The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Brimelow Archive
Watergate—the First Deep State Coup
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

James Fulford writes: The Mueller Report, which was supposed to be about alleged “Russian collusion” with Trump, is due out, and many people in the Democrat/Media conglomerate are hoping for a rerun of Watergate, which they think of as a victory for the Rule of Law. It wasn’t, and we need to have one of those famous “conversations” about what it was, and why it mustn’t happen again.

In 1972, Richard Nixon was reelected with 520 electoral votes. He was running on winning the Vietnam War and also fighting a War on Crime. His opponent, George McGovern (17 electoral votes) was running on a plan to lose the Vietnam War, and surrender on the War on Crime.

But by August 1974, Nixon was removed from office, and in April 1975, Vietnamese Communist troops occupied Saigon. What finished off South Vietnam was the “Watergate Congress” which voted to cut off all supplies. For details see James Webb’s Peace? Defeat? What Did the Vietnam War Protesters Want? American Enterprise Institute, May/June 1997.

Who did this? Well, the Democrat-controlled Senate investigated the hell out of a break-and-enter committed by Republicans, which they never did when LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR engaged in similar activities. See It Didn’t Start With Watergate , [PDF]by Victor Lasky, published in 1977. On the Senate investigative staff was a young, far-Left Wellesley graduate named Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic media, which hated Nixon with the same kind of hate they now display towards Trump, did the same thing, led by the famous Woodward and Bernstein, who probably get too much “credit” for this.

Finally, in something that Editor Peter Brimelow speculated about in his 1981 Policy Review article reposted below, the secret figure of “Deep Throat” (Woodward and Bernstein’s name for an source inside the Government) turned out to Mark Felt, second in command of the FBI. [The Myth of Deep Throat | Mark Felt wasn’t out to protect American democracy and the rule of law; he was out to get a promotion, by Max Holland September 10, 2017]

Peter Brimelow described this phenomenon of using lawfare to overturn elections by trying to criminalize the victors in his post Manafort, Marlborough, And Robert E. Lee: Criminalizing Policy/ Personnel, Differences— U.S. Politics Regressing To The Primitive.

Once again, the Establishment is trying, as they did during Watergate, to overturn the results of an election with the aid of a Deep State, and the “foreign policy” establishment. “Deep Throat” Felt thought Nixon was interfering with the “independence” of the FBI, which he thought should be immune to interference by the President of the United States, and apparently James Comey feels the same way.

If this coup succeeds, instead of the Republic of South Vietnam being overrun by foreign invaders and destroyed, the victim will be the Historic American Nation.

Machiavelli Redux, By Peter Brimelow, Policy Review,Winter 1981

GO QUIETLY . . . OR ELSE. By Spiro T. Agnew. (Wm. Morrow, New York, 1980)

THE TERRORS OF JUSTICE. By Maurice Stans. (New York, Everest House, 1978)

WILL: THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF G. GORDON LIDDY. By G. Gordon Liddy. (St. Martins Press, New York, 1980)

Machiavelli concluded The Prince by quoting Petrarch in an attempt to inspire the rulers of Italy:

For th’ old Romane valour is not dead
Nor in th’ Italians brests extinguished.

Reading these three books by survivors of the Nixon disaster brings home how totally that Administration, which more than any other in recent history would have welcomed comparisons with Machiavelli, departed from his prescription. The reason was not exactly lack of patriotism, but rather a failure to understand the humane, even idealistic spark that animated Machiavelli’s ironic realism. Indeed, the books raise the broader question of whether American society itself is going through the kind of degeneration Machiavelli decried in Italy, so that it no longer supports what might loosely be called the “Roman” or “military” virtues: courage, loyalty, and personal integrity.

These reflections may seem odd, given that all three authors fought losing bouts with the law. Spiro Agnew resigned the Vice-Presidency and entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge that he received payments in 1967 which were not expended for political purposes and which were therefore subject to income tax. The prosecution’s statement included forty pages about Mr. Agnew’s alleged bribe-taking while he was Governor of Maryland; Mr. Agnew issued a one-page denial. The judge said, accurately, that both were irrelevant to the case before him, and fined Mr. Agnew $10,000. Maurice Stans, Nixon’s 1972 Finance Chairman, pleaded guilty to two charges of unknowingly accepting illegal contributions and three charges of reporting contributions tardily. He was fined $5,000. Previously Mr. Stans had been found innocent, along with John Mitchell, on ten counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury relating to an alleged attempt by financier Robert Vesco to buy protection from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Gordon Liddy was sentenced to twenty years in prison and fined $40,000 for the Watergate burglary, a year and a half for refusing to talk to the Watergate grand jury, and a (suspended) year for contempt of Congress.

With the exception of Mr. Liddy, who merits separate examination, it will immediately be seen that the infractions that were actually proved were basically technical. The connection between them was a hysterical illusion, and the punishments unusually harsh. This is particularly true for Maurice Stans, who was dealing with a complex law which changed in the course of the campaign, and who was also the victim of a quantum jump in public standards. Mr. Stans makes a convincing case that his CREEP stewardship was at least as respectable as the work of his contemporaries in other campaigns. They too had (less publicized) legal difficulties; Edmund Muskie’s fundraiser even volunteered to testify for Mr. Stans at the Vesco trail.

If Mr. Agnew did accept rake-offs, as the prosecutors claimed, it should be asked in all fairness whether his conduct varied substantially from accepted Maryland standards—particularly since there is no evidence that the money influenced his decisions. As always where Watergate is concerned, the real question becomes: Why did such practices excite such abnormal attention under Nixon, when Congress and press have shrugged off similar standards before and since? The many disparate Nixonian problems combined to produce a mixture that makes free-base cocaine look safe as chewing gum in comparison, under the influence of mysterious forces similar to those that produced the Grande Peur, or Salem’s witch trials. An instructive parallel might well be Britain’s 1962-63 Profumo crisis, which likewise enabled hostile opinion to l ink wildly unrelated charges, and incinerated an unpopular government.

As Mr. Agnew has repeatedly pointed out, of course, allegation is not conviction, although it has been treated as such by the media and the IRS, whose demands for back taxes on bribes Mr. Agnew denied taking caused him a cash-flow crisis from which he was rescued by the remarkable generosity of Frank Sinatra. But the irreducible fact of his resignation overshadows any attempted defense. Mr. Agnew ascribes his surrender to the impossibility of receiving a fair trial because of prejudicial publicity, overheated politics, implacably ambitious prosecutors, and impossible costs; and to his own exhaustion and bitterness at his abandonment by Nixon.

Mr. Agnew also says that Alexander Haig implied he might be killed if he did not “go quietly.” However, this may be the token sensational revelation all Watergate memoirs require, like H.R. Haldeman’ s claim of a mooted partition of China, Gordon Liddy’s contemplated assassinations of Jack Anderson and Howard Hunt, and John Dean’s insinuation that Nixon faked Alger Hiss’ typewriter. Other regular features of this new literary form are dramatic opening scenes, followed by flashbacks; and copious direct speech. On the whole, the results have compared very favorably with other native American genres like Westerns and Perry Mason.

Mr. Agnew’s story rings sincere when he writes of “the emotional reaction that made me physically ill” on reviewing the prosecutors’ files on his case (obtained years later), or of his wife’s dead faint when he told her he was capitulating. But even after that, he assured conservatives he would fight to the end, although his lawyers were already negotiating terms. This unedifying betrayal of his loyal supporters renders consideration of his guilt or innocence ultimately irrelevant.

On the other hand, Mr. Agnew had hardly been given a good example by the Nixon White House. Incredibly, President Nixon apparently hoped to induce Mr. Agnew to resign without even discussing the subject face to face. The picture of Mr. Agnew and his staff waiting in his office until 9 p.m. after Attorney General Richardson had revealed the charges to them—hoping desperately for a call from the President or a summons to Camp David (whence, it emerged, he had fled)—is infinitely pathetic. What they got was a meeting with General Haig and Bryce Harlow, who announced that they thought that the President felt that he should resign. Loyalty to Nixon was a one-way proposition. The White House staff was quick to pounce on any of their number who suffered political injury.

This cult of toughness was naive to the point of stupidity. Even elementary precautions like funding the Watergate burglars’ families were reneged on. It is hardly surprising that the front-line troops mutinied, whereupon the whole structure disintegrated. Machiavelli in a famous passage urged rulers to ensure that the interests of their lieutenants were advanced along with their own; this promoted mutual confidence. This seemingly obvious advice was never more needed. In fact, one of the Administration’s subsequent rationales for its detente policies—that Americans were too engrossed in current gratifications to finance any alternative—can probably best be explained as merely a projection of the leaders’ own short-sighted selfishness.

All three books make the point that the guarantees of equal justice, due process, and presumption of innocence—generally thought to be intrinsic to our system of justice—are simply not operative in a modern bureaucratic state. Mr. Stans spent $400,000 to defend himself against the Vesco charges. The prosecution probably spent over $1 million, but that was taxpayers’ money. That both Mr. Stans and Mr. Agnew could afford no more defense at that price is quite plausible. The IRS even threatened to have Mr. Agnew’s passport revoked if he attempted to resist their demands—an unbreakable hold on a man forced to earn his living in international business because of his Untouchable status at home. The three books also establish that there are few real checks on the legal bureaucracy once it is determined to bring home a conviction. Judge Sirica’s excesses in Mr. Liddy’s trial featured his seating of a juror who could not understand English—a mistake arising because Judge Sirica truncated the voir dire to prevent defense questions about pretrial publicity. (Judge Sirica used his powe r to seal the record about that incident, which remained a secret.) Mr. Liddy was amused: “I really had to hand it to the old goat; neither of us ever hesitated to use power.”

Less amusing were the lengths to which the prosecutors went in the Stans and Agnew cases to induce potential witnesses to co-operate. It should be a matter of some concern that Mr. Agnew was brought down by the testimony of men who themselves were guilty of serious crimes, the consequences of which seem to have been palliated by their cooperation. One witness actually had his conviction overthrown because he was able to show that his guilty plea was induced by illegal promises of leniency, which the trial judges chose to ignore. Having indicted Mr. Stans on the basis of two grand jury appearances—which he made after being assured he was not under investigation—the prosecutors launched an incredible nationwide search for evidence. They hauled President Nixon’s brother in from the West Coast ten times, for example, to “review” his testimony on the single point of whether Mr. Stans had asked for Vesco’s contribution in cash. (Answer: No.)

Worst of all were the constant leaks to the press, from Justice Department and grand jury alike. Maurice Stans found that newspapers routinely printed as fact allegations against him that had been disproved, and that major media outlets like Time refused to carry retractions even when caught in indisputable error. Mr. Stans, whose book is a model of reason and comprehensiveness, suggests thoughtfully that maybe the U.S. media should follow the British system of restricting publicity after indictment, and also that the Supreme Court’s Sullivan ruling went too far in depriving public figures of the means to protect their reputation. He even permits himself to wonder why the media should not (voluntarily) retract untruths in the same way that the Federal Trade Commission compels corporations to correct unsupported advertising claims.

This is the problem in a nutshell. All three books make it depressingly clear that, yes, there is a New Class. And that class makes its own rules in the struggle with rival powers like corporations and elected officials—of either party; previous attorney generals would not have been defeated in attempts to suppress Billygate.

Gordon Liddy’s beautifully written book adds a cultural dimension to this struggle within America, although his factual contribution to the Watergate saga appears limited. Mr. Liddy confines himself narrowly to what he personally saw. He says that he waited until the statute of limitations had expired before speaking, to protect his colleagues. (Actually, he is probably still protecting them.) Although he does reveal that the Nixon administration had CIA technical assistance in some operations, he generally supports the thesis that Watergate was after all a second-rate burglary, not a set-up, as some have speculated. The order came from above, he says, and he believes that the purpose was to find out what derogatory material the Democrats had on their opponents. This version is not likely to satisfy everyone. On closer examination, moreover, Mr. Liddy’s account does leave some questions carefully open. Some of these relate to the details of the burglary; others to the extraordinary circumstances that led to the creation of the White House “Plumbers” unit in the first place: the withdrawal (by J. Edgar Hoover) of the FBI cooperation upon which all previous administrations had relied. Mr. Liddy had been proud to be an FBI agent, and stresses his admiration for Mr. Hoover. But he also prints a memo he wrote in late 1971 urging that Mr. Hoover be removed as Director by the end of the year. Mr. Liddy notes laconically that the President praised the memo, but Mr. Hoover survived. As usual, one is left with an eerie feeling that the Watergate affair has a secret history, untold despite the millions of words.

Mr. Liddy is obviously a cultured man, but his preoccupation with matters of honor, strength, and courage—matters that have been traditional male concerns in almost every society except our own—has rendered him about as comprehensible to the average book reviewer as a Martian. Hence he is ridiculed (by Larry L. King in the New York Times) or ignored (by the Wall Street Journal, the leading conservative newspaper, which has not reviewed his book—or Mr. Stans’s either, for that matter). The situation is complicated because Mr. Liddy is a cultist, one of the tiny minority of conservatives (and others) who are fascinated by the Third Reich. It is hard to know how serious he is about this. Some of his hints are so blatant (he named the Plumbers group ODESSA, after “a World War II German veterans organization belonged to by some acquaintances of mine”—i.e., the Waffen SS) as to recall his celebrated hand-in-the-flame exhibitions of willpower. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard picked up all these hints, and wrote an angry review in The New Republicasking how a card-carrying Nazi went so far in anyone’s White House. But in fact cultism often has about as much relevance to contemporary politics as transvestism, which it rather resembles. Mr. Liddy supported the liberal Republican who beat him in the New York 25th district primary in 1968, to the chagrin of the Conservative Party, which had nominated him on its own line. His White House career showed a similar pragmatism, except perhaps when his G-man instincts were engaged. And Mr. Liddy obviously liked the blacks he met in prison, finding their harsh society a satisfying substitute for the Korean War he missed through illness, and possibly a rest after the Nixon White House. He quietly but systematically supplies much other evidence of lack of prejudice.

However repellant Mr. Liddy’s code may be, it has some strengths, notably his evident pride in his handsome family. Men like Mr. Liddy are the falcons of society, to be kept hooded until needed. James E. Mahon, who became Eli Hazeev and died training his gun on the Palestinians ambushing Meir Kahane’s followers in Hebron, was reportedly another example. Both found no place in modern America. We need look no further to explain the fiasco at Desert One.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: Richard Nixon, Watergate 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wasn’t the JFK coup prior to Watergate? I always thought it was.

    • Agree: eah
  2. Hail says: • Website

    This Peter Brimelow article, as it originally appeared, and all the other contents of this Winter 1981 issue of Policy Review, are available for free reading in’s extensive archival section. The journal contents are navigable by html and readable in pdf form.

    As for Watergate being a Deep State coup, I would note that a glance at the other contents of that issue shows a couple of big-name Deep State operatives had author credits along with the likes of Brimelow:

    Brimelow’s book review appears right below a book review by Elliot Abrams, a name back in the news as of 2019, and who was, a few months after this issue hit the printing presses, to begin his stint as Head of Central American Meddling (or whatever the formal title was) in the Reagan administration.

    The lead article in the Winter 1981 issue is “The Oil Weapon De-Mystified,” by Douglas Feith. Many will remember Feith (b.1953; a Third-Generation Holocaust Victim) as a notorious GWBush-era neoconservative operative and passive-aggressive Iraq War pusher, whose dubiously ethical methods earned him some rebuke at the time from dissident media. Largely forgotten today, he was one of the top few involved in the scheme whereby the Iraq War was shoved on us. Feith is responsible, in part, for the long long shadow of bad news that followed from Iraq (the enormous sums of wasted money; the wasted political energy; the ramp-up of nation-wrecking “Invade The World Invite the World”-ism; ISIS; the 2015-2016 Muslim migrant wave into Europe).

    Feith had a characteristically soft landing after leaving government service. No resignation in shame. No harassment by a hostile media (except on the fringes at the time). I am sure he wants for nothing, wherever he is today. And yet I’d say his actions relating to Iraq are, judged objectively, a lot (a lot) worse than the trifling Watergate ‘Plumbers’ affair, for which a president was forced to resign.

  3. Hail says: • Website

    Mr. Liddy is obviously a cultured man, but his preoccupation with matters of honor, strength, and courage—matters that have been traditional male concerns in almost every society except our own—has rendered him about as comprehensible to the average book reviewer as a Martian. Hence he is ridiculed (by Larry L. King in the New York Times) or ignored

    The timeline leading up to the publication of the Liddy autobiography (1980) and Brimelow’s writing of this book review (presumably late 1980):

    G. Gordon Liddy (b.1930) was supervising ‘Plumbers’-type activities for the Nixon White House from 1971, and following the Watergate burglars’ arrests in June 1972 was implicated in his supervisory role therein. Liddy was handed a puzzlingly-heavy twenty-year prison sentence in Jan. 1973, which was lessened by President Carter in April 1977, leading to Liddy’s early release from prison in September 1977.

    He signed the preface to his autobiography (Will) as follows:

    Oxon Hill, Maryland
    11 February 1980

    (The preface is viewable on the Amazon “Look Inside this Book” feature.)

    Characteristically, I suppose, Liddy used what we would call “military style” for the date. Putting the date at the bottom of a preface is the very last thing one writes in a book manuscript (or so we readers assume), perhaps weeks if nor months after the main contents are finished (except for minor edits or some level of revisions, depending). Therefore, a good bet would be that Liddy wrote the main contents of his book in 1979, with just a small handful of finishing touches in early 1980.

    1979 was not a good year for America: Stuck in loosely-defined stagflation throughout that year; with arguably the most significant oil-price spike of all time (as of this writing) occurring in the second half of 1979; watching from afar as the USSR seemed to be successfully intervening in Afghanistan (over which we boycotted the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics); and the humiliation of American hostages held by Iran (Nov. 1979).

    All these trends got worse in 1980 — when the Liddy book appeared in bookstores — before they got better. As far as Liddy was/is a man of “honor, strength, and courage,” 1980 was a good time for such a voice to (re)appear on the scene.

    • Replies: @Hail
  4. Hail says: • Website

    On the legacy of G. Gordon Liddy:

    To those born in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, any talk of Liddy is inevitably to some extent going to induce nostaglia. People of those age-cohorts remember the peak Nixon years. They remember also, as full adults, the rather gloomy late-1970s and early-1980s period, above referenced.

    To those born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, though, the Nixon-related scandals (or, the anti-Nixon “Deep State coup” in James Fulford’s phrasing here) are not something out of lived experience, but something out of history books or the like. To the extent that b.1970s and b.1980s White Americans know of Liddy via lived experience of their own, and not via vague stories of a past they weren’t there for, I think it will be primarily of Liddy as a right-wing AM Talk Radio fixture.

    Wiki says Liddy was an active talk radio broadcaster from 1992 to 2012. He had his own show (which, AFAIK, enjoyed very good ratings) and often appeared as a guest commentator on others’ shows. He was not in the same elite echelon of right-wing talk radio as Rush Limbaugh, but he was I think in the second tier (still very high). In that sense, Liddy really landed on his feet, in the long run. The positive qualities possessed by Liddy, remarked upon by Brimelow in this book review, may be said to have “won out” in the end, in that they were recognized by his millions of listeners and fans in the 1990s, 2000s, and even into the early 2010s.


    Writing the above had made me think about to what extent the spadework Liddy did as a somewhat unreconstructed, unapologetic, quasi-nationalistic right-wing commentator in the 1990s and 2000s had a (quiet, implicit) impact did he have on the waiting-to-be-born movement that came to be called MAGA in 2015 (under its unlikely champion of Donald Trump)? (Trump’s MAGA may be dead as of late 2017, or late 2018 at the latest, but we still have the memories and the hopes for the future.)

    If one were making a list of the top x figures that influenced MAGA as it became, would Liddy not be pretty highly ranked? I’m not entirely sure, but it’s worth a thought.

    Turning 89 this year, Liddy likely won’t be with us too much longer. As for a life in review, one thing I took from Brimelow’s book review is that for all his possible faults, he (Liddy) possessed as admirable moral seriousness. Which is something tragically lacking in the current president. For all the excitement around the MAGA rhetoric, the question of moral seriousness (vs. “trolling”) should have been a much bigger red flag than we his (former) supporters wanted it to be; G. Gordon Liddy, meanwhile, was no troll.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @Pericles
  5. Rich says:

    The coup against Nixon is an odd one, since the folks who took power after him were generally of the same ilk. Nixon was a centrist, for the most part and the centrist repubs led by the Nelson Rockefeller, Howard Baker, Gerald Ford part of the party held power until the pretty centrist Carter could be installed. This leads me to believe the coup was simply about power and a show of strength. I can’t think think of any sins Nixon committed against the Deep State and the biggest change in the world brought about by his demise was the one in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia, where millions died because the US failed to live up to its commitments.

  6. @Hail

    While still in high school in 1982, I attended a debate at CSU Sacramento between Liddy and Timothy Leary. I was vaguely aware of who these men were and what they represented, but I was there mostly for the extra credit in my U.S. History class. Later, I came to believe that Liddy was an unwitting accomplice in a CIA engineered coup to remove Nixon; a coup which used the Watergate break-in as its ignition point. Why would CIA elites and elements from ONI (who were running Bob Woodward, a former naval intelligence officer) want to remove Nixon? Because he and Kissinger were attempting foreign policy on the sly, attempting rapprochement with the communist powers China and the USSR behind the backs of the DOS bureaucracy and DOD.

  7. The William F. Buckley interview with G. Gordon Liddy on youtube is mostly interesting. The part I thought was the weirdest was his description of the status of snitches in prison. Like he really cares how penitentiary inmates accord status. I remember exactly one time in my life when some guy was talking about inside the prison. It was in a gym and I had never met the guy and he wasn’t talking to me it was just out there for anybody else who happened to be schlepping weights to hear and all I could think is “why in the hell is this guy talking about this?”

    • Replies: @Hail
  8. Hail says: • Website

    his description of the status of snitches in prison

    The Firing Line episode is from Jan. 1978, at which time Liddy had been out of prison less than four months. The prison experience was on people’s minds. It would’ve been a different matter if the interview were in, say, 1988 or 1998 and proceeded that way.

    As I see it, the prison talk in the Buckley interview simply anchors an abstract discussion of concepts of loyalty and honor: Both ‘narrowly,’ as those values relate to the Nixon-takedown attempts in the early-mid 1970s and Liddy’s small role therein, and ‘broadly,’ as relating to a man’s place in the world in all times and places.

    Buckley starts off seemingly pretty sympathetic to Liddy, a sympathy expressed in Buckley’s characteristically aloof manner, but he challenges Liddy repeatedly on the idea that “informants” are inherently dishonorable and even worthy of contempt. Here is one such exchange I think is so worthy of a text transcription that I have made one (from 28:15 to 31:00):



    BUCKLEY: You set up a rather formal and fascinating category of ranks, so to speak, in prison. Starting with the lowest are the informants. Then the homosexuals. Then the dope traders, as you ascend —

    LIDDY: Users, not traders. Users.

    BUCKLEY: Users, sorry. Users. Then you have what one might call an independent class. And then the nobility are the organized crime types. The professional prisoners. Is there, in that hierarchy, a natural sense of hierarchy, i.e., one that harmonizes with your own dispositions, or do you find it totally synthetic?

    LIDDY: No. I would say the former.

    BUCKLEY: You would, yourself, classify the informants as the most to be despised in such a hierarchy?

    LIDDY: Yes.

    BUCKLEY: Notwithstanding, let us say that occasionally you have the informant whose act of informing is done not with a view to maximizing his own safety or security, but out of a sense of obligation. [Pause] It’s much safer not to inform than to inform, in certain criminal classes, isn’t it?

    LIDDY: Oh, that’s certainly true.

    BUCKLEY: Therefore, in a sense, the informants whom you despise in this category, are sometimes the most heroic figures of the lot, right?

    LIDDY: No.

    BUCKLEY: [Pause] — Why ‘No’?

    LIDDY: Because, while I admit the possibility, I have yet to meet a “real one” who informed for those altruistic reasons. You don’t see them in prison, and you find that those that are there — for example, the person whom you have postulated would not continue to inform. And yet you’ll find that they do. They just run around informing as much as they can, about everything. And if there isn’t anything to inform on, they’ll make it up sometimes.

  9. Pericles says:

    he (Liddy) possessed as admirable moral seriousness. Which is something tragically lacking in the current president.

    Not to mention the subhuman trash of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and so on, owners, editors, journalists; the Deep State nightcrawlers such as Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, James Comey and other coup plotters at the CIA, FBI and NSA; a legal system marbled with corrupt political interest; the Democratic Party establishment, including Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi and a long rogue’s gallery of murderers and thieves. Did I forget anyone?

    All of these a thousand times worse than Trump, just to point out the obvious.

  10. Corvinus says:

    Several glaring falsehoods have to be addressed here.

    “Well, the Democrat-controlled Senate investigated the hell out of a break-and-enter committed by Republicans, which they never did when LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR engaged in similar activities.”

    Those presidential administrations did not attempt to illegally obtain information directly from Democratic National Headquarters.

    “Mark Felt wasn’t out to protect American democracy and the rule of law; he was out to get a promotion.”

    While it is accurate to say that he was passed over to become head of the FBI, it is also accurate to say that he was privy to illegal crimes being committed and, given the unique circumstances involved–he is in the serpent’s nest–he choose to ensure that justice prevailed. In other words, it was decidedly about the rule of law.

    “If Mr. Agnew did accept rake-offs, as the prosecutors claimed, it should be asked in all fairness whether his conduct varied substantially from accepted Maryland standards—particularly since there is no evidence that the money influenced his decisions.”

    Actually, Agnew took kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland. The payments had continued into his time as vice president, with Agnew directly talking to legislators and trying to convince them to ensure that those contractors would receive federal work.

    “As Mr. Agnew has repeatedly pointed out, of course, allegation is not conviction…”

    There were bank records and direct testimony regarding his activities. That is not allegation.

    “All three books make the point that the guarantees of equal justice, due process, and presumption of innocence—generally thought to be intrinsic to our system of justice—are simply not operative in a modern bureaucratic state.”

    LOL. All three men had access to high powered lawyers who were paid handsomely for services rendered. All three men put up a vigorous defense. Because they were found guilty, it is to be expected that they would harbor sour grapes. Had they won their cases, they would be singing the praises of our justice system.

    “It should be a matter of some concern that Mr. Agnew was brought down by the testimony of men who themselves were guilty of serious crimes.”

    Serious crimes directed at the behest of his boss, Richard Nixon. Moreover, it is common place in our justice system for plea deals.

    “Maurice Stans found that newspapers routinely printed as fact allegations against him that had been disproved…”

    You mean allegations that had yet to be disproved, and allegations that while at the time was speculation, ended up being definitively proved in the end.

  11. @Hail


    They are thinking fast there. You can really tell when the talking heads are not reading a teleprompter.

    • Replies: @Hail
  12. Hail says: • Website

    True. Not that that’s a bad thing. Nice to watch smart men dealing with issues of great importance with no script(s) (except that of their consciences) and no “talking points.”

    Having watched the full program, I must say I really appreciate the dignity of their discussion, which, because it stayed gentlemanly, was surprisingly informative. Towards the end, a third-party discussant, a journalist named Charles Corddry, took over and asked a series of questions to both the host (Buckley) and the guest (Liddy), questioning both of their premises and asking some follow-up questions.

    Pretty classy all around. Nothing of the high-tempo badgering of a Chris Matthews.

    It is not hard to imagine the same discussion today, forty years later: One’s mind’s eyes can see and hear it all: The frantic, scripted-like character of the late-2010s version. The noise. So much bad-faith and talking-point-ism as to be unwatchable, except as a kind of exercise in team-sport — which is what all cable news is.

    (There are some long-form discussions with this level of class today, but they tend to be echo chambers, not real venues for discussion. Think NPR.)

  13. From my blog:

    Nov 14, 2011 – The Joints Chiefs of Staff Wiretapped President Nixon

    Our corporate media tries to ignore real news, but Fox News fouled up when it reported that our military’s senior Generals used military aides to spy on President Nixon and his staff. I suspect this continues to this day. This supports the theory that “Watergate” was a CIA/Pentagon plot to oust Nixon.

  14. I was a foreign grad student in the US in the late 60’s. The WW2 mentality was still prevalent. An aggressive foreign power which invaded other countries, committing atrocities on an industrial scale, was diabolical. And all those connected with it — its conscripted soldiers, its political leaders, its citizens who paid for it with their taxes, were guilty. Their children were guilty. And their children’s children. The only ones who were free of guilt were those who were prepared to risk their lives to bring down the evil regime.

    I was only a visitor. But in the preceding generation even visitors to Germany were deemed guilty of aiding and abetting Nazi horrors. I am glad now that I did not attempt to set fire to military installations, or attack politicians at meetings. But the moral dilemma was such that I cut short my US graduate studies and got myself out of the place. A coward’s solution to the dilemma, I suppose.

    Nothing much changed in the USA over the intervening half century. I was pleased when Trump arrived on the political scene. He could liquidate American destructive power where others failed. Even though that was not his intention.

    As to Watergate and the Peter Brimelow article above. Richard Nixon, had he got the chance, might have accomplished what President Trump has achieved.

    Better late than never.

  15. I have not plowed through this very detailed text,

    “The Real Watergate Scandal” by Geof Shepard,

    But it is a very detailed description of what occurred and it is dark and frustrating. And The behavior of Judge Sirrica are unfathomable. The atmosphere was so toxic that the democrats could do nearly whatever they chose without challenge is said challenges fall flat.

    It also explains in detail how and why details can get taken completely out of context as people involved act their assumptions as opposed to what they know and how events can so spiral as to make finding out what you don’t know hazed in the mist.

    Unfortunately for president Nixon, there was an actual break-in. Unlike the matter currently, there was no preceding evidence of a crime.


    I think it was appropriate to the matter of Watergate side by side the other distorted, mischaracterized, upside rhetoric regarding Vietnam.

  16. chris says:

    Blockbuster of an article, thanks !!!

    The PLAN B coup modes and methods remain the same, though I don’t know what they plan for an encore this time. (PLAN A was to change the subject in order to cover the DNC-FBI-CIA-NSA-MI6 tracks.)

    Maybe they’ll give Jim Acosta a rifle and send him on top of the book depository as a lookout.

    BTW why was this article take off from today’s Unz front page ?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Brimelow Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?