What if Nixon is Caught Sabotaging Peace Negotiations?

[PresidentZinn]

In the last weeks of the 1968 Presidential Election, Nixon's lead in national polls was rapidly slipping. By the final weekend of the campaign the Johnson administration was on the verge of a major breakthrough in terms forging an agreement with the North Vietnamese and thus "ending" the war in Vietnam. However, as outlined in this BBC piece (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668) and documented elsewhere, Nixon managed to secretly persuade the South Vietnamese to pull out of the talks, thus preventing a last minute October surprise that could have cost him the election.

However, what if President Johnson, who we know was well aware of Nixon's covert misdeeds (or some other source), decided to go public with this information? What would the aftermath of revelations of Nixon's treasonous behavior be? How would such a shock impact the coming election results? How would a possible Humphrey presidency pan out, and what would be the longterm butterflies upon modern American history?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

It wouldn't be Johnson going public, because then the public would know the government was listening in. Not something to reveal, and the reason Johnson did not reveal it (along with not wanting the nation to be disillusioned).

More likely would have been an "anonymous source" leaking the information to some interested journalist, or something of that sort. Something where someone picks up information they're not sure the source of, which then sparks off everything.

 

[bguy]

However, what if President Johnson, who we know was well aware of Nixon's covert misdeeds, decided to go public with this information? What would the aftermath of revelations of Nixon's treasonous behavior be? How would such a shock impact the coming election results? How would a possible Humphrey presidency pan out, and what would be the longterm butterflies upon modern American history?

Can Johnson even expose what Nixon's been up to without exposing the fact that he's been wiretapping his political opponents? If Johnson does go public, he's a lot more likely to end up in prison than Nixon is.

Also, even if Johnson is willing to risk prison time to stop Nixon, such a move could easily back fire. Johnson doesn't have direct proof that Nixon was involved, and it's unlikely that Anna Chennault will be willing to throw Nixon under the bus (why would she when the last indictment under the Logan Act took place in 1803), so without Johnson having any real evidence it would be easy for Nixon to paint Johnson's allegations as nothing but a desperate smear job and make the story about Johnson's crimes rather than his own.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Can Johnson even expose what Nixon's been up to without exposing the fact that he's been wiretapping his political opponents? If Johnson does go public, he's a lot more likely to end up in prison than Nixon is.

Also, even if Johnson is willing to risk prison time to stop Nixon, such a move could easily back fire. Johnson doesn't have direct proof that Nixon was involved, and it's unlikely that Anna Chennault will be willing to throw Nixon under the bus (why would she when the last indictment under the Logan Act took place in 1803), so without Johnson having any real evidence it would be easy for Nixon to paint Johnson's allegations as nothing but a desperate smear job and make the story about Johnson's crimes rather than his own.

That was my point above. Johnson could have pulled a Deep Throat using some underling (and yes, I know Deep Throat didn't bring down Nixon; the Congressional investigation did, and was independent of and would have gone on regardless of the Washington Post that get all the credit). If you give even just a little bit of fact, regardless of if you keep it secret, it can spark off more. Even if it just evolves into word of mouth rather than someone ending up investigating things and uncovering things, that may be sufficient to turn the election to Humphrey given how extremely close it was.

 

[starwarsfan]

That was my point above. Johnson could have pulled a Deep Throat using some underling (and yes, I know Deep Throat didn't bring down Nixon; the Congressional investigation did, and was independent of and would have gone on regardless of the Washington Post that get all the credit). If you give even just a little bit of fact, regardless of if you keep it secret, it can spark off more. Even if it just evolves into word of mouth rather than someone ending up investigating things and uncovering things, that may be sufficient to turn the election to Humphrey given how extremely close it was.

Yea a very small swing changes it

Maybe leak it to some journalists

 

[JVM]

I've heard some tell me it was somewhat common knowledge within a few years that Nixon had somehow interfered, there just wasn't official sources to back it up or anything, so a lot of people didn't take the claim very seriously.

 

[Seleucus]

My guess? Complete electoral chaos.

Journalists citing an 'anonymous source' accuse Nixon of sabotaging peace talks. Nixon angrily denies it and accuses Johnson/Humphrey of dirty tricks (planting the accusation), and/or bugging him. Republican partisans believe Nixon, Democratic partisans believe the journalists. This all happened a few days before the election. We'd end up with a country even more polarized and discontent with the electoral result than OTL.

 

[Michel Van]

This would ruin Nixon political career forever !

in US people will be outrage about this
more and more US people wanted that Vietnam war end somehow
the news that republican candidate "tricky dick" Nixon manipulate the Peace talks to win his election.
will damage the reputation of republicans more that Watergate...

 

[Magniac]

Maybe if the HHH campaign had taken Johnson's proffer of a licence to leak the allegations to the media, maybe they do it well enough to catch Team Nixon off guard, and swing the close election. Maybe.

But overall, yup, it's true that without any revelations from intel collected by surveillance, these allegations are still pretty hearsay come election day, 1968; IIRC it's really only thanks to later evidence from Chennault and the RVN generals that the Johnson admin claims were verified to the satisfaction of historians. Put another way, I'm fairly certain that even today, there has been no release of official, contemporaneous US intel documenting the 1968 behaviour of Nixon/Kissinger/Chennault/the generals. (Antony Summers, under FoI, got ahold of an FBI memo detailing a Chennault communication to the RVN embassy; "hold on, we're going to win." But that's about it.)

Those Watergate and post-Watergate congressional investigations really dropped the ball on that. Things that make you go hmmm.

(Also, this POTUS isn't going to publicly announce this story, not in a million years; because he knew all the opposing Rightwing forces in US politics that he [LBJ] had tried to keep down during his presidency would respond to it as a stab-in-the-back, and that "I've just signed the South away from the Democratic Party for a generation" anxiety he had, that sh!t'd get even more real than it already was in the year of The Silent Majority.)

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Humphrey wins without a problem. Nixon is disgraced.

 

[JVM]

Aren't there some details on this in The Making of the President 1968?

 

[Derek Jackson]

If Agnew's criminality came out too could Humphrey has won a landslide?

 

[Jbenuniv]

Journalists citing an 'anonymous source' accuse Nixon of sabotaging peace talks. Nixon angrily denies it and accuses Johnson/Humphrey of dirty tricks (planting the accusation), and/or bugging him. Republican partisans believe Nixon, Democratic partisans believe the journalists.

Maybe a source within the Nixon campaign brings it to light? That would be more credible and much harder for the Nixon campaign and the Republicans to deny.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Maybe a source within the Nixon campaign brings it to light? That would be more credible and much harder for the Nixon campaign and the Republicans to deny.

You don't necessarily need smoke to find the fire. You need to know there is smoke, and then you find where the smoke is, and then you find the fire.

 

[Duke 4]

I think a lot of folks knew about this. Read Teddy Whites book "Making of the President 1968"