of issues important to the Watergate scandal, including surveillance and wiretapping.

    On February 7, 1973, the Senate voted unanimously to create the select committee. The resolution empowered four Democrats and three Republicans to subpoena witnesses and materials, provided them with a $500,000 budget, and required them to submit a final report by February 28, 1974. The resolution granted the committee the power to investigate the break-in and any subsequent cover-up of criminal activity, as well as “all other illegal, improper, or unethical conduct occurring during the Presidential campaign of 1972, including political espionage and campaign finance practices.”

    Public Relations

    Emphasizing the educational function of congressional investigations, the committee’s chief counsel, Samuel Dash, coordinated an aggressive media strategy. The print news media focused America's attention on the issue with hard-hitting investigative reports, while television news outlets brought the drama of the hearings to the living rooms of millions of American households, broadcasting the proceedings live for two weeks in May 1973. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) broadcast the hearings during prime time on more than 150 national affiliates, earning higher ratings than regularly scheduled entertainment programming. Only one month after the hearings began, an overwhelming majority of Americans—97 percent—had heard of Watergate. Of those, 67 percent believed that President Nixon had participated in the Watergate cover-up.


    The Senate Watergate Committee has been credited with reviving public confidence in congressional investigations, which had declined during the McCarthy inquiries of the 1950s. Several factors contributed to the committee’s overall success including extensive media coverage, sustained public interest, the meticulous work of investigators, the cooperation of key witnesses, and the continuing support of the full Senate. Public support for the investigation remained strong even when a series of confrontations between the Watergate Committee and the White House provoked a constitutional crisis.

    Throughout the inquiry President Nixon rebuffed the committee’s requests for access to information. Claiming a constitutional separation of powers, he refused to allow his aides to testify. Senator Ervin insisted that executive privilege could not be extended to cover criminal behavior and he threatened to authorize the sergeant at arms to arrest White House aides who refused to testify. Conceding to public pressure, the president allowed his aides to cooperate but continued to deny the committee access to presidential papers. Nixon repeatedly declared that he knew nothing about the Watergate burglary, but former White House counsel John Dean III testified that the president had approved plans to cover up White House connections to the break-in. Another former aide, Alexander Butterfield, revealed that the president maintained a voice-activated tape recorder system in various rooms in the White House.

    Source : www.senate.gov

    UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, et al. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

    UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, et al. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

    Supreme Court 418 U.S. 683 94 S.Ct. 3090 41 L.Ed.2d 1039

    UNITED STATES, Petitioner,


    Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, et al. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

    Nos. 73—1766, 73—1834.

    Argued July 8, 1974.

    Decided July 24, 1974.


    Following indictment alleging violation of federal statutes by certain staff members of the White House and political supporters of the President, the Special Prosecutor filed a motion under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 17(c) for a subpoena duces tecum for the production before trial of certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others. The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17(c) had been satisfied. The court thereafter issued an order for an in camera examination of the subpoenaed material, having rejected the President's contentions (a) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable as an 'intra-executive' conflict and (b) that the judiciary lacked authority to review the President's assertion of executive privilege. The court stayed its order pending appellate review, which the President then sought in the Court of Appeals. The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment (No. 73—1766) and the President filed a cross-petition for such a writ challenging the grand-jury action (No. 73—1834) The Court granted both petitions. Held:

    1. The District Courts order was appealable as a 'final' order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, was therefore properly 'in' the Court of Appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1254, when the petition for certiorari before judgment was filed in this Court, and is now properly before this Court for review. Although such an order is normally not final and subject to appeal, an exception is made in a 'limited class of cases where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever of an individual's claims.' United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 1582, 29 L.Ed.2d 85. Such an exception is proper in the unique circumstances of this case where it would be inappropriate to subject the President to the procedure of securing review by resisting the order and inappropriate to require that the District Court proceed by a traditional contempt citation in order to provide appellate review. Pp. 690—692.

    2. The dispute between the Special Prosecutor and the President presents a justiciable controversy. Pp. 692—697.

    (a) The mere assertion of an 'intrabranch dispute,' without more, does not defeat federal jurisdiction. United States v. ICC, 337 U.S. 426, 69 S.Ct. 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451. P. 693.

    (b) The Attorney General by regulation has conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique tenure and authority to represent the United States and has given the Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his specially delegated duties. While the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681. Pp. 694 696.

    (c) The action of the Special Prosecutor within the scope of his express authority seeking specified evidence preliminarily determined to be relevant and admissible in the pending criminal case, and the President's assertion of privilege in opposition thereto, present issues 'of a type which are traditionally justiciable,' United States v. ICC, supra, 337 U.S., at 430, 69 S.Ct., at 1413, and the fact that both litigants are officers of the Executive Branch is not a bar to justiciability. Pp. 696—697.

    3. From this Court's examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17(c) and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial. Pp. 697—702.

    4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., Murbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211, 82 S.Ct. 691, 706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 703 707.

    5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. pp. 187, 190, 191—192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 707—713.

    Source : www.law.cornell.edu

    Richard Nixon Watergate tapes: Supreme Court ordered White House to release Nixon’s phone tapes

    The decision set a precedent that courts would consider if President Trump refuses to comply with a subpoena in the ongoing impeachment inquiry.


    Inside the Supreme Court ruling that made Nixon turn over his Watergate tapes

    By Marisa Iati October 3, 2019 @[email protected]#=img=#

    The Supreme Court in 1974 ordered President Richard M. Nixon, here in March 1973, to turn over tape recordings of White House conversations for the Watergate prosecution. (John Duricka/AP)

    The Supreme Court case hinged on to what extent a president could withhold information from other government branches in the name of privacy, and the stakes for then-President Richard M. Nixon were high.

    Get the full experience.

    Choose your plan

    Seven of Nixon’s closest confidants had been indicted in the Watergate scandal, and the special prosecutor investigating the matter wanted audio recordings of some of the president’s phone conversations from the Oval Office. Nixon claimed executive privilege protected him, and he refused to release the tapes.

    “Many people assume that the tapes must incriminate the president, or that otherwise, he would not insist on their privacy,” Nixon said in a speech in April 1974. “But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a president can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    The nation’s highest court found that argument inadequate. Speaking to a packed and hushed courtroom on July 24, 1974, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered a 16-minute judgment that Nixon must comply with a trial subpoena for the recordings “forthwith,” The Washington Post reported at the time.

    ‘A very bad blow’: The GOP lawmaker who turned on Nixon paid a price for it

    The historic judgment that U.S. presidents do not hold unchecked power to declare executive privilege set a precedent that courts would consider in evaluating whether President Trump could shield his own communications from external scrutiny amid an impeachment inquiry.

    Although White House phone calls like the now-famous one between Trump and the Ukrainian president are no longer recorded, House Democrats said Wednesday they planned to subpoena documents related to the conversation. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) wrote in a memo that the “White House’s flagrant disregard of multiple voluntary requests for documents” made it necessary for him to issue a subpoena. Trump has called the impeachment inquiry a “scam” and wrote that he is “coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    The Supreme Court’s 8-to-0 ruling on the Nixon tapes came hours before the House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to start debating whether to recommend that the president be impeached for blocking the investigation of the Watergate break-in. Justice William H. Rehnquist had recused himself from the case because of a prior association with former attorney general John N. Mitchell.

    Nixon’s attorney James St. Clair had argued that the court had no jurisdiction over the release of the tapes because the conflict between the president and the special prosecutor was internal to the executive branch. The court, however, found that this was a special case because special prosecutor Leon Jaworski was tasked with representing the nation and had the authority to challenge any privilege the White House invoked.

    Deep Throat’s identity was a mystery for decades because no one believed this woman

    Although the court agreed with Nixon that publishing a president’s conversations with his aides could make it harder for him to get candid advice, the justices said they had to weigh the general privilege of confidentiality against “the fair administration of criminal justice” in a specific case.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “We cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution,” Burger, an appointee of Nixon, said in the court’s opinion.

    Privilege exists for information concerning diplomatic or national security secrets, the court ruled, but a federal judge would be able to inspect that material in their chambers to decide what portion of it a prosecutor should have. Nixon had not made a national-security argument related to the 64 conversations — ranging from June 1972 through April 26, 1974 — at issue in his case.

    Nixon said he was “disappointed” in the Supreme Court’s decision but would comply. Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approved an article of impeachment against him and sent it to the full House.

    A clambake, slurs and phone sex: The long, strange history of presidential calls

    Nixon then released the tapes, including a recording that is now referred to as the “smoking gun.” That tape revealed that on June 23, 1972, a few days after the Watergate break-in, the president had talked about getting the FBI to stand down on its investigation into the incident.

    Story continues below advertisement

    In a statement accompanying the release of the tapes, Nixon urged people to consider the evidence in its entirety and the events “in perspective.”

    “Whatever mistakes I made in the handling of Watergate, the basic truth remains that when all the facts were brought to my attention I insisted on a full investigation and prosecution of those guilty,” Nixon said. “I am firmly convinced that the record, in its entirety, does not justify the extreme step of impeachment and removal of a president.”

    Source : www.washingtonpost.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 8 day ago

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer