WI: Nixon Destroys The Tapes

Today Watergate is considered a triumph of
our legal & political system, proof nobody is
above the law, etc. etc. But what if Nixon
had destroyed those tapes(which after all were the only evidence conclusively demon-
starting that Nixon was involved in Water-
gate up to his eyeballs). Is he still forced
from office? Or- as I myself believe- does he
manage to serve out his term?
 
Today Watergate is considered a triumph of
our legal & political system, proof nobody is
above the law, etc. etc. But what if Nixon
had destroyed those tapes(which after all were the only evidence conclusively demon-
starting that Nixon was involved in Water-
gate up to his eyeballs). Is he still forced
from office? Or- as I myself believe- does he
manage to serve out his term?

If the tapes are destroyed, he might serve out the presidential term as a lame duck. things went from bad to worse in massive order for Nixon. He will be tainted either way, as will his legacy.
 
If the tapes are destroyed, he might serve out the presidential term as a lame duck. things went from bad to worse in massive order for Nixon. He will be tainted either way, as will his legacy.

Vietnam was still going down hill, agnew was a boat anchor, the nation was sliding towards recession, racial tensions, oil crisis. Now, toss in trying to steel an election he probably was going to win anyway, eh.. that smells like the barn, and that can be hard for even the faithful to ignore.
 
"...Now, toss in trying to steel an election he probably was going to win anyway, eh.. that smells like the barn, and that can be hard for even the faithful to ignore."

Honestly I don't understand what you are saying. US Presidents can only run for 2-terms...Nixon was REELECTED in November 1972 after the Deep Throat information came out in June 1972. In fact, he was reelected with a much better EC tally than in 1968 (in 1972 he only lost one state - taxachussets).

So bottom-line, he couldn't have stolen an election because he was just reelected. Fact is, he won in one of the greatest landslides in US history and it wasn't due to Watergate data because he never got that information.
 
Honestly I don't understand what you are saying. US Presidents can only run for 2-terms...Nixon was REELECTED in November 1972 after the Deep Throat information came out in June 1972. In fact, he was reelected with a much better EC tally than in 1968 (in 1972 he only lost one state - taxachussets).

So bottom-line, he couldn't have stolen an election because he was just reelected.
But it appears that way with Watergate.. I just said .. he was going to win anyway. but it looks pretty freaking stupid if you are tampering with the free process of elections no?
 
But it appears that way with Watergate.. I just said .. he was going to win anyway. but it looks pretty freaking stupid if you are tampering with the free process of elections no?
also.. just as a note: lets say that president X is elected. midway through it turns out he received 90% of his funding from an off shore nation state. it turns out that said nation state is propagating propaganda, working diligently to sway the population to go in a certain direction, they commit crimes against adversaries. ( nothing to do with current politics .. just an example … )

What do you do?

Would you believe a president who is the top of the food chain for his party would have no idea what was going on?
 
Couldn't agree with you more that it was a complete dumb useless move. Ironically the public didn't agree with the news media portrayal of the Watergate scandal and it wasn't until his aide Butterfield stated there was a taping system in the WH.
 
Couldn't agree with you more that it was a complete dumb useless move. Ironically the public didn't agree with the news media portrayal of the Watergate scandal and it wasn't until his aide Butterfield stated there was a taping system in the WH.
much agree it was beyond stupid. Trust the system to work, that is where as a nation we are failing at all levels, government and the people ...
 
also.. just as a note: lets say that president X is elected. midway through it turns out he received 90% of his funding from an off shore nation state. it turns out that said nation state is propagating propaganda, working diligently to sway the population to go in a certain direction, they commit crimes against adversaries. ( nothing to do with current politics .. just an example … )

What do you do?

Would you believe a president who is the top of the food chain for his party would have no idea what was going on?

Sorry had to laugh, you are quoting yourself...I was waiting for the "air quotes". Are you talking about Nixon, because he used leftover 1968 funds illegally as well but that is another story.
 
Sorry had to laugh, you are quoting yourself...I was waiting for the "air quotes". Are you talking about Nixon, because he used leftover 1968 funds illegally as well but that is another story.
hehe.. sorry, I do that sometimes.. my wife says I talk to myself too a lot ..

but yeah I was going to mention more the 68 funds and other stuff.

In reality some things I and most people can overlook, some funds here and there, but subverting the whole process is just .. well.. enough to taint things just a tad too sour ;)
 
Nixon likely serves out his term and has to deal with the economic malaise from the dual hits of the '72 global crop failure, the '73 OPEC disaster, and post war liberalism running up to its limits. This likely hurts his approval, although perhaps not by as much as one would think.

Without Watergate going as OTL, I do not think that Congress would undergo what it did in the '74 elections. I think Nixon might have been able to save South Vietnam, and deployed enough airpower to stop the Spring Offensive after the North Vietnamese reneged on Paris.

My guess is that he serves out his term limping out of office, but that the Republican Party is in a stronger state. The Republican Party probably would not have undergone the conservative takeover that they did in OTL in the mid to late 70s, which was facilitated by Watergate destroying it institutionally. The Democrats probably nominate someone other than Carter in 1976 because the outsider label would have less appeal; perhaps Scoop Jackson or Ted Kennedy.
 
Top