The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Seven Pages Of Nixon Grand Jury Testimony Reveal The Real Threat Of the Deep State
Nixon's enemies within his own administration were spying on and trying to subvert the elected President.
The Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) did not terminate after President Nixon resigned August 8, 1974. Indeed, the prosecutors continued to investigate many facets of the Nixon presidency for some time. Some of these actions are stunning. Geoff Sheppard posted a memo that has to be seen to be believed: In September 1974, Phillip Lacovara suggested to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski that Ford's pardon of Nixon violated WSPF regulations, and was thus invalid. While the President usually has the absolute power to grant pardons of federal offenses, President Ford constrained his own powers by agreeing to the WPSF regulations. You wonder where Jack Smith and Robert Mueller got the idea that everything the President does is obstruction of justice?
Speaking of obstruction, there is a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine by James Rosen, titled "The Secret History of the Deep State." He reveals seven pages of never-before-seen grand jury testimony from 1975 between former-President Nixon and WSPF prosecutors. The story is very long, and I cannot do justice to it in a single post.
The biggest takeaway is that an Navy enlisted man, Yeoman Charles Radford, who worked in the White House, was a mole. No, not for the Soviets, but for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He would routinely make copies of documents from Nixon administration officials and share them with people in the Pentagon. Radford would pilfer documents from Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig and make copies of them.
Selected to accompany General Haig, Kissinger's deputy, on trips to Vietnam and Cambodia, Radford deployed all his gifts for theft, including raiding the general's briefcase. According to "Silent Coup," Radford turned over "a huge government envelope overflowing with hundreds of pages of documents." . . .
In June 1971, having received superlative reviews from General Haig, Radford was chosen to accompany Kissinger on a tour of Asian capitals. On a stopover in Pakistan, the accompanying press were told falsely that Kissinger had fallen ill; in fact, he flew secretly to Beijing to finalize Nixon's trip. "Don't get caught," warned Radford's direct supervisor, Adm. Robert Welander, ahead of his departure. Once again, the yeoman snatched every document within reach, including rifling Kissinger's briefcase. Radford collected so much material that he enlisted a contact at the embassy in New Delhi to ship it back to the Pentagon via secure diplomatic pouch.
The purpose of this espionage was to check the incumbent president from taking actions that the deep state opposed. You have to read through a lot of background to get to this shocking takeaway. Here is the key excerpt, where Nixon reveals to the prosecutors about the deep state "can of worms":
That's when Nixon warned the prosecutors not to open "that can of worms," adding, "There is even more, because [Radford] not only ——"
Ruth, the lead prosecutor, interjected: "We are not opening it up."
"Yeoman Radford was not only there," the ex-president persisted, "but he was a direct channel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
There it was, finally — the secret Nixon had sought to keep under wraps: It was not the far left that most actively sought to sabotage the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy but the hard right, not lowly pencil-pushers in the civil service but the most senior commanders at the Pentagon.
The prosecutors had heard enough. They did not want Nixon to elaborate. Jay Horowitz, the last questioner, cut in.
"Sir, if I might take us back now to ——"
Nixon would not be deterred.
"This indicates to the members of the grand jury, if I might address them for a moment, why it is that" the Radford project "had to be top secret." He added: "Particularly, I didn't want the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved."
Nixon had no intention of exposing the affair's full depths; even here, he wished not to join in vilification of the services, something that was pervasive when Vietnam veterans were often jeered on return to U.S. soil as "baby killers."
After some additional questioning on other subjects, Horowitz consulted the grand jurors, then declared, "No further questions."
Ten minutes later, with the grand jurors and the stenographer hustled from the room, Ruth and Davis conducted a final interview with the witness. The prosecutors' memos, previously unpublished, show that they interrogated Nixon on four additional topics, including proposals, captured on the tapes but never enacted, to hire thugs to attack antiwar demonstrators.
Do you see what happened? Nixon was fully aware that there was a deep state in his own administration. He employed the "Plumbers" to plug those leaks. But he would only reveal the depth of the deep state before a secret grand jury investigation. The Watergate Prosecutors, who were part of the DOJ deep state, did not want Nixon to talk about the Pentagon deep state. And for five decades, this testimony was sealed, until Rosen reported on it.
The Deep State was real in Nixon's time:
Publication of the classified segment of the ex-president's grand jury testimony represents a major addition to the historical record of the era of Vietnam and Watergate. Its significance extends to the current day.
The issues that animated the "deep state" against Nixon and Kissinger were rooted in the Cold War. But the frictions inherent in the making of national security policy, most acute in times of war, are perennial. Moorer-Radford exposed a hidden feature of the American political system that endures: When excluded from their spheres of interest, entrenched bureaucratic forces will, almost as a biological reflex, respond aggressively.
The Joint Chiefs' spying formed only one prong of the campaign against Nixon, the most spied-on president in modern times. Declassified documents and scholarship published since 1974 have established that the F.B.I., under its director, J. Edgar Hoover, spied on Mitchell, the attorney general, and that the C.I.A. detailed its personnel to various units associated with Nixon, including the Watergate burglary team and "components intimately associated with the office of the president," as the agency admitted in 1975.
Rosen closes his piece by drawing the obvious parallels to the present day:
Mr. Trump has long expressed admiration for Nixon. As early as 1982, the rising tycoon told the disgraced ex-president, "I think you are one of this country's great men." Not many prominent people in that era expressed such a sentiment. Both men achieved success at young ages. Both men, at once craving and scorning the approval of the elites, remained resentful of the establishment that they came to lead.
They differ in two crucial respects. Mr. Trump's purge of the federal government since returning to the presidency has displayed a ruthlessness toward the perceived "enemy within" that Nixon, despite similar inclinations, could never conjure — even when faced with criminal insubordination.
Mr. Trump also appears on track to complete his second term.
In my recent Civitas column, I explained how Trump is finishing Nixon's aborted second term. The same sort of forces in the government trying to subvert a President who won 49 states are trying to subvert Trump. But Trump is fighting back in ways Reagan would not to tame the bureaucracy. If nothing else, I think Trump has pierced the veil of the so-called neutral civil service. I don't think anyone actually believes that fiction anymore. Those who work for the executive branch should be accountable to the head of the executive branch, and not their own agendas.
I'll close with one other observation from Rosen's article. He explains how Nixon worried that his own foreign policy agenda might be construed as obstruction of justice:
Next came a double-barreled blast that only Richard Nixon could fire off: He admitted breaking the law and, in practically the same breath, shared something that Chairman Mao had told him.
"I suppose that it could be said that I obstructed justice by not immediately calling up [the Justice Department] and saying, 'Prosecute him [Radford], and, in this case, Anderson,'" Nixon said. "The reason that we couldn't prosecute and wouldn't was that, if we did," he added, Radford "could expose these highly confidential exchanges we were having to bring the war in Vietnam to a conclusion, and particularly the exchange in China.
"I remember when I saw Mao," Nixon continued. Mao called himself the "most famous or infamous communist in the world" and Nixon "the most famous or infamous capitalist in the world." What brought the two men together? Nixon recalled Mao asking. "History brings us together in our interests," Mao said. Nixon persuaded Mao to accept a defense alliance between the United States and Japan.
"Yeoman Radford had all of this information and if he had been prosecuted, it was my opinion that there was a very great risk, because of his obvious emotional instability, that he would blow the whole thing. … The war in Vietnam would have continued for a while longer. … I had to make a decision." At this point, the CLASSIFIED section ended. Seeking a final flourish, the old politician wanted the audience to know that except for the most infamous wiretapping of all, at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex, the Plumbers' work had involved vital national security interests.
Long before Trump v. United States, Presidents understood how the obstruction of justice statute should not be read to control the President's Article II powers. I made this point in a 2017 article for Lawfare, with a direct connection to Nixon. Even today, people would indict the President for exercising his powers if he has the wrong motivations.
At some point, I plan to write an article titled The Irrepressible Myth of Nixon v. United States. I want to walk through every facet of that decision--including the indefensible jurisdictional analysis--and all the chaos it caused. A followup might be The Irrepressible Myths of Robert Mueller and Jack Smith.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Somehow I don't think the right-wing service chiefs of the time are quite what the MAGA imagine the Deep State to be.
It's the permanent government that has their own agenda.
Those days it was permawar. These days it's permawar plus extensive graft corruption and social collapse.
MAGA, especially the veteran slice of it, has no trust for flag officers. Especially after they saw what Milley and Austin did.
In one of the many ironies of MAGA, it's the veteran anti-war movement that the Left (see eg Kerry) always tried to get going. CC, JSM
Where is the Deep State when we really need it?
Nixon was corrupt, a traitor, and the second most criminal president (after Trump). Civil servants are loyal to the Constitution, not the president. Vilifying civil servants doing the right thing by preventing the worst of a criminal president is a losing argument.
I read that lousy article and is BS. The President has little independent power from Congress, and it is well withing the power of Congress to exert their Constitutional power over the federal government.
I'm surprised you can type all that with a straight face. You should look up the Constitution's definition of treason some time. While you're at it, read Article II about the executive's enumerated powers. Heck, read Articles I and III while you're at it. Then as an exercise for the student, show which enumerated powers anywhere in the Constitution authorize today's expansive government.
They stop reading at the general welfare part of that section and pretend the enumerated powers aren't the scope of the authority but examples and the limiting principle is defined by the general welfare section.
They can do whatever they want so long as their hearts are pure and golden and for the general welfare. But not the black hearts. Everything a black heart/red hat does because they have evil black hearts, so even facially legal things are illegal due to improper animus.
We've seen this play out in courtrooms over and over again
Nixon tried to rig an election. And went to Vietnam during the election to prevent a peace before the election.
I'm not sure it's treason, but he sure was in the neighborhood.
show which enumerated powers anywhere in the Constitution authorize today's expansive government.
"General Welfare"
"Necessary and Proper"
"regulate commerce...among the several states"
Amazing how high-handedly you beg the question.
Yup. That was pretty damn bad.
By that standard, FDR's insistence on unconditional surrender, which stiffened the German and Japanese resolve to not surrender, also verged on treason.
Amazing how you think reinterpreting the Constitution instead of following Article V somehow allows fresh enumerated powers to spring up out of whole cloth.
I do not understand what standard you have here.
And I quoted the parts of the Constitution you asked for; if you don't like it that's your fault.
1. You quoted the reinterpreted parts. Good job.
2. You didn't quote the treason definition.
Nothing Nixon did came as close as FDR's insistence on unconditional surrender. And calling that treason is its own stretch.
You think FDR gave the Nazis aid and comfort by going too hard when it came to winning WW2?
Fucking wild.
Yes, encouraging the RVN to keep killing the mutual enemies of the USA and RVN, so that Nixon can come into office and seal a decisive victory against those enemies, is giving aid and comfort to enemies of the USA. CC, JSM
Troll account. She's a parody.
Or, another NPC Bot
OK, I’ve read the definition of treason. Now, since you’ve insinuated that you have, tell me this. First, did Yeoman Radcird levy war against the United States? How exactly did he do so? Second, What enemy of the United States did Yeoman Radford give aid and comfort to? Be specific. Exactly what was the nature of that aid and comfort? Again, state specific facts.
Can you tell me? Didn’t think so.
If you had read the constitution, you would know that the definition of treason explicitly excludes internal conflicts within the United States Government. Officers of the United States can spy on and disagree with and undermine and interfere with each other all they want, and none of that has anything to do with treason. The Framers specifically wanted it that way.
Also, the President has four and only four enumerated powers: pardons, receiving ambassadors and counsels, commander in chief with power to execute Congress’ policy, (e.g. wage war when Congress has declared war and command the militia when Congress has called the militia into active service), and getting a written report from department heads. His internal enumerated powers don’t include the power to make war, call up the militia, fire anybody, or even order anybody to do anything. He can’t even do that on his own, without Congress giving him statutory authority to do so.
While your concept of treason has no resemblance to the United States Constitution’s conception, it has a remarkable resemblance to Hitler’s. Among the people murdered in the Night of the Long Knives was a group of ministers and politicians who had floated a plan to reach an agreement with Russia to partition Poland and thereby restore each country to its pre-World War I borders in the East. Hitler characterized this as an act of treason deserving summary execution because these ministers were, as Hitler described what they were doing, conspiring to plot with Communist Russia, Germany’s supposed permanent and irreconcilable enemy, to do something that would help it. Anything that got Russia an inch of territory was supposedly a mortal blow to Germany.
Under Naziism, any disagreement with the Fuhrer and any act that might tend to undermine the Fuhrer’s policies is treason. The leader is the state, plain and simple. But this is not at all the way the American Constitution sees things. In the American system, activities like internally lobbying for a policy different from the President’s are simply not treason.
You forgot vetoes; making nominations; making recess appointments; and negotiating (but not ratifying) treaties. He can also sometimes adjourn Congress.
And with that comment you have lost any remaining credibility. Be gone, troll!
re: "Civil servants are loyal to the Constitution,"
Hah! Now, that's good comedy. Oh wait, you thought you were being serious?
1. The President is a civil servant every bit as much as the lowest DMV clerk.
2. Civil servants are, by and large, loyal to their paychecks and other perks of petty power and will do everything and anything to preserve (and if possible, to expand) them.
3. Finally and only marginally relevant, Yeoman Radford and the Joint Chiefs were not civil servants at all - they were military servants. They did all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and they were trained on what it meant. It the allegations above are true, then they most certainly violated their oaths.
Rossami — Care to join me to advocate for making Constitutionally required oaths enforceable by grand jury initiatives and trials for oath breakers?
Interesting proposal. Thinking ..... Tentative conclusion:
If your proposal assumes the existing oaths and includes penalties beyond removal from office, I'm inclined to say no because it puts too much power in the hands of prosecutors (that is, the executive branch) to enforce a too-vague standard. It would upset the balance of powers in our intentionally-divided government.
On the other hand, if your proposal is limited to removal from office, then again no? My thinking here is that it would be redundant to the impeachment process that already exists.
And I think that's the core problem with your idea. It doesn't need to be enforceable by grand jury and trial if it's already enforceable by impeachment. The fact that it's not being enforced is a different problem - one that would migrate right along with the change to enforcer.
Good to know that Nixon was the real victim during Watergate. What would we do without Josh?
If you prefer, you can cast it as Nixon wasn't the only bad guy. And just because he was a bad guy, doesn't turn the bad guys conspiring against him into good guys. And if you allow that type of conspiracy against a bad-guy president, what happens when it's done against a good-guy president? CC, JSM
Over the years I've known a lot of people on the left and the right who, when talking about Watergate, say there's only one admirable person to come out of it and that's G. Gordon Liddy... because he wasn't a rat.
Were those people in the mafia?
+1
"[T]he old politician wanted the audience to know that except for the most infamous wiretapping of all, at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex, the Plumbers' work had involved vital national security interests" (Rosen, quoted by Blackman).
This conveniently ignores the Fielding burglary, whose purpose was to find information in Daniel Ellsberg's medical records which could then be released in order to discredit him.
(It is true that Ellsberg was guilty of a crime, and Nixon surely would have said that prosecuting him "involved vital national security interests". But the burglary had nothing to do with the prosecution, as is obvious from the fact that nothing Liddy and his crew found would have been admissible in court: it was merely about harming Ellsberg's public image, which of course is not a 'national security interest' on any reasonable standard.)
"except for the most infamous wiretapping of all, at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex, the Plumbers' work had involved vital national security interests." That's an opening big enough to drive a tank through.
Does Professor Blackman believe that the unitary executive theory and presidential immunity justifies authorizing criminal activity against the opposing political party?
You gotta remember that JB’s posts are written for only one audience: himself. He uses these to “think” and (I presume) self-soothe. So don’t try to read anything sensible or resembling a disciplined and rational thought-process. He hasn’t gotten there yet.
It seems that, now as then. the Deep State is the name given by supporters of a law-breaking president to those Federal officials trying to counter that law-breaking.
Lacovara's claim that the WSPF regulations constrained the pardon power is indeed a very wacky idea, which Jaworski was right to dismiss.
But I think that if you've argued in print, and in amicus briefs, for positions entailing that President George Washington could have accepted a dukedom from George III (because the Foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't apply to the Presidency) and that Jefferson Davis could have been elected President in 1868 (because §3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also doesn't apply to the Presidency), you probably shouldn't be too supercilious about wacky ideas in constitutional law.
I agree it's wacky, but you may be being a bit unfair to Lacovara. It appears from the link that Lacovara took his assignment as "Make the best case for why the pardon is invalid," rather than "Do you think the pardon is invalid?" (Jaworski's attached memo seems to indicate that Lacovara may have misinterpreted the assignment, though.)
The Wash. Post got the Watergate story badly wrong. The more layoffs there the better.
Enlighten us as to what the true story was that WaPo missed.
ZOMG Colodny and Gettlin were right? Well, they were in the neighborhood.
Embrace the healing power of "and," folks: Nixon okayed obstruction of justice AND there was a Deep State already committed to removing him from power (or at least hamstringing him).
Is there anything in this story that goes beyond the account of Haig/Moorer/Radford in "Silent Coup" -- viewing that account, as opposed to the rest of the book, as credible?
When I read the story, I concluded that the disagreements were susbstantive but not out of line with what you might find in any private company in interactions within the C-Suite.
I am perplexed at the conflation of the Federal Civil Service with the Military service. Two totally different groups of people. The motivations of the military had nothing to do with a Deep State but rather ambitious people trying to get their way in office politics. When does office politics (admittedly at a high level) become a Deep State conspiracy? It appeared clear from the conversations between Nixon et al that a public announcement of the "conspiracy" would may have resulted in some of Nixons dirty secrets (eg the incursion of US troops into Laos and Cambodia among others) being exposed. Is that a Deep State situation?
I am also perplexed that Blackman has in has last several posts apparently gone off the rails and is now in the MAGA version of Trump Derangement Syndrome which is to find any justification for really bad policies and implementation.
RE: Ford agreeing to abide by WSPF rules: it's fair to argue, as I gather you are doing, that the president cannot voluntarily relinquish power by agreeing to a(n alleged) binding agreement not to use it, because the power is afforded to him by the constitution. But I do not think it is so obvious that you can just state it to be true and it is.
Given that this is a contentious question, it does not seem insane to me that the people whose legally charged duties were to enforce those agreements would at least look into whether they could do so. Maybe they would ultimately conclude, as you do, that the answer is no. But your post is angry that they seemed to consider the question. Like, the evidence is clearly not that they were able to, or even exerted any particular effort trying to, undo the pardon. The evidence is that someone said "Wait, hey, is this pardon valid? Didn't he sign something saying he would tie his own hand behind his back here?"
Let me ask this: why would Ford agree to the WSPF rules if his view was that he could not agree to the WSPF rules because no agreement can bind the powers of the presidency? Why not simply tell them to pound sand?
Josh, thank you for the article and the pointer to James Rosen’s article. I was going to say that you were wasting your time writing this article (as did James Rosen in writing his article) because it is a given for a large number of people (Democrats, progressives, the MSM, and anybody who learns their history from any of them) that Richard Nixon was an evil person, and has been since 1948 (see Alger Hiss), but from reading the comments already posted, I see that I don’t need to say that.
Patrick Allen : ".... that Richard Nixon was an evil person ...."
If (like me) you grew-up in the Watergate Era, you must have a favorite story of Nixon's criminality. Mine was the scheme to plant a firebomb at the Brookings Institute and sneak in operatives dressed as firemen to steal files as the building burned. According to Charles Colson's (pre-ministry) testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee, Nixon himself came up with the scheme. You can still hear him on tape bellowing, "blow the safe!" like some second-rate James Cagney gangster. The nervous-nellie objections of John W. Dean halted the scheme, though others say the final hitch came when Nixon refused to authorize acquiring a firetruck for the getaway.
So yeah, Patrick Allen, there're people too witless & ignorant of history to understand Watergate beyond fact-free partisan lies. People like you. Witless & ignorant of history describes you to a "T".