Hubbry Logo
Committee for the Re-Election of the PresidentCommittee for the Re-Election of the PresidentMain
Open search
Committee for the Re-Election of the President
Community hub
Committee for the Re-Election of the President
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Committee for the Re-Election of the President
Committee for the Re-Election of the President
Committee for the Re-Election of the President
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Watergate scandal
The Watergate complex
Events
List
People
Watergate burglars
Groups
CRP
White House
Judiciary
Journalists
Intelligence community
Congress
Related

The Committee for the Re-election of the President (or the Committee to Re-elect the President, CRP, but often mocked by the acronym CREEP[1]) was, officially, a fundraising organization of United States President Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign during the Watergate scandal. In addition to fundraising, the organization also engaged in political sabotage against Nixon's opponents, the various Democratic politicians running in the election.

History

[edit]

Planning began in late 1970 and an office opened in the spring of 1971. Besides its re-election activities, CRP employed money laundering and slush funds, and was involved in the Watergate scandal.[2] According to CRP member Donald Segretti, members actively attempted to sabotage Democratic candidates.[3]

Edmund Muskie sabotage

[edit]

In an effort to sabotage Democratic candidate Edmund Muskie, then a presidential candidate, the CRP circulated a fabricated document, called the "Canuck letter", in an effort to ruin his reputation and destroy his chances in the 1972 New Hampshire primary by framing him as biased against Americans of French-Canadian descent.[3]

Failed attempt to sabotage George Wallace

[edit]

In California, the CRP aimed to get George Wallace's American Independent Party (AIP) knocked off the ballot in the 1972 presidential election.[4] They feared that he would split the vote in a 3-way race, and without him believed Wallace voters would go for Nixon.[4][5] As part of this plan, in 1971 the CRP offered to pay Joseph Tommasi, a Californian neo-Nazi, US$5,000, equivalent to $38,821 in 2024, to help.[6] Tommasi was told to convince AIP voters to register instead as Republican; due to California's election rules, if there were too few registered voters for a party, they would be knocked off the ballot.[6][7] The goal was to get the AIP's numbers either below 11,000 or less than 1/15th of 1% of all registered voters in the state.[4]

The AIP's voter registration actually rose during the period the plan was enacted. Tommasi's involvement was also a failure, as he only came up with 4 men for the plan instead of his promised 20.[6][4][5] Tommasi was paid less than he was promised (US$1,200 vs US$5,000), and claimed the CRP had cheated the Nazis.[8][6][5] In response, Tommasi leaked the story to the press.[6][9] This initially resulted in only local news reports, but after the reveal of the Watergate scandal and CRP's implication in it, the story made national news, including in The New York Times.[6][4][10] Hugh W. Sloan Jr. testified about the plan to the Watergate Commission.[4]

Robert Walters, the high-profile right-wing activist who created the plan, initially denied any tie to the CRP and said he had come up with the idea on his own.[4][5] He also said he did not remember the Nazis.[10] Another participant in the plan disputed Walters's telling of events; reporters ultimately found checks from Walters to Tommasi, after which Walters conceded that the neo-Nazis "might have been involved".[4][5] The plan was described by the Watergate Committee as a "complete failure numerically, according to all participants",[8] though the Los Angeles Free Press noted it had perhaps worked out for Tommasi.[4]

Watergate

[edit]

The CRP used $500,000 in funds raised to re-elect President Nixon to pay legal expenses for the five Watergate burglars. This act helped turn the burglary into an explosive political scandal. The burglars, as well as G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, John N. Mitchell, and other Nixon administration figures (Watergate Seven), were indicted over the break-in and their efforts to cover it up.[3][11]

The acronym CREEP became popular due to the Watergate scandal.[12][13]

Legacy

[edit]

Writing for Time magazine, Jonathan van Harmelen wrote that "the tactics pioneered by members of Trojans for Representative Government and later CREEP set a precedent for the sort of organized political sabotage that has become commonplace today in a digital world".[3]

Prominent members

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Committee for the Re-Election of the President

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), derisively known by the CREEP, was the independent organization established in spring 1971 to manage and execute U.S. President Richard Nixon's successful re-election campaign. Directed initially by former Attorney General , CRP operated separately from the , with divisions focused on administration, citizen outreach, and political operations, including targeted voter mobilization among labor, ethnic, and youth groups, polling, and convention planning. The committee raised a record $60.2 million in funds, contributing to Nixon's over Democratic nominee , securing 520 electoral votes and 60.7% of the popular vote. However, CRP's legacy is dominated by its engagement in unlawful activities, such as maintaining a from untraceable donations and authorizing covert operations including and burglary, most notably the June 17, 1972, break-in at the offices in the , which triggered investigations revealing a broader pattern of political and obstruction of justice. These scandals led to convictions of senior CRP officials, including Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, and G. Gordon Liddy, and ultimately factored into Nixon's resignation in August 1974 amid impeachment proceedings.

Formation and Purpose

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) was officially formed in early 1972 as the central organization for fundraising and campaign operations supporting President Richard Nixon's bid for re-election in the November 1972 United States presidential election. Planning for the committee originated in late 1970 among White House staff anticipating the election cycle, evolving from preliminary entities such as the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, which began operations in December 1971 to solicit initial contributions. Headquartered initially at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., CREEP absorbed functions from the Nixon White House and Republican National Committee, centralizing efforts under professional political operatives to maximize efficiency and resource allocation. CREEP's legal foundation derived from the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Public Law 92-225), signed into law by President Nixon on February 7, 1972, which established regulatory requirements for political committees involved in federal elections. This legislation amended the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 and mandated that committees like CREEP register with the Comptroller General, disclose contributions exceeding $100 in value, and report expenditures intended to influence federal races, aiming to promote transparency amid rising campaign costs observed in prior elections. Although FECA's reporting provisions took effect on April 7, 1972, CREEP structured its operations to nominally align with these rules, designating itself as a principal campaign committee authorized to receive and disburse funds on behalf of the president's re-election. The act's framework permitted the committee's establishment without prior approval from federal authorities beyond basic compliance filings, reflecting the era's limited oversight prior to the 1974 amendments that created the Federal Election Commission. CREEP's incorporation as a nonprofit entity under District of Columbia law further supported its operational legality, allowing it to function independently while coordinating with the Republican National Committee. This dual structure—federal regulatory compliance coupled with state-level organization—enabled rapid scaling of activities, though subsequent investigations revealed discrepancies in adherence to disclosure mandates.

Stated Objectives and Early Activities

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) was established with the official purpose of serving as the central fundraising mechanism for President Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election effort, enabling the coordination of financial resources for lawful campaign operations including media buys, , and mobilization. This structure allowed separation from the to maximize direct control over expenditures and donor outreach, reflecting a strategic emphasis on amassing unprecedented sums to counter Democratic opposition. In its initial phase during late and early , CREEP prioritized building a donor network through targeted solicitations from corporate executives, affluent individuals, and industry groups, leveraging Nixon's incumbency advantages such as access to administration officials for pitches. By April , these efforts had generated substantial early contributions, part of the campaign's record total of $60.2 million raised overall, which dwarfed competitors and funded expansive polling on voter sentiments across states and demographics. Concurrently, the committee initiated organizational groundwork, including the formation of state-level committees and analysis of voting blocs to tailor messaging on issues like and achievements. These activities focused on data-driven , such as demographic and surrogate speaker coordination, to bolster Nixon's image as an effective leader amid ongoing Vietnam negotiations and domestic challenges. This preparatory work laid the foundation for broader voter engagement tactics later in the cycle.

Leadership and Organization

Key Leadership Figures

John N. Mitchell served as the initial director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), assuming the role upon its formation in December 1971 after resigning as U.S. Attorney General on February 15, 1972. In this capacity, Mitchell directed overall campaign strategy and operations, including fundraising and political coordination, until his resignation on July 1, 1972, amid growing scrutiny of the committee's activities. Jeb Stuart Magruder functioned as deputy campaign manager under Mitchell, handling administrative and communications duties from CREEP's inception through mid-1972. Magruder, a former White House aide, coordinated subunit efforts and reported directly to Mitchell on operational matters. Maurice Stans, who resigned as Secretary of Commerce on February 7, 1972, chaired CREEP's finance committee, overseeing the solicitation of contributions that totaled approximately $60 million by election day. Stans emphasized direct mail and large-donor events to fund the reelection bid. Clark MacGregor succeeded Mitchell as CREEP director on July 1, 1972, leading the organization through the final months of the campaign until Nixon's victory on November 7, 1972. A former U.S. Representative from , MacGregor focused on conventional voter outreach while distancing the committee from earlier controversies. G. Gordon Liddy joined CREEP as general counsel in January , after service in the White House "Plumbers" unit, where he developed plans for and security operations. Liddy reported to Magruder and proposed intelligence-gathering initiatives, including surveillance efforts tied to the .

Internal Structure and Subunits

The for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) maintained a bifurcated internal structure, separating financial operations from political and administrative functions to streamline its campaign activities. The , established as a core subunit under chairman , former Secretary of , focused exclusively on fundraising, expenditure tracking, and compliance with emerging regulations, raising over $60 million by November through direct solicitations from major donors. This subunit operated semi-autonomously, with Stans reporting directly to campaign director , and maintained detailed records of contributions from corporations and individuals, though later scrutiny revealed lax oversight leading to unreported funds. Political operations formed the other primary subunit, directed by deputy campaign manager , who coordinated day-to-day strategy, voter targeting, and media efforts from CREEP's Washington headquarters at 1700 . This division encompassed specialized sub-groups for demographic outreach, including youth, black voters, labor, and ethnic blocs, with materials such as state-specific polling data and bloc mobilization plans preserved in archival records. Within it, the Political Division handled and scheduling, while the Citizens Division managed volunteer recruitment and grassroots coordination through affiliated committees like the Citizens Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Frederic V. Malek, as director of personnel, oversaw staffing across these areas, ensuring alignment with Nixon's re-election priorities amid a staff of approximately 300 by mid-1972. Additional administrative subunits supported logistics, including a scheduling under Herbert L. Porter and legal counsel for regulatory matters, though these were subordinate to the finance and political arms. This decentralized setup facilitated rapid decision-making but contributed to fragmented , as testified in subsequent investigations. Overall, CREEP's structure emphasized efficiency in over centralized control, reflecting the campaign's confidence in Nixon's incumbency advantage.

Fundraising Operations

Financial Strategies and Contributors

The finance committee of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), chaired by Maurice H. Stans, orchestrated an extensive fundraising effort that collected approximately $61 million for Richard Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign, far exceeding the $40 million raised in 1968. This sum was amassed through direct solicitations targeting wealthy individuals, business executives, and industry groups, capitalizing on Nixon's incumbency and the perceived stakes of the election against Democratic challengers. Stans, drawing on his prior role as Secretary of Commerce, emphasized personal outreach via phone calls, meetings, and letters to secure six- and seven-figure pledges, often framing contributions as essential to countering anti-business policies. A core strategy exploited a loophole in the newly enacted amendments of 1971, which mandated quarterly contribution disclosures starting April 7, 1972; CREEP accelerated collections in the preceding months, gathering over $20 million in largely undisclosed funds to maintain donor until after the . Complementary tactics included establishing finance committees in each state to coordinate local drives, hosting exclusive dinners and galas with Nixon appearances, and bundling corporate and individual gifts through intermediaries. While most funds were legally obtained under prevailing rules allowing unlimited contributions, a subset involved prohibited corporate treasury donations, totaling about $1.8 million from over 50 companies, which prompted later guilty pleas and fines exceeding $1 million. Prominent individual contributors included , an insurance executive whose $2 million donation represented the campaign's largest single gift and aligned with his longstanding support for Republican causes. Industry groups, particularly in regulated sectors, provided substantial sums amid ongoing federal policy decisions; for instance, dairy cooperatives such as Associated Milk Producers Inc. donated $437,000 in early 1971, following meetings with Nixon aides and preceding his administration's March 12, 1971, decision to raise federal milk price supports by 16 cents per hundredweight, yielding an estimated $100 million in annual industry benefits. The following table summarizes select major contributors, focusing on verified large-scale donations:
ContributorAmountContext/Details
W. Clement Stone$2,000,000Individual; top donor, via Combined Insurance Co. ties.
Dairy cooperatives (e.g., AMPI)$437,000Industry group; linked to price support policy shift.
Gulf Oil$100,000Corporate (illegal); executive slush fund, led to guilty plea.
Braniff Airlines$100,000 (approx.)Corporate (illegal); tied to regulatory matters, fined post-scandal.
These contributions, while not all tied to explicit in court findings, fueled investigations into potential influence peddling, as disclosures revealed patterns of donations preceding favorable administrative actions in sectors like and . Stans himself faced perjury charges related to financier Robert Vesco's $200,000 donation—allegedly conditioned on SEC leniency in a fraud probe—but was acquitted alongside in 1975. Overall, the scale and opacity of CREEP's fundraising underscored vulnerabilities in pre-Watergate finance laws, prompting post-scandal reforms like contribution caps and public funding options under the 1974 FECA amendments.

Allocation and Oversight of Funds

The Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, chaired by with as treasurer, oversaw the allocation of campaign funds raised by CREEP, directing the majority toward standard electoral activities such as advertising and state-level operations while maintaining a parallel system of cash disbursements for covert intelligence efforts. Prior to the April 7, 1972, effective date of amended reporting requirements, CREEP amassed approximately $1.7 million in unreported cash from major donors, stored in safes and safe deposit boxes, with portions laundered through Mexican banks to obscure origins. These funds were disbursed without detailed receipts, often in hundred-dollar bills, to operatives like , who received $199,000 for "," a broad plan encompassing , , and the Watergate break-in, including over $50,000 spent by James W. McCord Jr. on bugging equipment. Post-break-in disbursements from campaign sources further highlighted allocation irregularities, with senior officials directing approximately $450,000 in to defendants and their families to maintain silence. In summer 1972, raised $220,000—including $75,000 from and $70,000 from H.R. Haldeman's safe—delivered via anonymous cash drops like airport lockers to E. Howard Hunt's wife for legal fees and salaries (e.g., $3,000 monthly to McCord through January 1973). Frederick C. LaRue, acting on John N. Mitchell's instructions, handled $230,000 in September 1972 from CREEP excess cash and Haldeman's safe, with the final $75,000 paid on March 21, 1973, to attorney William O. Bittman. Specific recipients included Hunt (about $275,000 total, half to Bittman) and Bernard L. Barker ($47,000). Oversight mechanisms were notably deficient for these covert allocations, relying on verbal approvals from Mitchell or other executives rather than formal audits or documentation, which enabled untracked expenditures and evasion of disclosure laws. Sloan, responsible for routine treasury functions, later testified to approving large cash withdrawals without full knowledge of end uses, citing unease that prompted his September 1972 resignation; no comprehensive accounting existed for Liddy's funds, and Kalmbach maintained payments were for legitimate defense costs despite evidence of their role in obstruction. The U.S. General Accounting Office accused Stans in May 1973 of arbitrary practices to circumvent reporting, such as structuring contributions to avoid thresholds, underscoring systemic laxity in financial controls that prioritized operational secrecy over accountability.

Conventional Campaign Efforts

Media Advertising and Public Relations

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) managed media advertising primarily through television commercials that emphasized President Nixon's , achievements, and personal demeanor, while contrasting his record against Democratic nominee George McGovern's proposed policies. A key example was the ad "Nixon the Man," produced directly by CREEP, which depicted Nixon engaging in relaxed activities like playing , interacting with citizens, and addressing issues such as reform and international , under the portraying him as a steadfast leader amid national challenges. These spots aimed to humanize Nixon and underscore stability, with production handled through CREEP's communications apparatus led by deputy director , who oversaw scheduling, media buys, and promotional coordination. CREEP outsourced creative development to a specialized firm established in March at 909 in New York, staffed by professionals new to political campaigns but experienced in commercial techniques. The strategy prioritized low-key, documentary-style content over aggressive attacks early on; for instance, the official Republican TV campaign launched on September 26, , with a five-minute film highlighting Nixon's recent summit and diplomatic efforts, aired nationally to reinforce his statesman image without direct opponent criticism. Later efforts included pointed negative ads, such as one released in July featuring a critiquing McGovern's welfare expansion plans as making over half the U.S. eligible for benefits, framing them as economically disruptive. Public relations under CREEP focused on controlled messaging and rapid response to media inquiries, with Magruder directing efforts to shape narratives around Nixon's incumbency advantages, including economic progress and wind-down. The committee produced an Election Eve television program on November 6, 1972, broadcast nationally to consolidate voter support by recapping campaign themes and projecting unity. Overall advertising expenditures formed a substantial portion of CREEP's $45 million for the Nixon-Agnew ticket, enabling extensive airtime in battleground states, though precise allocations to media buys remain documented primarily in internal campaign records rather than public disclosures at the time. These efforts contributed to Nixon's , garnering 60.7% of the popular vote, by leveraging broadcast media to amplify positive incumbency narratives while minimizing unscripted exposure.

Voter Outreach and Mobilization Tactics

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) implemented targeted voter outreach programs aimed at expanding Nixon's support among demographics traditionally aligned with Democrats, including newly eligible young voters and ethnic groups such as Catholics and blue-collar workers. These efforts emphasized Nixon's achievements, like his 1972 visits to and the , through polling-driven messaging and media campaigns, including postcards and simulated ballots distributed via newspapers like the Washington Star to gauge and influence public sentiment. A key focus was mobilizing the youth vote, marking the first presidential election after the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971, adding approximately 11 million potential new voters aged 18-20. CREEP established the Young Voters for the President (YVP) committee, recruiting high-profile endorsers such as athletes, entertainers, and college student body presidents to appeal to moderate, non-countercultural youth. Tactics included printing "Generation of Peace" stamps and advertisements highlighting Nixon's role in ending the Vietnam War draft and promoting environmental policies, with a September 1972 poll showing 57% of young voters viewing Nixon as more sincere than George McGovern. The YVP operated as a semi-autonomous unit, offering leadership roles to individuals under 30 to foster grassroots enthusiasm, contributing to Nixon's capture of nearly half of first-time voters under 25, compared to McGovern's 52%. Outreach to ethnic and working-class voters involved tailored and events, such as television spots featuring hardhat-wearing construction workers to resonate with unionized blue-collar Catholics and , portraying McGovern's policies as welfare expansion threats. In August 1972, Nixon intensified appeals to Catholic voters through direct campaigning and endorsements, leveraging his administration's anti-abortion stance amid debates over . CREEP's Black Vote Division and ethnic subunits, including efforts with figures like , sought to recruit moderate African American and ethnic minority supporters, though these yielded limited turnout gains. Mobilization relied on volunteer networks coordinated by figures like aide Frederic Malek and Assistant National Director of Volunteers Nancy Steorts, who organized state-level operations targeting voting blocs through door-to-door canvassing, phone banks, and local events. These conventional efforts complemented broader strategies, such as state-specific polling to customize appeals, helping drive high Republican turnout in key regions despite the campaign's emphasis on Nixon's incumbency advantages over personal rallies.

Intelligence and Covert Activities

Opposition Research Methods

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP) employed methods that combined conventional dossier compilation with aggressive, often illegal tactics to identify and exploit vulnerabilities among Democratic primary candidates, particularly Senators and . These efforts were overseen by CREEP's finance and security arms, with funding drawn from untraceable campaign contributions allocated for intelligence operations, totaling at least $250,000 by mid-1972. Key operatives, including former Army officer , were contracted through intermediaries like CREEP treasurer Herbert L. Porter to conduct fieldwork, focusing on personal scandals, ideological inconsistencies, and campaign disruptions to fragment the Democratic field. A primary method involved documents and anonymous communications to plant damaging narratives in sympathetic media outlets. In late 1971, Segretti's team produced the "Canuck letter," a fabricated missive falsely portraying Muskie as having derogatorily referred to French-Canadians as "Canucks" during a campaign stop; it was mailed to the Manchester Union Leader and published on February 24, 1972, eroding Muskie's support in the primary and prompting his emotional withdrawal from contention shortly thereafter. Similar forgeries on Democratic campaign stationery accused opponents of , illegitimate children, or radical affiliations, distributed via mail or leaked to journalists to amplify rumors without direct attribution. Surveillance and infiltration supplemented these disinformation campaigns. CREEP authorized break-ins and unauthorized access to personal records, such as the September 3, 1971, burglary at the Beverly Hills office of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding to obtain Ellsberg files for discrediting the Papers leaker, an operation tied to broader opponent profiling. Operatives posed as supporters or journalists to elicit compromising statements from targets or their aides, while background checks extended to financial records, voting histories, and ex-associates to construct exploitable dossiers. Investigations into figures like reporter aimed to unearth biases or personal flaws for counterattacks. These methods prioritized rapid deployment over ethical constraints, often fabricating evidence where genuine dirt was insufficient, as Segretti later admitted during 1973 Senate Watergate Committee , where he detailed over 50 such operations across multiple states. While yielding short-term disruptions—such as derailing Muskie's frontrunner status—the tactics exposed CREEP to legal vulnerabilities, contributing to convictions for conspiracy and fraud among participants.

Special Projects and "Plumbers" Operations

The Special Investigations Unit, informally known as the "Plumbers," was formed on July 24, 1971, under the direction of and with involvement from and , to investigate and prevent leaks of classified information following the publication of the Pentagon Papers. This unit's mandate extended to special projects aimed at gathering intelligence on perceived threats to and the administration, which overlapped with efforts to protect President Nixon's re-election prospects by discrediting opponents like , the Pentagon Papers leaker whose actions were viewed as potentially aiding anti-war candidates. Key personnel included , a former CIA officer, and , an FBI veteran, who later transitioned to roles supporting the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP). A primary operation of the Plumbers was the September 3-4, 1971, burglary of the Beverly Hills office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Ellsberg's , authorized by Krogh on September 3 with a false cover memo implying CIA involvement. Hunt, Liddy, and operatives Eugenio Martinez, , and Felipe de Diego participated, using CIA-provided disguises and equipment to search for Ellsberg's medical records in hopes of obtaining compromising psychological information to neutralize his credibility and deter further leaks that could harm Nixon's image ahead of the 1972 election. The break-in yielded no significant files, but it exemplified the unit's aggressive tactics, including and of journalists like Hedrick Smith of , conducted in June 1972 to trace leak sources. CRP special projects incorporated Plumbers personnel and methods for campaign-related , with Liddy assigned to handle "dirty tricks and other special projects" upon joining the committee as in late 1971. These efforts focused on and disruption, funded through untraceable channels, though distinct from the unit's initial leak-plugging focus; for instance, Hunt and Liddy proposed expansive plans to CRP leadership in 1972, bridging the Plumbers' operational expertise with electoral strategy. The overlap in personnel and objectives—such as countering Democratic figures tied to anti-war —served to safeguard Nixon's candidacy, but the operations' secrecy and illegality later contributed to broader scrutiny of CRP activities.

Sabotage and Disruption Efforts

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) directed a multifaceted sabotage campaign targeting Democratic presidential contenders during the 1972 primaries, with operations funded through CRP channels and aimed at fostering intraparty discord to weaken potential nominees. These efforts, often termed "dirty tricks," were coordinated by Donald H. Segretti, a former Army captain recruited by aide Dwight L. Chapin in September 1971, with financial support disbursed via CRP aide Herbert L. "Bart" Porter, totaling approximately $35,000 by early 1972. Segretti's team, consisting of about a dozen operatives, executed tactics including of campaign materials, infiltration of rival events, and dissemination of false information to discredit candidates like and . A prominent example was the "," a forged missive published on February 24, 1972, in the Manchester Union Leader, falsely attributing anti-French-Canadian slurs to Muskie and purportedly written by a low-level campaign worker. Segretti later acknowledged responsibility for this operation, which contributed to Muskie's emotional public response on February 25, 1972, eroding his front-runner status and prompting his withdrawal from active contention by April 1972. Additional disruptions included planting hecklers at Democratic rallies to provoke chaos, such as paid agitators at Hubert Humphrey's events in , and distributing counterfeit campaign literature accusing rivals of scandals or . These activities extended to of documents; for instance, Muskie campaign files were pilfered in and , disrupting internal planning and strategy sessions as testified by Muskie aide Peter E. Nottoli in November 1973. Internal memos, including one from advisor Patrick J. Buchanan in early 1972, advocated for "covert operations" to exacerbate Democratic divisions, such as amplifying anti-war factions against establishment figures. While Segretti's efforts avoided violence, they violated federal election laws on anonymous literature distribution, leading to his guilty plea on three counts in December 1973 and a six-month prison sentence served in 1974. FBI investigations post-Watergate confirmed these tactics as part of a broader CRP pattern, though their direct electoral impact remains debated given Nixon's 60.7% popular vote victory.

Watergate Incident and Immediate Fallout

Break-in Planning and Execution

The planning for the Watergate break-in originated within the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP)'s intelligence-gathering efforts, led by , general counsel to CREEP's finance committee, and , a former CIA officer serving as a . In early 1972, Liddy developed "," a broad proposal encompassing sabotage, kidnapping, prostitution setups, and burglaries targeting Democratic operations, initially budgeted at $1 million when pitched to on February 4, 1972. The plan was scaled back after rejection but persisted in modified form, with CREEP deputy director Jeb Magruder authorizing $250,000 for intelligence activities in March 1972, including surveillance of the (DNC). A preliminary break-in occurred on May 28, 1972, when a team led by Hunt and Liddy entered the DNC headquarters at the Watergate office complex to photograph documents and inspect for wiretap placement, funded through untraceable CREEP cash disbursed by Magruder. The operation aimed to uncover dirt on Democratic chair Lawrence O'Brien, suspected of ties to Nixon adversaries, though bugs installed during this entry malfunctioned shortly after. The second break-in commenced on June 16-17, 1972, involving five operatives: James McCord, CREEP's security coordinator; and four Cuban-American anti-Castro figures—, , Eugenio Martinez, and —recruited by Hunt from prior CIA-linked activities. Equipped with devices, cameras, and door-lock tape, the team accessed the DNC offices via an adjacent basement door around 11:00 p.m. on June 16, but Frank Wills detected the tape during rounds at 11:30 p.m. on June 17, prompting a police call that led to their arrest at 1:45 a.m. while handling equipment. Liddy and Hunt monitored from a nearby hotel room, with funds traced to a CREEP . The burglars carried forged identification, radio equipment tuned to McCord's , and $2,300 in sequential $100 bills from CREEP, linking the operation directly to the committee despite initial denials. This execution, intended to repair wiretaps and retrieve additional intelligence, instead exposed CREEP's covert tactics due to amateur errors like the overlooked tape residue.

Discovery and Initial Cover-up Attempts

![Aerial view of the Watergate complex]float-right On the night of June 17, 1972, security guard Frank Wills at the Watergate office complex noticed that several doors had been taped to prevent them from latching, prompting him to alert the police. Responding officers entered the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters around 2:30 a.m. and arrested five men caught in the act of breaking in. The suspects were identified as James W. McCord Jr., security coordinator for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), along with Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis, all of whom possessed anti-Castro backgrounds and prior ties to intelligence operations. Police discovered the intruders equipped with burglary tools, cameras, wiretapping devices, and documents linking them to CREEP, including address books containing contact information for , a former consultant. Acting FBI Director received immediate notification via teletype of the arrests, noting McCord's CREEP affiliation, which raised early concerns about political motivations. By June 20, 1972, FBI investigators had traced additional connections to Hunt, alerting officials to the potential scandal. Initial cover-up efforts commenced swiftly within the Nixon administration and CREEP. McCord was dismissed from his CREEP position the day after the arrests to sever apparent ties. On June 20, President Nixon dismissed the incident to aide , predicting it would "be forgotten" amid the reelection campaign. By June 23, Nixon directed Chief of Staff to instruct CIA Director and Deputy Director Vernon Walters to approach FBI Acting Director Gray and urge limiting the bureau's probe by claiming implications, an obstruction documented on the later-revealed "" tape. These actions aimed to contain the investigation's scope and shield administration involvement, despite evident financial and operational links to CREEP's activities.

Investigations and Consequences

Federal Probes and Media Role

The (FBI) initiated its probe into the Watergate break-in immediately following the arrest of five burglars at the headquarters on June 17, 1972, uncovering links to the (CREEP) through financial records and operative connections. This investigation, led by FBI Acting Director , revealed a covert operated by CREEP treasurer Hugh Sloan and ties to former FBI agents involved in the , though initial interference, including Gray's destruction of documents from E. Howard Hunt's safe, hampered progress. By September 1972, a federal grand jury indicted the burglars and accomplices, with Judge John Sirica's harsh sentences in March 1973 prompting James McCord's letter alleging perjury and political pressure, which escalated scrutiny. In February 1973, the U.S. Senate established the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Senator , to investigate the break-in and broader CREEP activities, including illegal campaign financing and intelligence operations. Public hearings commenced on May 17, 1973, featuring testimony from figures like , who detailed a cover-up involving CREEP funds, and exposing the "enemies list" and other abuses; the committee's televised proceedings, viewed by millions, amassed over 18,000 pages of evidence and subpoenaed tapes. Concurrently, appointed as special prosecutor on May 25, 1973, to independently pursue criminal aspects, including CREEP's role in obstruction of justice; Cox's office subpoenaed nine tapes in July 1973, leading to Nixon's refusal and the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20, 1973, where Cox was fired, prompting public outrage and the appointment of . Media outlets, particularly The Washington Post, amplified federal probes through investigative reporting by and , whose June 19, 1972, article first tied the burglars to CREEP via a $25,000 check, followed by revelations of a $100,000 CREEP fund for intelligence operations. Their stories, sourced from anonymous insiders like FBI Associate Director ("Deep Throat"), detailed efforts and pressured officials, contributing to McCord's confession and Sirica's push for deeper testimony, though subsequent official evidence like the June 1972 tapes ultimately confirmed high-level involvement. While The Post's coverage earned a 1973 and sustained public demand for accountability, probes revealed that media reports sometimes outpaced verifiable facts initially, with the scandal's legal unraveling driven primarily by judicial and congressional actions rather than journalism alone. Broadcast networks' gavel-to-gavel airing of hearings further disseminated revelations, fostering bipartisan congressional resolve amid declining Nixon approval ratings from 67% post-1972 election to 27% by August 1974.

Key Testimonies and Revelations

, deputy director of the (CREEP), testified before the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities on June 14, 1973, confessing his direct involvement in planning and authorizing the Watergate break-in as part of G. Gordon Liddy's broader "Gemstone" intelligence operations. admitted perjuring himself during the initial trial of the burglars by denying CREEP's role and detailed how CREEP chairman orally approved Liddy's revised $250,000 budget for espionage activities, including the Democratic National Committee headquarters burglary, after an initial rejection of a larger proposal. John W. Dean III, former with oversight of CREEP legal matters, provided testimony from June 25 to 29, 1973, outlining a coordinated that funneled approximately $75,000 in CREEP "" to the convicted Watergate burglars to ensure their silence, with approvals traced to senior CREEP and figures including Mitchell and . Dean described meetings where CREEP finance committee members, such as and Hugh Sloan, handled disbursements from a secret cash fund, and revealed that these payments continued post-arrest to obstruct justice, characterizing the effort as a "cancer on the presidency." James W. McCord Jr., CREEP's security coordinator and one of the convicted burglars, triggered further revelations through a March 23, 1973, letter to U.S. District Judge John J. Sirica, asserting that trial witnesses had committed under pressure from CREEP and officials to protect higher authorities, while denying any CIA orchestration of the break-in. This disclosure, followed by McCord's subsequent cooperation, corroborated testimony about CREEP's orchestration of the operation and the application of political coercion to maintain silence, leading to the unraveling of the initial narrative. These accounts exposed CREEP's systematic use of funds—totaling over $400,000 for illicit activities—and the direct linkage between the committee's and the burglary's execution, shifting investigative focus from isolated criminal acts to within Nixon's re-election apparatus. The initial legal proceedings stemming from the Watergate break-in focused on the seven defendants charged with conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping: , , and five burglars (Bernardo Barker, Virgilio González, , James McCord, and ), all linked to operations approved or facilitated through the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP). commenced on January 8, 1973, before U.S. District Judge ; Hunt and the four Cuban-American burglars (Barker, González, Martínez, and Sturgis) pleaded guilty prior to verdict, while Liddy and McCord were convicted on January 30, 1973, after refusing to cooperate or disclose higher involvement. Liddy, CREEP's who planned the operation, received a 20-year sentence, later reduced; McCord, a CREEP security coordinator, got 1–5 years, also reduced after his March 23, 1973, letter to Sirica alleging pressures and a broader , which catalyzed further probes. Subsequent prosecutions targeted the cover-up, implicating senior CREEP and figures. On January 1, 1975, former CREEP chairman and John Mitchell, along with , , and , were convicted in U.S. v. Mitchell of , obstruction of justice, and related charges for efforts to conceal ties to the break-in, including hush-money payments and false statements. Mitchell, central to approving illicit CREEP funds for intelligence operations, was sentenced February 4, 1975, to 2.5–8 years, serving 19 months after entering prison in June 1977 as the first former U.S. incarcerated. Ehrlichman and Mardian received similar terms, with reductions; Haldeman, though not directly CREEP-tied, was convicted alongside them for coordinating the obstruction. Additional CREEP-related convictions included campaign finance violations under the , with former CREEP treasurer Hugh Sloan and finance chairman pleading no contest or guilty to misdemeanors for unreported contributions and illegal reimbursements tied to Watergate , resulting in fines but no prison time. Overall, these proceedings yielded convictions for over 40 individuals across 25 cases linked to Watergate activities, predominantly involving CREEP operatives in burglary, , sabotage, and efforts, underscoring systemic abuses in the 1972 reelection campaign.

Impact and Historical Assessment

Role in Nixon's Electoral Success

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), formally organized on February 15, 1972, under Attorney General John N. Mitchell's chairmanship, served as the operational hub for Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, emphasizing fundraising, voter mobilization, and targeted outreach to secure a decisive victory. CREEP raised a record $60.2 million in contributions by September 1972, dwarfing the Democratic National Committee's resources and funding an expansive infrastructure that included over 1,000 paid staffers and operations in all 50 states. This financial dominance enabled aggressive television advertising—exceeding $20 million in expenditures—and sophisticated direct-mail campaigns that reached millions of potential supporters, capitalizing on Nixon's high approval ratings from diplomatic achievements like the February 1972 China visit and the May Paris accords on Vietnam. CREEP's ground game focused on data-driven voter targeting, with deputy director Frederic Malek overseeing ethnic and demographic analyses to boost turnout among white working-class voters, suburbanites, and disaffected Democrats—groups pivotal to Nixon's "" coalition. The committee established specialized units, such as the Black Executive Advisory Committee, to engage minority voters, while state-level coordinators executed get-out-the-vote drives that registered and mobilized over 10 million new or lapsed Republican identifiers. Nixon, conducting minimal personal campaigning with only 15 public appearances, relied on surrogates like Spiro Agnew and cabinet members for rallies, allowing CREEP to project an aura of presidential gravitas amid and advantages. These efforts culminated in Nixon's , 1972, triumph, capturing 60.7% of the popular vote (47.2 million votes to George McGovern's 29.2 million) and 520 electoral votes from 49 states—a margin historians attribute partly to CREEP's efficient machinery amplifying inherent polling leads that averaged 20 points by summer. Although CREEP authorized sabotage operations, including forged letters and false campaign leaks to fracture Democratic primaries, these tactics—executed via a $250,000 —yielded marginal disruptions, such as delaying McGovern's vice-presidential selection, but did not alter the race's trajectory given Nixon's structural advantages and McGovern's internal divisions. Post-election analyses, including reviews, indicate the illicit activities diverted resources without materially influencing voter behavior, as pre-Watergate polls showed Nixon's support stable above 55% despite minor scandals; the committee's conventional strategies, not its excesses, drove the by efficiently converting public sentiment into ballots.

Long-term Reforms and Political Repercussions

The , involving the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), prompted Congress to enact the Amendments of 1974, which imposed strict limits on individual contributions to federal candidates (capped at $1,000 per election) and established the (FEC) to oversee reporting and enforcement. These measures directly addressed CREEP's use of undisclosed "slush funds" for illicit activities, such as the June 17, 1972, break-in at the headquarters, by mandating public disclosure of contributions over $10 and prohibiting corporate and union treasury spending in federal elections. Subsequent legislation included the of 1978, which required high-level federal officials to file annual financial disclosure statements and created the Office of Government Ethics to monitor conflicts of interest, while also authorizing independent counsels for investigating executive branch misconduct. Enacted amid ongoing revelations of Nixon administration abuses, including CREEP's operations, the act aimed to restore accountability by restricting post-employment activities for officials and limiting outside income for members of . Politically, Watergate accelerated a decline in in the federal , with Gallup polls showing confidence in Washington dropping from 36% in 1964 to 28% by May 1974, a trend that persisted as only 22% of expressed trust in "most of the time" or "always" as of May 2024. The scandal's exposure of executive overreach, including CREEP's role in orchestrating political , fostered widespread cynicism toward political institutions, contributing to voter disillusionment evident in the 1974 midterm elections where Democrats gained 49 House seats. Long-term repercussions included a heightened emphasis on transparency in presidential campaigns, though critics argue the reforms inadvertently centralized power by empowering regulatory bodies like the FEC, potentially enabling future bureaucratic overreach rather than fully curbing illicit financing. Nixon's August 9, 1974, resignation, followed by Ford's on September 8, 1974, further entrenched partisan divides, with Republicans viewing it as necessary closure and Democrats decrying it as evasion of , shaping debates on accountability that influenced subsequent proceedings.

Comparative Context and Alternative Viewpoints

Some scholars and historians contextualize CREEP's operations within a long pattern of covert tactics and "dirty tricks" employed by presidential campaigns across U.S. history, suggesting that while Watergate's break-in and funding violations were illegal, they were not anomalous in an era of aggressive and sabotage. For instance, the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon contest involved allegations of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation favoring Kennedy in and , contributing to a razor-thin popular vote margin despite Nixon's refusal to contest the results publicly. Similarly, Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 re-election campaign utilized the CIA's program for psychological operations against , including forged letters and planted stories to portray him as unstable. These precedents indicate that CREEP's efforts to wiretap and disrupt headquarters aligned with established practices of electoral disruption, though distinguished by their direct tie to the and subsequent exposure via tapes. Comparisons to post-Watergate scandals further highlight disparities in scrutiny and consequences, with critics arguing that Watergate's fallout—Nixon's and multiple convictions—set an unmatched standard despite comparable or arguably more severe executive overreaches elsewhere. The Iran-Contra affair under Reagan involved illegal arms sales to fund Nicaraguan rebels, bypassing , yet resulted in no presidential and pardons for key figures, attributed partly to the absence of self-incriminating recordings. Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign accepted over $100,000 in illegal foreign donations funneled through intermediaries, leading to fines but no over the funding itself, in contrast to CREEP's $75,000 for the break-in. Such cases suggest institutional and media responses to CREEP were intensified by anti-Nixon sentiment, given his 1972 landslide (520 electoral votes to McGovern's 17), rather than the acts' inherent uniqueness. Alternative viewpoints, advanced by revisionist historians and former Nixon associates, contend that the dominant narrative overstates Nixon's culpability and ignores procedural irregularities in investigations, framing as a politicized "coup" against a reformist president. Geoff Shepard, who served on Nixon's defense team and reviewed tapes, asserts in "The Real Watergate Scandal" (2015) that Nixon lacked foreknowledge of the June 17, 1972, break-in, which he describes as a rogue CREEP operation, and that the cover-up aimed to shield unrelated political intelligence rather than obstruct justice; he further alleges prosecutorial collusion, including meetings between and Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's team, invalidating trials and convictions. Shepard's claims, drawn from declassified documents, portray the "real scandal" as constitutional violations by investigators, not the burglary itself. Other perspectives invoke a "Nixon derangement syndrome" among media, academia, and establishment figures, who amplified CREEP's misdeeds amid broader opposition to Nixon's withdrawal and policies, contrasting with leniency toward Democratic precedents. Figures like Patrick Buchanan and have argued Nixon adhered excessively to norms by resigning, viewing the as a deep-state effort to oust a winner of 60.7% of the popular vote, with biased coverage from outlets like prioritizing narrative over evidence. These views, echoed in conservative analyses, emphasize empirical discrepancies—such as unproven White House orchestration of the break-in—while critiquing mainstream for systemic left-leaning bias that downplayed similar tactics under subsequent administrations. Critics of revisionism, including historians like David Greenberg, counter that Nixon's "dark" tendencies and taped admissions of obstruction substantiate the core charges, rendering alternative framings unpersuasive absent exonerating proof.

References

  1. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/finding-aids/frederic-malek-papers-committee-re-election-president-collection
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/29/archives/-72-nixon-aides-disclose-60million-election-fund-earlier-disclosure.html
  3. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/watergate.htm
  4. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3352
  5. https://littlesis.org/org/84778-Committee_for_the_Re-Election_of_the_President
  6. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/finding-aids/jeb-stuart-magruder-papers-committee-re-election-president-collection
  7. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/08/27/archives/gao-report-asks-justice-inquiry-into-gop-funds-says-apparent.html
  8. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/creep/
  9. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-creep-105479
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/jeb-magruder
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/us/clark-macgregor-80-leader-of-nixon-campaign-in-1972.html
  12. https://www.britannica.com/biography/G-Gordon-Liddy
  13. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8jq11n1/
  14. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/citizens-united-watergate-redux-077436
  15. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/history-money-american-elections/
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/13/archives/cox-and-his-army-i-thought-it-was-worth-a-try-i-thought-it-was.html
  17. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/15/archives/milk-groups-aid-to-nixon-reportedly-hidden-in-72-milk-groups-aid.html
  18. https://time.com/archive/6842372/politics-milkmen-skimming-off-more-cream/
  19. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/got-corruption-nixons-milk-money
  20. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=stusch_lawrev
  21. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/17/archives/an-explanation-how-money-that-financed-watergate-was-raised-and.html
  22. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/20/archives/gao-says-stans-sought-to-evade-fund-disclosures-arbitrary-and.html
  23. https://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1972
  24. https://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1972/nixon-the-man
  25. https://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palmeri/commentary/mediarants4.htm
  26. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/27/archives/nixons-the-one-at-new-shop.html
  27. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/26/archives/nixons-tv-drive-opens-with-film-on-soviet-trip.html
  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ9HxiLVFhA
  29. https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/nixon-1972-election-eve-program/459756
  30. https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1972/The-Republican-campaign
  31. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2302&context=etd
  32. https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-other-reason-to-study-nixon-in-72-its-youth-outreach/
  33. https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-1972-richard-nixon-chases-catholic-voters-amid-future-turning-point
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/black-power-soft-power-floyd-mckissick-soul-city-and-the-death-of-moderate-black-republicanism/E74DBA176BD3C5A747B1805EC2178FD2
  35. http://media.clemson.edu/library/special_collections/findingaids/manuscripts/mss123Steorts/Mss123SteortsSeries6CREEP.doc.pdf
  36. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3352
  37. https://time.com/7005267/usc-dirty-tricks-watergate-history/
  38. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/12/archives/excerpts-from-8-volumes-of-evidence-issued-by-judiciary-panel.html
  39. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/meet-the-white-house-plumbers/
  40. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/10/archives/nixons-active-role-on-plumbers-his-talks-with-leaders-recalled.html
  41. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/08/archives/excerpts-from-transcript-of-testimony-before-senates-watergate.html
  42. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-finds-nixon-aides-sabotaged-democrats/2012/06/06/gJQAoHIJJV_story.html
  43. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/09/archives/sabotaging-the-g-ops-rivals-story-of-a-100000-operation-scope-of.html
  44. https://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/06/16-worst-political-dirty-tricks/000188-002247-fullscreen.html
  45. https://www.sunjournal.com/2022/02/06/the-day-the-dirty-trickster-apologized-to-muskie/
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/01/archives/muskie-aide-tells-of-1972-sabotage-including-theft-of-vital.html
  47. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/03/04/buchanan-outlined-plan-to-harass-democrats-in-72-memo-shows/c8351243-f4c5-4dba-b448-51dd34152b92/
  48. https://www.nixonfoundation.org/watergate-explained/
  49. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/11/watergate-secret-history-garrett-graff-gordon-liddy-operation-gemstone-00007927
  50. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/june-17/watergate-burglars-arrested-2
  51. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate
  52. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/29/james-mccord-watergate-burglar-obituary-086480
  53. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/watergate/watergate-cover
  54. https://watergate.info/burglary/burglars/
  55. https://levin-center.org/the-watergate-hearings/
  56. https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/archibald-cox
  57. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/13/first-woodward-bernstein-watergate-scandal/
  58. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-myth-of-the-medias-role-in-watergate
  59. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/17/archives/a-bright-young-man-confesses-watergate-the-testimony-maurice-stans.html
  60. https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/The-Watergate-Investigation.pdf
  61. https://watergate.info/chronology/
  62. https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/exhibits/watergate-files
  63. https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/us/watergate-fast-facts
  64. https://watergate.info/analysis/casualties-and-convictions/
  65. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mitchell-attorney-general-of-United-States
  66. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal72-1250025
  67. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/taxonomy/term/1655
  68. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal72-1249818
  69. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/a-modern-history-of-campaign-finance-from-watergate-to-citizens-united/
  70. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/forty-years-after-watergate-pamela-karlan/
  71. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1781&context=lr
  72. https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/watergate-ethics-gov.pdf
  73. https://oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Resources/35th%2BAnniversary%2Bof%2Bthe%2BEthics%2Bin%2BGovernment%2BAct
  74. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=3&article=1019&context=wmcl&type=additional
  75. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
  76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/12/watergate-trust-government-reforms/
  77. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/watergate/watergate-aftermath
  78. https://mises.org/mises-wire/watergate-era-reforms-made-federal-government-even-stronger
  79. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/50-years-after-watergate-unregulated-money-continues-corrode-our-politics
  80. https://spyscape.com/article/10-most-outrageous-dirty-tricks-in-us-politics
  81. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-short-history-of-campaign-dirty-tricks-before-twitter-and-facebook/
  82. https://nypost.com/2015/11/01/a-history-of-dirty-tricks-in-presidential-elections/
  83. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/worse-than-watergate-2/
  84. https://www.britannica.com/list/9-american-political-scandals
  85. https://www.hoover.org/research/return-watergate
  86. https://www.amazon.com/Real-Watergate-Scandal-Collusion-Conspiracy/dp/1621579603
  87. https://www.historyonthenet.com/wait-nixon-was-innocent-geoff-shepard
  88. https://time.com/7265175/the-effort-to-rewrite-watergate/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.