I was a Watergate prosecutor. Here's what JD Vance missed.

[Uncle Joe]

Working on the Watergate case, I dealt with the onslaught of allegations that turned into a flood of criminality — all of it amounting to an ongoing news cycle that did not end even after Nixon left office.

(snip)

The nationally televised Senate committee hearings revealed the existence of a secret taping system in Nixon’s White House offices. After the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon to release the tapes on July 24, 1974, Nixon proposed a compromise by which former Sen. John Stennis, who was partially deaf, would listen to the tapes to create summaries.

Cox refused to agree to this compromise since summaries of the tapes would not be admissible at the Watergate cover-up trial. Cox’s position resulted in the Saturday Night Massacre on Oct. 23, 1973, in which Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general, who refused to fire Cox. The solicitor general, the third highest member of the Justice Department, carried out Nixon’s order to fire Cox.

(snip)

Vance was also dead wrong that the “deep state took down” Nixon. It was just the opposite. The former FBI and CIA operatives who were involved in the Watergate burglary and the actions against Ellsberg were those typically considered part of the deep state, rather than those that helped hold all involved accountable.

Nixon himself attempted to use a deep state conspiracy to cover up the White House’s involvement in the burglary. On June 23, 1972, less than a week after the arrest of the Watergate burglars, Nixon is heard on tape directing his chief of staff to call the director and deputy director of the CIA to have them call the FBI to halt the investigation into the break-in for ostensibly national security reasons. That was the “smoking gun” tape that led to Nixon’s resignation.

(snip)

https://www.ms.now/opinion/jd-vance-nixon-watergate-trump-scandals

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[FakeNoose]

2. This essay is written by Nick Akerman ... Recommended!

I actually saw this on MS-Now and read it all the way through. Thanks for posting!

[Figarosmom]

3. The MAGA crowd have no clue what Watergate was even about

And would just say vance was right that it was the deep state that took him down. They haven't a clue.

[Ray Bruns]

4. He didn't miss anything. He just doesn't give a shit

[flashman13]

5. The solicitor general in question was Robert Bork. Reagan nominated Bork to SCOTUS. He was not confirmed

largely for his civil rights record.

The Bork nomination represents an early attempt by a corrupt right wing President to corrupt the rule of law with a right wing zealot. In 1987 the Senate still took its mandate to advise and consent seriously.

[BaronChocula]

6. "...to have them call the FBI to halt the investigation into the break-in..."

As convoluted as Watergate is with all the crooked arrogant players, this is what everyone should know first. That was the obstruction.

And Vance is right in saying that Watergate would be a "blip" in the media today, but because he's the creepy minion to a man who has gone way beyond Nixon's excesses.

- He's called off investigations into corrupt cronies (Homan). No one is copping to the fact that it was instructed by trump, but who else would have done it without presidential approval?

- He's been using national security as an excuse for several of his corrupt schemes including the possibly illegal destruction of the East Room.

- He's fired people involved with having investigated him in any way.

A lot of people knock the credibility of Wikipedia, but descriptions in the OP track part of Wikipedia's description of Watergate events identically (I was there brushing up on it a few days ago).

[flor-de-jasmim]

7. Can one "miss" if one isn't trying/looking?

There is little to no evidence that people like Vance are trying to portray the truth. We have often heard that they start with the narrative they want and then search for evidence that fits, but so many have given up any semblance of a legitimate argument-building process and don't care whether their arguments are at all logical or even coherent.