Will The Myths of Watergate Prove Misleading? Vanity Fair

[Hamlette]

One of the greatest misconceptions around Watergate is that it was the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the subsequent cover-up, that led to Nixon being forced to surrender the presidency. But, in fact, when Nixon returned to Washington . . . three days after the break-in had been discovered, he and chief of staff H.R. Haldeman had another matter on their minds. The two men were worried that if the burglars . . .talked to federal investigators, their other activities on behalf of the White House might come to light. (the break in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg) The real role of the plumbers was to “destroy” (Nixon talked that way) Nixon’s real and perceived “enemies,” . . . “the problem is that there are all kinds of other involvements.” (This conversation was recorded on the tape of which 18 and a half minutes was later discovered to have been erased—a revelation that set off one of a number of explosions in the Watergate story. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s head of domestic policy, wrote in his memoir that Nixon had done the erasing at Camp David.)

. . .
The question of whether to hold a president accountable for the acts of his aides was a critical question facing the House Judiciary Committee in the summer of 1974, as it considered articles of impeachment. The most important of the three that it adopted, which it approved on July 30, was Article II, which accused Nixon of various abuses of power—wiretapping, using government agencies against his “enemies”—and also suggested that the president could be held responsible for a given “pattern or practice” on the part of his aides, meaning that simply winking and nodding would not insulate him from their untoward acts. The president determines the climate of the White House, and his aides can often ascertain what he wants done without receiving specific instructions. In effect, it didn’t matter whether Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in beforehand—according to Article II, he was implicated in it regardless.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/10/will-the-myths-of-watergate-prove-misleading?mbid=nl_CH_5bc0e6c02e0efc2e0d8ef61e&CNDID=48164205&utm_source=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=vyf_vanityfair_news_newdb_active_20181014%20(1)&spMailingID=14424077&spUserID=MTc0NjAyNDA1MTk5S0&spJobID=1500978325&spReportId=MTUwMDk3ODMyNQS2

[empedocles]

1. 'The President could be held responsible for a given "patern or practice" on the part of his aides'

Watergate impeachment Article II