WI: Watergate still happens, but there's no Coverup?

[dw93]

So, what if the Watergate Break In still happens, but Nixon doesn't cover it up? Is the scandal still as damaging to him as it was OTL?

 

[overoceans]

So, what if the Watergate Break In still happens, but Nixon doesn't cover it up? Is the scandal still as damaging to him as it was OTL?

I think he can weather the storm, IF by "doesn't cover it up" we mean "Does everything in his power to co-operate with the ensuing investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice".

However if he avoids the payoffs and hush money etc, but still tries to use all sorts of passive-aggressive legal tricks to avoid having to participcate in the investigation, the public might still think he has something to hide. Though if nothing he does is actually illegal, he wouldn't face the prospect of impeachment, and could maybe hang on until 1976.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

If he preempts the judicial investigations & Congressional scrutiny with a honest and open house cleaning it will go a long way to saving his ass. If he takes responsibility for his part in it, not throwing the 'Plumbers' to the wolves then he gains even more traction. The right and a fair portion of the independent voters will not accept the disruption of a witch hunt or a justifiable impeachment proceeding against him. "My further service as President is up to the American People. I will accept their judgement as expressed through the mechanism of the Constitution. I will serve as that judgement dictates, to the end of my term or a lesser time... yadda yadda ... "

 

[TonyA]

By no "coverup", do you mean that he admits authorizing the commission of a felony to assist his reelection? I would think that's a real deal breaker with a giant segment of the electorate, maybe not today, but then...

 

[1940LaSalle]

If Nixon had said something like "...I made grave errors in judgment..." and perhaps even apologized (yeah, a stretch, I know, but still possible, given the Nixon I remember), I think it would have worked. And never forget how little the electorate thought of his opposition. It might have been just enough to put Massachusetts in his column (forget DC, though).

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

By no "coverup", do you mean that he admits authorizing the commission of a felony to assist his reelection? I would think that's a real deal breaker with a giant segment of the electorate, maybe not today, but then...

His 'electorate' initially saw the removal of Nixon as a route to chaos and further degradation of their ideal America. It was Nixons obstinacy evasion, and refusal to admit responsibility that caused them to see his presidency as irrevocably damaged and ineffective. My father was a solid Republican when Watergate first emerged. By the moment of Nixons resignation he was completely disgusted with the ongoing lies in the face of evidence and clearly was ready to move on to Ford.

 

[CalBear]

Nixon is fine if he throws everyone under the bus and disavows them.

 

[UCB79]

If he preempts the judicial investigations & Congressional scrutiny with a honest and open house cleaning it will go a long way to saving his ass. If he takes responsibility for his part in it, not throwing the 'Plumbers' to the wolves then he gains even more traction. The right and a fair portion of the independent voters will not accept the disruption of a witch hunt or a justifiable impeachment proceeding against him. "My further service as President is up to the American People. I will accept their judgement as expressed through the mechanism of the Constitution. I will serve as that judgement dictates, to the end of my term or a lesser time... yadda yadda ... "

This sounds all too plausible- especially if
you remember IOTL in 1972 how unpopular
McGovern was. Though I personally feel he
would have made a fine President, most
Americans disagreed- & would overlook a
LOT on Nixon's part because they disliked the alternative so much.

 

[Apollo 20]

Nixon is fine if he throws everyone under the bus and disavows them.

Yes, this is true, but the window to avoid a cover-up is a matter of days. The break-in was on 17 June; the "smoking gun" tape was on 23 June and the 18 1/2 minute gap tape was on 20 June. Nixon was involved in the cover-up early, so a decision not to cover things up would have to take place within a couple of days of the break-in. If you believe Nixon didn't know in advance about the break-in (and as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that he did), then this isn't entirely far-fetched if his reaction to learning of it was one of rage at the stupidity involved and a determination to root out the truth, especially if it involved people at the White House.

The alternative is to allow the cover-up to proceed, but Nixon has a change of heart and fesses up to the whole mess including his role in it. He'll have criminal liability for obstruction of justice at a minimum unless he pardons himself, but he would survive politically. McGovern will do better and the election may even be close, but none of this will butterfly the Eagleton disaster of July and he still loses.

 

[MaxDivergence]

I would argue that once the connection of the Watergate burglars to the White House became known, President Nixon particularly after his enormous 1972 win could have survived it if he had fired everyone involved and ordered the removal and destruction of the tapes. A national address, a new set of appointees and Watergate becomes a "...sad footnote in campaign history." Nixon could have presided over the Bicentennial.

What I wonder is whether Agnew would have gotten the nomination in 1976 if he had not fallen in the bribery scandal dating back to his days as Maryland Governor.

Who would the Democrats have nominated in 1976 without Watergate in the air?