WI Donald/Hannah Nixon indicted for Hughes loan?

As I mentioned in the Watergate tapes thread, in 1961-2 Nixon's family was investigated by Justice for the infamous Hughes loan. This was Hughes helping out Nixon's brother Donald on the Nixonburger complex, which had been Frank Nixon's general store in the interwar years. Apparently Hannah and Donald Nixon were probed, but insufficient evidence was found to proceed. Let's say they do find the evidence. This means Nixon will be dueling with Archie Cox- who wins? Political blowback for Nixon, in the midst of the gubernatorial race? The Kennedy brothers for "persecuting" a little old lady?

"Bobby was a ruthless little bastard. He wanted to lay criminal charges against my mother."- Nixon Tapes, Nixon/Haldeman, Jan. 1972
 
RB,

I've never read a satisfactory explanation of why the Hughes loan was ever made. There's a internal memo written by Hughes dating from the late 60s with ramblings about how the loan somehow gave Hughes a handle on Nixon, but no one ever really had a handle on Dick Nixon.

Hughes was undoubtedly insane, functionally insane, but truly insane. He would require a huge "payoff" to even think about cooperating in any manner with federal officials in their investigation of the loan. However, even if Donald is successfully prosecuted, I don't believe that the prosecution will be able to prove that Hughes' loan to Donald effected Dick's performance in the vice-president's office. Both Hughes and Nixon were too canny for that.

The Justice investigation was already seen at the time as persecution by the Kennedy brothers and interference in the California gubernatorial race. People forget that the 1960 election results were as contentious as those 2000 and there is excellent evidence that both national parties stole the vote in several states. Nixon's decision not to challenge the results will be discussed by historians for centuries as there most likely was no one reason but rather a constantly shifting mix of them. The upshot was that a significant section of the population firmly believed the Kennedy family had stolen the White House and that colored their perspective of JFK up until Oswald made him a martyr(1).

A federal prosecution of Donald and Hannah, whether successful or not, would be viewed in many quarters as further proof of a Kennedy vendetta against Nixon. As you noted in another thread, Nixon some sort of gift for "ju jitsu" in these matters. He'd neatly flip the investigation and prosecution into political capital, perhaps not enough to win the governor's race but political capital nonetheless.

Assuming Donald and Hannah are prosecuted, whatever the outcome, and assuming Nixon still loses the gubernatorial race, the fact that the Hughes loan is now out in the open could very change history out of all recognition. You see, there's a good suggestion that the Plumbers didn't break into the DNC's Watergate offices looking for information about the DNC. They may have been looking for information about the Hughes loan. It goes like this...

  • In 1971, Donald Nixon, who made Billy Carter look like a genius, is stumbling around looking for "intelligence" to help Dick's reelection campaign.
  • The DNC realizes that Donald is a perfect way to pass misinformation directly to the highest levels of the Nixon campaign.
  • A man named Meier who worked for Humphrey tells Donald that Hughes was claiming he had a handle on Nixon thanks to information regarding the loan.
  • Meier further adds that a man named Larry O'Brien has the pertinent documents which would back up Hughes' claims.
  • Larry O'Brien, oddly enough, is both a Hughes employee and the Democratic Party Chairman.
  • The misinformation is passed along as planned and Nixon orders the break-in.
  • The Plumbers burgle O'Brien's office in the DNC office in the Watergate building in order to install wiretaps and find out about the loan.
  • Feces hits the rotary ventilation device.

IF a prosecution over the Hughes loan takes place in 1961-62 and IF the Watergate break-in had more to do with the Hughes loan than anything else, THEN the Hughes loan being old news by 1972 means there will be no break-in that year either.


Regards,
Bill

1 - AMC has a delightful series called Mad Men set in the early 60s which has garnered a lot of critical and popular attention. I've read comments regarding the show in which people expressed amazement at the characters' dismissive and insulting references to JFK. The script seemed jarring to them because they only really remember "Camelot" and the "martyr" rather than the real man.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't under the impression the Kennedys had a personal vendetta against Nixon. I do know that Jack was irritated by some of Nixon's debate gibes: "It's not Jack's money they're spending" (which was entirely correct) and various other things. But if Nixon was adept at jujitsu, the Kennedy brothers seemed to be immune to civil libertarian concerns. In 1966 and 1968, it was revealed that Bobby had authorized illegal wiretaps. Neither affected his popularity or political standing in the long term. Not surprising from the man who authorized the most wiretaps until the PATRIOT Act, he refused to apologize or show regret "national security, and that's all the answer you're gonna get!" until the day of his murder.
 
I wasn't under the impression the Kennedys had a personal vendetta against Nixon.


RB,

I'm not saying the Kennedy brothers had a vendetta against Nixon. I'm saying certain sections of the electorate believed the Kennedy brothers had a vendetta against Nixon.

In 1966 and 1968, it was revealed that Bobby had authorized illegal wiretaps. Neither affected his popularity or political standing in the long term. Not surprising from the man who authorized the most wiretaps until the PATRIOT Act, he refused to apologize or show regret "national security, and that's all the answer you're gonna get!" until the day of his murder.

That was before Watergate. Everything changed after Watergate.

RFK could say "National Security" in 1968 and no one would blink. Say "National Security" in 1978, 1988, 1998, or 2008 and you'll be lucky if people laugh before filing law suits. Citing "National Security" today is immediate "proof" you're lying. Only the most rabid partisans believe a politician now and then only for brief periods. While removing blind trust in government was very good thing, replacing it with an equally blind suspicion wasn't exactly an improvement.

Look at your recent thread concerning Chappaquiddick for example. Do you really think Ted's bald faced lies would have worked if the accident happened in 1975 instead of 1969?


Regards,
Bill
 
Re believing Ted later: Absolutely not. I'm still surprised people believed his story even in 1969. He was DUI and abandoned her in the submerged vehicle. So that's involuntary manslaughter, which mandates a stiff prison sentence. Not seven more terms in the US Senate.

But coming back to the OP, that's very interesting. So that means, assuming history goes otherwise as IOTL (99.99% unlikely given butterflies), there is no Watergate.
 
He was DUI and abandoned her in the submerged vehicle. So that's involuntary manslaughter, which mandates a stiff prison sentence.


RB,

Remember, it's the considered opinion of the police investigators that Ted was never in the car to begin with. She went off the bridge alone while driving to meet Ted at the motel.

Not seven more terms in the US Senate.

Politics is local. A few governorships aside, Massachusetts has been essentially a one-party state for decades now. That's one reason why Brown won the special election last January; the backlash against the one-party system seems to finally be growing. The state Democratic party machine nominated a long time tool and sock puppet in the person of Coakley and she didn't even think she had to campaign after winning the primary in December because the seat had "always" been Democratic and she was the Democratic nominee. She managed to blow a 30+ point lead in less than a month. She even groused about the need to shake hands with potential voters outside Fenway Park in the cold.

With regards to Ted, usually the state GOP could never find anyone of any stature to run and the national party didn't want to bother because Ted was a little more than joke for most of his tenure. Outside of a few frothing true believers, he was only lionized after he was diagnosed. It's rather telling that the Clintons routinely ignored him for most of their administration.

But coming back to the OP, that's very interesting. So that means, assuming history goes otherwise as IOTL (99.99% unlikely given butterflies), there is no Watergate.

Well, that's if you believe the Hughes Loan - Larry O'Brien -Humphrey/Meier - Donald Nixon explanation for the burglary. People have been trying to make sense of that incredibly odd and idiotic burglary for decades now mainly because they cannot bring themselves to accept the simplest reason; that Nixon ordered the break-in because he could.

He had a chance to wiretap both the DNC headquarters and someone directly linked to the still very powerful Hughes, so he did it. There's no need for any specific reason, it was something the Nixon Administration - and administrations before that - generally and routinely did.


Regards,
Bill
 
Top