Nixon makes Mark Felt FBI director

Mark Felt was the Associate FBI Director that Nixon passed over while appointing someone with no FBI experience at all. He was also "Deep Throat" and it is thought by many (including me) that being passed over is why he started leaking to Woodward and Bernstein. He was a protégé of J Edgar Hoover and was no stranger of "Dirty Tricks". So what if Nixon appoints him instead and he keeps his mouth shut. Is there a Watergate scandal at all?
 

Redhand

Banned
Watergate was the kind of thing that had been done before and would have been done again, Nixon (a pretty decent president actually) was just unlucky enough to be caught.

If it is true that Nixon had Hoover's special book of blackmail, I can see him squashing this if Felt is FBI Director. However, with the leak of the Pentagon Papers, I think information security in DC might have significantly degenerated and it is possible that someone takes Felt's place.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
There will be no Deep Throat. Anybody who thinks that Felt leaked for any other reason needs a reality check. Furthermore, the FBI *could* help squelch investigations. As Redhand mentioned, Hoover definitely helped other Presidents out with their dirty laundry. Felt would eventually be tried himself in 1980 (and Nixon actually defended him!). He was found guilty, only to be pardoned by Reagan for wiretapping and the like, so I could see him behaving like Hoover would. The question is whether it would have the same effect as J. Edgar doing it.

No Deep Throat means no Woodstein means Watergate will not explode in the same fashion that it did. Without the constant reporting on Watergate, it's possible that the scandal doesn't inflame the US public to the extent that it did. But it isn't going away. The burglars are still being tried by Sirica, and the Democrats in Congress will still want to investigate Watergate as hard as they can. Would they? If they do, it's possible that without it becoming a huge story, Watergate occurs but plays out differently. The times were changing, and eventually the dark stuff will come out. But that being said, the utter destruction of the Nixon administration is not preordained or even likely. There WILL be a battle between Nixon and Congress though-that is in the works by 1973.

Contrary to popular lore, this wasn't "St. George the press vs. Nixon the dragon". It was the judicial system, the Congress, everything at work. A lot of variables were in Watergate.

*Felt actually said on Larry King that he thought Nixon was a pretty good President who happened to be very unlucky. Definitely an "old-school Imperial Presidency" adherent who would not object to what Nixon was doing, and might just help him out. The look on Ben Bradlee's face was priceless.
 
Last edited:
Felt actually said on Larry King that he thought Nixon was a pretty good President who happened to be very unlucky. Definitely an "old-school Imperial Presidency" adherent who would not object to what Nixon was doing, and might just help him out. The look on Ben Bradlee's face was priceless.

Wow, that is ice cold.

"Look, I'm sorry, Dickie, I like you and all, and I think you're doing a great job... But when you fuck me over like that, like a fucking whore... I'm sorry, Dickie, then I'm gonna have to fuck you over as well."
 
Watergate was part of a pattern of behavior. Watergate wasn't even the worse thing the Nixon White House did. And they did it again and again, and would have kept on doing it.

Q. What happens if Napoleon wins Waterloo?
A. He loses somewhere else.

Something would have come out eventually (or could have come out earlier), and even if it wasn't Watergate, it would have been Nixon's Iran-Contra; an event that threatens the White House and leaves a lasting negative effect on the incumbent even after surviving it. And on the topic of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein's role in the Watergate scandal is overrated; it really comes from the news media liking to pat itself on the back, and being the ones who tell people history.

http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com...h-that-woodward-bernstein-brought-down-nixon/
 

Redhand

Banned
Watergate was part of a pattern of behavior. Watergate wasn't even the worse thing the Nixon White House did. And they did it again and again, and would have kept on doing it.

Q. What happens if Napoleon wins Waterloo?
A. He loses somewhere else.

Something would have come out eventually (or could have come out earlier), and even if it wasn't Watergate, it would have been Nixon's Iran-Contra; an event that threatens the White House and leaves a lasting negative effect on the incumbent even after surviving it. And on the topic of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein's role in the Watergate scandal is overrated; it really comes from the news media liking to pat itself on the back, and being the ones who tell people history.

http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com...h-that-woodward-bernstein-brought-down-nixon/

The fact of the matter is that Nixon was quite paranoid, not unusual in the Cold War, and he got caught with his hand in a cookie jar that others had been in many times before. Watergate pales in comparison to the type of things you saw in Tammany run NYC or Sam Giacana in Chicago, or even the blatant backroom bribery in regards to the Harding Administration's policies. Nixon was not an unusual politician, but he was in an era when things were completely being turned on their heads. I guarantee you that JFK would have had a horrible time of things if the media had the same mindset 10 yrs earlier.

Yes, Nixon would've kept doing his dirty tricks because that was common procedure for the time and he may not have been caught. It was by no means a guarantee. Down the line, SOMEONE would've been caught, but it by no means had to be Nixon.
 
The Nixon administration took the things people had done circa that era and went to a greater extreme than anyone had. It wasn't just boys being boys. And it was systemic and they were constantly pushing it and kept doing it. No other White House sabotaged peace negotiations of a bloody and useless war for personal gain (I think over half of the deaths in the Vietnam war were after 1968). No other White House discussed how to murder Jack Anderson. They did things, got away with them, and kept doing them. Had Johnson had more cajones, Nixon would have been shamed by 1968; he knew from wiretaps that Nixon had sabotaged the negotiations. But he, one, did not want the country to become (more) disillusioned, and two, he thought it would reveal that he was wiretapping.

EDIT:
And there's the coup against Salvador Allende. I'll give you that other American administrations had overthrown foreign leaders in droves, but Allende was someone even those sort of people saw no reason to overthrow; coming back to the point of doing things more extreme than anyone else was doing. And it put a vicious and corrupt tyrant into power, lead to mass murders and tortures, and ruined Chile for decades.
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
The Nixon administration took the things people had done circa that era and went to a greater extreme than anyone had. It wasn't just boys being boys. And it was systemic and they were constantly pushing it and kept doing it. No other White House sabotaged peace negotiations of a bloody and useless war for personal gain (I think over half of the deaths in the Vietnam war were after 1968). No other White House discussed how to murder Jack Anderson. They did things, got away with them, and kept doing them. Had Johnson had more cajones, Nixon would have been shamed by 1968; he knew from wiretaps that Nixon had sabotaged the negotiations. But he, one, did not want the country to become (more) disillusioned, and two, he thought it would reveal that he was wiretapping.

EDIT:
And there's the coup against Salvador Allende. I'll give you that other American administrations had overthrown foreign leaders in droves, but Allende was someone even those sort of people saw no reason to overthrow; coming back to the point of doing things more extreme than anyone else was doing. And it put a vicious and corrupt tyrant into power, lead to mass murders and tortures, and ruined Chile for decades.

OK, this is going to be a little bit of a diversion, but I need to answer this after spending a lot of time studying Nixon and his administration.

Actually, under half. Around 22000. Half of which happened in 1969, in which any other realistic administration would still be in Vietnam as well for simple logistical/geopolitical realities, not to mention the looming threat of a right wing backlash. I know, a lot better right? :p

It might also reveal that, aside from the lack of a smoking gun implicating Nixon, that LBJ was making a completely unrealistic peace implication with his bombing halt to throw the election to Humphrey. I don't think the American people would have been too impressed with that, and Nixon can easily deny everything to hell and turn the tables on LBJ, saying that he is trying further to influence things and distract people from his own misdeeds with inneundo. Or worse, attempting to sell out an ally for political gain. Now, to be fair, I don't think he was for a variety of reasons. LBJ, for one thing, could be very loyal to those constituencies-if not certain members of them-that he considered his own, be they the downtrodden in general(look at the impoverished Mexican farmers he visited after his Presidency and what he said to and about them) , Texas in general, blacks, the Democrat Party but also the South Vietnamese, which to the end the peace wing of his party didn't understand. And I don't think Nixon would seriously believe that he would after investing so much effort into them and basically destroying his career over them. But Nixon could-and would, being just as wily and slick as Johnson-imply or argue that if Johnson wanted to play the "treason" card. Especially since LBJ did something clearly illegal, whereas nothing proves that Nixon did. Legal, not moral. Johnson probably realized that there wasn't anything he would probably gain by doing this.

At length, there was no chance of peace in 1968, and Johnson knew it-Thieu was going to shoot down everything, for starters. He was PISSED at Johnson for the bombing halt. The only reason Hanoi had suddenly agreed to conditions in the first place was for the election-Hanoi and Saigon were not STUPID. They paid attention to US politics. More than we did to theirs. They both wanted a certain candidate in October 1968. No sign that they wouldn't go back to arguing about the shape of the peace table afterwards. And also, why would Hanoi logically go for anything less than victory? The US and the South are in turmoil. As for Saigon, I really think Chennault's influence is heavily overstated-I address this in my (now infinitely held up due to school) TL. Now, does this make Nixon some angel or mean he isn't trying to play politics with peace? No. But you cannot sabotage something that doesn't exist. I wonder even how seriously Nixon took Chennault or how close he was to the day to day operation once he had introduced her to Bui Diem. To quote Ambrose-"Nixon knew Thieu would not go to Paris, with or without that rather silly woman whispering in his ear". Chennault even stated herself that Nixon wasn't aware of the phone call that was tapped. This doesn't make it less despicable, nor did Johnson (or I) believe that Nixon was innocent-Nixon did anticipate that Johnson would try something in the last couple weeks of the election-but Johnson doesn't have a lot to go with, and he probably realized that once he calmed down.

To quote another person on another forum on the subject, Nixon made the fact that he viewed the role of the future SV regime differently known publicly, partially for the SV's benefit before and during this time. These views were shared by a large section of the US populace. This was self serving, but hardly unexpected in political history. This, along with his reputation as a Cold Warrior, more than anything that Chennault did, made the South Vietnamese back him. The SV also knew that there was a good chance that he would win.

Moreover, I take issue with the idea that LBJ lacked "cajones". That's, to put it mildly, not true. At times, he could be as amoral, cruel, and nasty as Nixon was, but he didn't lack balls, nor did he lack a soul. Disillusioned? More like he didn't want more violence and chaos. 1968 didn't need another match lit near it. Frankly, I don't blame him. He was NOT being a coward.

G. Gordon Liddy discussing it != the White House. And the person who has attested to this is... G. Gordon Liddy. I trust Liddy with the facts, not at all.

Allende also helped do himself in. He was running the economy into the ground, with our help, but also with the help of his own incompetent policies. He wanted social change too fast, and had a lot of enemies. He didn't have the necessary wiliness/intelligence, base of support, or ruthlessness to get it through as quick as he wanted-frankly, I'm not sure anyone would. Allende was also becoming more authoritarian, and was against a lot of his legislative branch, the military, the landowners, etc. They thought he was becoming another Castro. It was a dangerous game to play in 70s South America when you have far more than the 35 percent of the vote than he did, and he lost. Again, America had a hand in destabilizing things, and this was horrible, but in the end, Chileans took down Allende for Chilean reasons. Same as Diem, Lumumba, Trujillo, Sukarno, and a lot of others-not all(Mossadegh, Arbenz, and the failed attempts on Castro), but a lot. We really tend to overlook the more important indigenous factors during the Cold War-it wasn't always Moscow and Washington puppeteering everything.

I don't buy for a second that another Cold War President, from FDR to Bush I and everyone in between except maybe Carter, wouldn't have helped or wouldn't have wanted to subvert him. Maybe they would have been less paranoid than Nixon and decided it wasn't worth it in the context of 1973, but I have my doubts. It just... goes so severely against their recorded behavior. We overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala at the behest of a private COMPANY, for Pete's sake-that's sickening. National interest is one thing, but companies in foreign policy... but anyway, the point stands as to how little it took. The fact that Allende started out as a democratically elected socialist meant little in this atmosphere, in this hemisphere. Democratically elected or revolution or coup, it didn't matter if someone was perceived to be a threat or against the interests of the USA, regardless of reality. Ironically, Allende proved much more useful for Moscow dead than alive.

Pinochet was a bastard of the highest order. Villa Grimauldi and the DINA says all that needs to be said. He didn't "ruin" Chile though. I don't subscribe to the view that he caused the economic miracle, but he didn't prevent it from happening either.
 
Last edited:

Redhand

Banned
The Nixon administration took the things people had done circa that era and went to a greater extreme than anyone had. It wasn't just boys being boys. And it was systemic and they were constantly pushing it and kept doing it. No other White House sabotaged peace negotiations of a bloody and useless war for personal gain (I think over half of the deaths in the Vietnam war were after 1968). No other White House discussed how to murder Jack Anderson. They did things, got away with them, and kept doing them. Had Johnson had more cajones, Nixon would have been shamed by 1968; he knew from wiretaps that Nixon had sabotaged the negotiations. But he, one, did not want the country to become (more) disillusioned, and two, he thought it would reveal that he was wiretapping.

EDIT:
And there's the coup against Salvador Allende. I'll give you that other American administrations had overthrown foreign leaders in droves, but Allende was someone even those sort of people saw no reason to overthrow; coming back to the point of doing things more extreme than anyone else was doing. And it put a vicious and corrupt tyrant into power, lead to mass murders and tortures, and ruined Chile for decades.

No doubt Nixon was dirtier than most, but he wasn't anywhere as bad as Harding and his own role in these scandals, especially Watergate, is nebulous at best (not the cover-up, however, which he was guilty of).

As far as Allende goes, I don't know why he was overthrown but I imagine he was turning to the East. Not exactly like Mossadegh or the Sandinistas, but it was probably a panic move that came from the fact that the US was really losing the Cold War in '73 and Nixon saw all of the progress with China as being worthless if his own hemisphere turned. Pinochet turned out to be a rather poor replacement and I think Kissinger was regretting the coup for quite a while as it was not helpful long term, which was the entire point of a Cold War coup.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Watergate was part of a pattern of behavior. Watergate wasn't even the worse thing the Nixon White House did. And they did it again and again, and would have kept on doing it.

Q. What happens if Napoleon wins Waterloo?
A. He loses somewhere else.

Something would have come out eventually (or could have come out earlier), and even if it wasn't Watergate, it would have been Nixon's Iran-Contra; an event that threatens the White House and leaves a lasting negative effect on the incumbent even after surviving it. And on the topic of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein's role in the Watergate scandal is overrated; it really comes from the news media liking to pat itself on the back, and being the ones who tell people history.

http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com...h-that-woodward-bernstein-brought-down-nixon/


I agree with you on both the fact that the Woodstein primarily bringing down Nixon is a myth along with the fact that the dirty laundry was bound to come out sooner or later. I enthusiastically agree with you on how the media loves to pat itself on the back and pretend they are lonely heroes. Watergate was FAR from the worst thing Nixon himself did. Or other Presidents in that era. Hell, Iran-Contra was far worse IMHO, and Reagan managed to get away relatively scot-free. Not to mention the previous decade and a half, with our current and previous administrations... Nixon was definitely up there insofar as "dirtiness" goes, but that he was somehow unique in indulging in illegalities or legacy shaming, "extracurricular" activities... there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. He was unique in how he let down the country, and maybe that's the more important thing.

Where I disagree is the cause. This really wasn't due so much to Nixon being unique so much as the time period: post-Vietnam, post social upheaval, disillusionment, post-Hoover, and a lot less submissive of a press, bureaucracy, Congress, and court system. And the whole pre 1970s innocence shtick going down the river. This whole "Nixon is unique" crap is very convenient because it lessens the need to take a look at the system, at our views of history and politics, and also to take a look at ourselves.

There were a lot of Nixon haters that would have rather seen him fail than the country succeed, true. Some politicians in history just engender, for differing and varying in validity reasons, that sort of reaction from enemies-our current President is another example. And he made a lot more enemies than he needed to by treating mere opponents as if they were said enemies that were out to get him-there is a difference that Nixon never grasped. For every one true enemy, there were a few more disaffected people that Nixon made into enemies. This is due to Nixon's flawed personality among other things, and probably made Watergate as disastrous as it was. But the biggest factor is that Nixon didn't get that the rules he "grew up politically" in were changing, I believe. The bill for the abuse of presidential power, growing ever since FDR(and I agree what he did was necessary. And his successors all had the Cold War to deal with, mind), was due. Nixon was the one in office when it happened. If not him, than definitely his successor. It had to come out in the new national environment. A lot of why Watergate played out the way it did was due uniquely to Nixon and his personality, but a confrontation, some Watergate like event was in the works. Not the same result necessarily, but something. Assuming Vietnam and the counterculture and everything else went exactly the same, and Washington was like it was, there would be for most men who would occupy that office.

However, this day of reckoning doesn't entail Nixon resigning or anything near as catastrophic as what happened. It doesn't even have to severely harm the higher ups in his administration if played smarter or was just a little luckier. To assume Nixon is bound to resign is silly.
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
Wow, that is ice cold.

"Look, I'm sorry, Dickie, I like you and all, and I think you're doing a great job... But when you fuck me over like that, like a fucking whore... I'm sorry, Dickie, then I'm gonna have to fuck you over as well."

He was a pretty cold SOB. You have to be to be Hoover's right hand man, and given what he was later on trial for...

I believe he truthfully meant it-it's nothing personal, but I'm going to subvert you because of principle. *Shudders*. The scary part is people like that still do exist in our government. They THRIVE in Washington. Felt honestly struck me as kind of a sociopath. He was so... calm, when he said that statement that shocked Larry King. As if there was nothing funny or shocking or ironic about it whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Without Deep Throat Woodard and Bernstein's articles have less of an impact. Watergate gets less attention in 1972. It did not have much of an impact that year anyway. It still explodes in 1973. nNixon still resigns on August 8, 1974. nNothing much changes. fFelt has to resign when he is indicted in 1977. Anybody here remember Straha? When I wrote a TL on this subject on the Ark, he told me that without Deep Throat there would be no Watergate. I told him to read a history book.
 
Even if he were not indicted, Jimmy Carter would have demanded he retire in 1978, when he turned 65. There would have been no more lifetime tenure for Directors of the FBI.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
In addition, Mark Felt was up to his neck in COINTELPRO. For example . .

The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover's Secret FBI
[this was a March 8, 1971, burglary of an FBI field office by anti-war activists]

By Betty Medsger, 2014
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=4RoUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT641&dq=Dohrn+intitle:The+intitle:Burglary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K4gKVJaYMaSk8QGd24CQAw&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dohrn%20intitle%3AThe%20intitle%3ABurglary&f=false
 
' . . For instance, Jennifer Dohrn learned years later, when she received her FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act, that in the course of planning the numerous break-ins that were conducted at her apartment and at various places where she worked, Felt suggested agents should kidnap her infant son as a way of pressuring her sister, Bernadine Dohrn, one of the members of the Weather Underground being sought by the FBI, to turn herself in. . '
So, in difficult circumstances, what do I expect a responsible government official to do? I expect him or her to damn well look for better alternatives.
 
Last edited:
What was party loyalty like?

If Watergate comes out anyway, but isn't as explosive, would more Republicans support Nixon?

Could enough do it to avoid indictment or make conviction uncertain?
 

Realpolitik

Banned
What was party loyalty like?

If Watergate comes out anyway, but isn't as explosive, would more Republicans support Nixon?

Could enough do it to avoid indictment or make conviction uncertain?

Nixon did not have extensive coattails. Although he was a strong partisan throughout his earlier career, by the Presidency this had changed a little. Privately, like Eisenhower, he actually thought conservative Democrats-the Northern "hard hats", the Westerners, and the Southerners-were more fun to hang around than a lot of his own party and occasionally fantasized about starting his own. He wasn't loved in his own party, not like Reagan-a lot of his policies displeased the Goldwater wing of the party, but he never could win the love of the Rockefeller and Warren types either because of his personality and his early record. Nixon's strength was that he was at least palatable to both branches in a way that the representatives of said wings of the party wouldn't be to the opposite side. He was also the one who had the greatest chance in that time period(New Deal coalition cracking but still there, conservative movement bubbling but still doesn't have a chance of taking power), of winning the Presidency.

Basically, he was the unifier of the two branches before the conservative wing took over in the later half of the 70s, and also just the flat out best politician of the bunch. That didn't mean they loved him. So if things really hit the fan, they will abandon him in a way that they never would with, again, Reagan.

However, when Watergate was in its initial stages-through the summer of 1973-the GOP did support Nixon, so it's plausible that they would do so under lesser circumstances. Of course, I have my doubts whether butterflying Deep Throat is enough to get said circumstances, as stated above. Assuming everything else and everyone else behaves like OTL-the FBI doesn't or fails to help Nixon, the investigation gets started without the Post reports on Watergate and the constant implications that there is a conspiracy, they begin to ask the right questions without that, McCord tells the truth, Dean is implicated... We get to the point where Haldeman and Ehrlichman were forced to resign without any changes. Watergate wouldn't be played in households across the nation, maybe*, which would not help the investigations life and all-sucking controversy. But if the knowledge of the taping system still becomes public, Nixon is doomed regardless. That's the Rubicon moment, IMO. Perhaps the GOP could help avoid such a question or end the investigation quicker, but I don't see how.

*-Once the top aides resign, the press will get on it. So, at that point, Nixon's in pretty big trouble. After thinking it through, it's the period before May 1973 that matters most. The Post didn't slay Nixon like they constantly self-congratulate themselves for, but they did help when it came to getting the Congressmen and other relevant parties interested in DC.

The key thing is Watergate or some event like it needs have the same impact on public consciousness. For that, it needs to come at the right time, in the right circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Top