Welcome. Thank you for joining us for this edition of the Modlin Global Analysis Podcast. We regularly talk about international affairs as well as economics and politics, and it's always helpful to notice how much these themes often interact with each other. And we'll continue in that discussion throughout this year. And in all these episodes, but it is worth noting, specifically, we're going to go back in history and talk about Watergate and this interaction of international politics and the Watergate scandal that we're many of us are familiar with. I'm glad to be joined. In by Dan Modlin this week, we're going to twist the tables and I'll be asking and Dan questions. And it's particularly interesting because throughout his life he has been fascinated by the Watergate scandal. And as a student, he did extensive research on this question and his revisited—frequent times. So Dan, thank you for joining us on this. And our first question to you is although Watergate was generally considered to be a domestic story doesn't it have some international politics connections to it?
Dan
Yes, thank you, Kevin. It's something a lot of people don't realize that the roots of the whole Watergate scandal really go back to the Pentagon Papers incident in which a Rand analyst named Daniel Ellsberg was accused of leaking documents to the New York Times that became known as the. Pentagon Papers and these were internal documents from the Defense Department. Which had analyzed some of the mistakes made during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in the war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon's name was not in the Pentagon Papers, but he was very concerned about the leaks. As it turns out, he and Henry Kissinger in that time were involved in some of the diplomacy that. Would later lead to. Opening some of the doors with China and they were very concerned that some of the information from the Pentagon Papers, even some of the documents that hadn't been released yet. Referred to some surveillance flights that the US had carried out over China and they were concerned that that could impede their progress in talking with Chinese leaders. So there was very definitely an international aspect to this. Another interesting side light of this was that Ellsberg, the person who's widely recognized as the person who leaked the Pentagon Papers, had actually had a mentor named Henry Kissinger in his past. Going to Garrett M Graff in his very interesting book, Watergate and New History, Kissinger was concerned that if that former student would continue to leak documents, that would reflect badly on him, and it would also obviously have an impact on some of their diplomacy. But according to graph. Kissinger then encouraged Nixon to take a hard stand on. Leaks and that hard stand was what led directly to some of the corruption and illegal activity that became known as the Watergate scandal.
Kevin
You know, this is fascinating because, well, you've spent a significant amount of time thinking about Watergate. I've been interested in the Cold War era of this same time period. And I've read biographies on Kissinger. And this was a very important mark both in the history of what we would know with Watergate, but also the relationship that Kissinger has throughout the administration. And this feeding of basically paranoia that comes from that and we see. The Nixon and Kissinger bond kind of strengthened through this paranoia, right? So they have a greater trust basically through developing distrust of others. And just as I mentioned earlier, you've had these interesting stories that you've shared with me throughout my life. Of being at the Watergate hearings, and in fact, you were there the day Attorney General John Mitchell. So I know all of us would enjoy hearing some of the macro pieces that you've heard, as well as what was it like being there?
Dan
It was a very interesting experience and to put it kind of in context, I don't know of anything that happens currently that had quite the attentional center. Watergate hearings had all three TV networks were devoting the entire day to carrying the testimony at those hearing. But I did have the opportunity. It's it's kind of a strange way I I got the. Chance but I. Did get to go to hear the first day, John Mitchell testified Attorney General John Mitchell. As it happened, I was a young agriculture reporter and my father worked for a TV affiliate in Indianapolis who had a Stringer. On the hill. And as it turned out, that Stringer wasn't going to be going to the hearing that day, so he loaned me his press pass. So I actually got to go in and sit through the entire day's hearings. And it was it was amazing. Author Norman Mailer was there. There were rumors that John Lennon was going to be there. I never saw him. But I would have.
Kevin
I'm sure I'm sure if he.
Dan
Was there when? You would know him.
Dan
I would. Have noticed him, but it was. It was an amazing activity and really that particular day, Mitchell. Was very effective at not answering questions, and there wasn't anything that earth shattering that that came out the particular day I was there, but it was it was an amazing experience to be able to witness all all of this going on in, in the caucus room there and and that the Senate was dealing with it was it was really. It was like watching history being made.
Kevin
And that caucus room? That meeting room is one that continuously they go to for major hearings because of the size and the media capacity they have for that room. So Garrett Graff, as you mentioned, has written a book that's garnered a lot of attention in recent years on Watergate, a new history. What are some of these key findings that you have from this both? In domestic politics, particularly, but maybe anything international.
Dan
As well, I think I think Graff did an excellent job of researching this story and a lot of the information that I found new was he went back and dug up the early abuses, the plans to bug offices. And again, a lot of this started with the idea of stopping leaks, but it it quickly. Grew to illegal activity and the graph lays that out and then points out that there was much more to the story than just the break in at the Democratic headquarters. He's also very quick to point out that a lot of the information that that came out through the Washington Post, again through reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. A lot of that information came from their source at the time. Was just known as. Deep-Throat, but that it was later revealed that that was Mark Felt and graph points out that a lot of the information that felt provided to those reporters was really pretty self-serving in that felt was hoping to take over the head position at the FBI after the death of J Edgar Hoover and so. Although in the movie all the president's men, we kind of get the in. To this interesting guy that meets reporters in the garage and he's trying to do something to help save the country from some kind of awful fate. In fact, he probably was giving them information that was helping him. At the same time, so that that was certainly one of the things and I think. Just in general Graff also was pretty tough on a couple of the key players in terms of how they work things around to try to make themselves look less culpable than they were. He was, I would say he was fairly tough on John Dean and Jeb Magruder. Both in terms of their role, their direct role in the cover up and their attempts to. Appear that they they really weren't as involved as they were.
Kevin
So it's interesting how self-interest came to play into these conversations. They're all by political actors that are thinking ahead about the environment they're in, seeking to move up in the world somehow created an institution that can internalize that and. Both see the challenges as well as some of the checks that can create throughout the Watergate committee proceedings, the White House tried to downplay investigations and call them a witch hunt. Did that strategy work?
Dan
Well, obviously in the end it did not work. For a while. It helped. Helped to keep the president in office, probably looking back on it, they were able to continually use this approach that the investigators were it was a witch hunt or that the American people didn't care about this investigation and that we needed to get back to the business of the country and that. Argument was used repeatedly during the last months of the Nixon administration, but eventually the what I believe what happened and looking back on it, some of the. Key and a mid level figures who were involved in the White House and in the campaign to reelect the president started to get plea deals and the information started to come out and it became more and more difficult to maintain that line that there really was nothing to the case. And then of course the revelation that there was a taping. System in the White House was a real game changer in terms of the evidence that the investigators could eventually locate.
Kevin
How were the investigators able to get into this inner circle of the White House?
Dan
I think that was really largely through the plea deals. I think these were a lot of these people were individuals who had certainly no criminal background, no criminal record. And as they began to feel more and more isolated as the conspiracy continued, some of those. Figures such as I mentioned John Dean and Jeb Magruder obtained plea arrangements to kind of absolve themselves of most of the charges against them in return for a relatively light sentence. And once those. Figures started to work with prosecutors. Really, the end was almost inevitable because of the information they provided implicated the higher ups, and so it was pretty much once the once the investigators were able to get people like Dean and Magruder to cooperate, I think it probably was just a. Matter of time.
Kevin
So one of the other things that I think is fascinating about this and it's something that you and I've talked about is how many individuals involved in this had no monetary gain from either their criminal activities or their advocacy or the support of. Of the break-ins, they didn't make money from this. They seemed to be either drawn to power or believing in something. I think it'd be interesting to think about how that dynamic intersects with these plea deals, right? So did these individuals who came to the plea deal. Was that some way they're accepting their role on this, but also maybe a shift in their optimism of what their purpose was.
Dan
Yeah, I think that's true. I I that's a good point. And as the plea deal started as we said, it's an interesting thing to note that. All the people who ended up with the plea deals, the people who did prison time for the Watergate break in with the exception of the people who actually broke into the building, most of them really did not do anything in terms of a physical act that would you would associate with the crime. Certainly, conspiracy cover up perjury, obstruction of justice or crimes. There's no doubt about that. But there really wasn't personal gain for most of them, as you said. Interestingly enough, Spiro Agnew, the vice president, who had to step down in 1973, was the only person really in that White House that lost his position because of corruption. In terms of making money on a kickback or a bribe, Agnew was, and Agnew really wasn't too involved in the Watergate. They didn't seem to include him in the discussions, but he he's the one that served time for or he's the one that gave up his had to lose his office. I should. For greed and corruption, the others were more. It was a belief that they were doing something to keep the president in office, or a belief that. They were helping. To protect national security, whatever, whatever their justification may have been at the time, it certainly the evidence mounted up and it was. Clear that they were doing illegal things.
Kevin
Yes, this is a fascinating topic and actually we have so much to cover on this we're going to do this as a two-part series. So we'll hear more about this in the following week. But again, Dan, thank you for talking about this with us. I've been fortunate throughout my life that to listen to somebody. He was fascinated by events, fascinated by people and fascinated by history that I get to hear these conversations and wanted to take this opportunity. Unity to highlight this with the broader audience and if you ever have questions, you're welcome to contact me e-mail at kevin@modlinglobalanalysis.com and again, thank you for your time. Thank You, Dan.
Dan
Thank you very much I enjoyed it, Kevin.
Watergate with Dan Modlin