What do you think?
Rate this book
The right and the power :the prosecution of Watergate
The secrets of Watergate were hidden by lies & deceit. Only one man had the right & the power to bring the White House to justice. In this book Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the first time explains & documents the details of the behind-the-scenes struggles for the White House tape recordings, the release of which culminated in a historic Supreme Court decision & the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon."He wants you" The battle line is drawn Some plead guilty The damning tapes The breach in the wall Creating legal precedentWe go to court No room for compromiseOrdinary fairness Subject to the law The case against the president"We affirm the order..."End of a nightmareIndict or pardon? The pardon Final details Haunting memoriesIndex
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
2 people are currently reading
102 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 18, 2018
The Mueller investigation has now lasted 393 days – no, wait, that was yesterday – it is now in its 394th day.
The President wants the “witch hunt” to end now and so does his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. They aren’t against investigations, you understand, but would like to see them focused on other targets: the FBI, the Justice Department, James Comey, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, it goes without saying, Hillary Clinton.
And a recent poll indicates that the public’s opinion of Mueller, which started out quite high, has been going down in recent weeks. So is it time to do a wrap?
To help answer that question, here is a short quiz on the history of special counsel/independent counsel/special prosecutor investigations:
Which of the following investigations lasted longer than the Mueller investigation has lasted (so far)?
A). Nixon/Watergate
B). Reagan/Iran-Contra
C). Clinton/Whitewater
D). Henry Cisneros
E). all of the above
F). none of the above
Let’s take them one-by-one:
The type of investigation that most closely resembles the Mueller investigation is Watergate. It lasted about 800 days.
The Iran-Contra investigation lasted 2,470 days.
The Whitewater investigation that eventually evolved into the Monica Lewinsky scandal had an even longer run: 2,978 days.
Henry Cisneros was a rising star in the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton appointed him to be HUD secretary. However, he was accused of lying to the FBI during background checks. This may sound familiar: he was accused of lying about hush money paid to his former mistress.
In March 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel to investigate the charges, which were found to be true, that he had paid her $250,000 (paid his mistress, not Janet Reno), and that he had lied to the FBI investigators. In 1999, Cisneros entered a plea of guilty and paid a fine. But his political career was over.
As Clinton was heading out the door he pardoned Cisneros of that charge, but the investigation did not end. Instead, an investigation of possible obstruction of justice continued.
The case was finally closed – in January, 2006 – 10 years after it began!
The answer then is E). all of the above. They all lasted longer than the Mueller investigation has to this point.
In fact, the average length of all special counsel/independent counsel/special prosecutor investigations is 904 days.
Here is a link to a Business Insider article published on the first year anniversary of Mueller’s appointment that discusses the above statistics and also makes the distinction between a special counsel, an independent counsel, and a special prosecutor:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-lo...
And this links to the Wikipedia article on Henry Cisneros:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_C...
This is a link to a discussion of a partial list of special prosecutor/counsel investigations that began with the Grant Administration:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...
===============================================
This, however, is supposed to be a review of The Right and the Power (pub. 1976) by Leon Jaworski, the second Watergate prosecutor.
The first prosecutor, Archibald Cox, was appointed to the position by Attorney General Elliott Richardson in May 1973. When Cox refused a direct order from the President to refrain from subpoenaing more of the incriminating presidential tape recordings, Nixon, who in private referred to Cox as “a partisan viper,” ordered him fired on October 20.
In what went down into history as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” President Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. The Attorney General refused and resigned. The Assistant Attorney General, William Ruckleshaus, also refused to fire Cox and, depending on whose story you believe, he either resigned or was fired.
Finally, the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, who was third in line of succession, executed the dirty deed. In other words, the end result was that the President fired the individual that was investigating his administration.
“I would never have been the Watergate prosecutor had it not been for the uprising on the part of the American people in making their voice heard in opposition to what Nixon did [when he] not only fired Archibald Cox, but made it clear he was not going to appoint another prosecutor. He was just going to kick it back into the Department of Justice and let things gradually peter out.” – Leon Jaworski
The President never expected the terrific blowback from the public that resulted from the firing. The White House received over 450,000 cables and telegrams, which eclipsed all previous records. Because of the terrible public relations disaster, Bork, now the Acting Attorney General, was forced to appoint Leon Jaworski to the position. Furthermore, Jaworski refused to take the position without being given more independence than what had been afforded his predecessor.
“I had expected to find all sorts of wrongdoing by his aides, conduct unbecoming and even criminal, but it had never occurred to me that the President was in the driver’s seat.” – Leon Jaworski
Jaworski held the position for about a year. That year saw the investigation produce sixty-nine indictments and, as a result of guilty pleas or trials, a total of forty-nine convictions. Many of the individuals, including some of Nixon’s closest White House advisers, spent time behind bars.
"The method of laying brick on top of brick had a lot to do with the way Watergate was unraveled. When we began to close in on certain individuals ... and they began to tumble one by one, then ... things began to deteriorate in the White House very fast!" -- Leon Jaworski
Less than two years earlier, Nixon had been re-elected in a landslide of astronomical proportions. But with the House of Representatives voting on and passing articles of impeachment on a bipartisan basis, Richard Nixon became the only President to ever resign from the office. The date was August 8, 1974.
A month later, he was pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
“I think Richard Nixon could have admitted what he had done and apologized for it, asking for forgiveness, and he would have gotten away with it. But what the American people most detested about Nixon was his repeated lying. That’s what they detested.” – Leon Jaworski
The President wants the “witch hunt” to end now and so does his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. They aren’t against investigations, you understand, but would like to see them focused on other targets: the FBI, the Justice Department, James Comey, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, it goes without saying, Hillary Clinton.
And a recent poll indicates that the public’s opinion of Mueller, which started out quite high, has been going down in recent weeks. So is it time to do a wrap?
To help answer that question, here is a short quiz on the history of special counsel/independent counsel/special prosecutor investigations:
Which of the following investigations lasted longer than the Mueller investigation has lasted (so far)?
A). Nixon/Watergate
B). Reagan/Iran-Contra
C). Clinton/Whitewater
D). Henry Cisneros
E). all of the above
F). none of the above
Let’s take them one-by-one:
The type of investigation that most closely resembles the Mueller investigation is Watergate. It lasted about 800 days.
The Iran-Contra investigation lasted 2,470 days.
The Whitewater investigation that eventually evolved into the Monica Lewinsky scandal had an even longer run: 2,978 days.
Henry Cisneros was a rising star in the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton appointed him to be HUD secretary. However, he was accused of lying to the FBI during background checks. This may sound familiar: he was accused of lying about hush money paid to his former mistress.
In March 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel to investigate the charges, which were found to be true, that he had paid her $250,000 (paid his mistress, not Janet Reno), and that he had lied to the FBI investigators. In 1999, Cisneros entered a plea of guilty and paid a fine. But his political career was over.
As Clinton was heading out the door he pardoned Cisneros of that charge, but the investigation did not end. Instead, an investigation of possible obstruction of justice continued.
The case was finally closed – in January, 2006 – 10 years after it began!
The answer then is E). all of the above. They all lasted longer than the Mueller investigation has to this point.
In fact, the average length of all special counsel/independent counsel/special prosecutor investigations is 904 days.
Here is a link to a Business Insider article published on the first year anniversary of Mueller’s appointment that discusses the above statistics and also makes the distinction between a special counsel, an independent counsel, and a special prosecutor:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-lo...
And this links to the Wikipedia article on Henry Cisneros:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_C...
This is a link to a discussion of a partial list of special prosecutor/counsel investigations that began with the Grant Administration:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...
===============================================
This, however, is supposed to be a review of The Right and the Power (pub. 1976) by Leon Jaworski, the second Watergate prosecutor.
The first prosecutor, Archibald Cox, was appointed to the position by Attorney General Elliott Richardson in May 1973. When Cox refused a direct order from the President to refrain from subpoenaing more of the incriminating presidential tape recordings, Nixon, who in private referred to Cox as “a partisan viper,” ordered him fired on October 20.
In what went down into history as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” President Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. The Attorney General refused and resigned. The Assistant Attorney General, William Ruckleshaus, also refused to fire Cox and, depending on whose story you believe, he either resigned or was fired.
Finally, the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, who was third in line of succession, executed the dirty deed. In other words, the end result was that the President fired the individual that was investigating his administration.
“I would never have been the Watergate prosecutor had it not been for the uprising on the part of the American people in making their voice heard in opposition to what Nixon did [when he] not only fired Archibald Cox, but made it clear he was not going to appoint another prosecutor. He was just going to kick it back into the Department of Justice and let things gradually peter out.” – Leon Jaworski
The President never expected the terrific blowback from the public that resulted from the firing. The White House received over 450,000 cables and telegrams, which eclipsed all previous records. Because of the terrible public relations disaster, Bork, now the Acting Attorney General, was forced to appoint Leon Jaworski to the position. Furthermore, Jaworski refused to take the position without being given more independence than what had been afforded his predecessor.
“I had expected to find all sorts of wrongdoing by his aides, conduct unbecoming and even criminal, but it had never occurred to me that the President was in the driver’s seat.” – Leon Jaworski
Jaworski held the position for about a year. That year saw the investigation produce sixty-nine indictments and, as a result of guilty pleas or trials, a total of forty-nine convictions. Many of the individuals, including some of Nixon’s closest White House advisers, spent time behind bars.
"The method of laying brick on top of brick had a lot to do with the way Watergate was unraveled. When we began to close in on certain individuals ... and they began to tumble one by one, then ... things began to deteriorate in the White House very fast!" -- Leon Jaworski
Less than two years earlier, Nixon had been re-elected in a landslide of astronomical proportions. But with the House of Representatives voting on and passing articles of impeachment on a bipartisan basis, Richard Nixon became the only President to ever resign from the office. The date was August 8, 1974.
A month later, he was pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
“I think Richard Nixon could have admitted what he had done and apologized for it, asking for forgiveness, and he would have gotten away with it. But what the American people most detested about Nixon was his repeated lying. That’s what they detested.” – Leon Jaworski
June 29, 2013
This book seems to become more interesting and relevant as time passes. Perhaps not enough time had elapsed when I read it the first two times (in 1977 and 1985) for me to appreciate its historical value. But this time I had forgotten enough so that it read like a suspense thriller at times and an interestingly detailed personal journal at others. So much forgotten that I was almost able to re-experience that growing dismay that comes from reading the transcripts of those White House conversations where Nixon and his aides were discussing the lies they would tell and, more disgustingly, how they were going to retaliate against the people they thought had done them wrong. Re-experiencing that growing feeling of dismay and disgust is what brings this book to life, as the reader is reliving the irreversible mood shift occurring for nearly everyone at that time in reaction to increasingly disturbing revelations.
As for this book’s relevance today, I only wish I had kept count of the number of times I’ve heard Watergate mentioned since the last election. Most of those occurrences were in clips I saw on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report of FOX News pundits and House Republicans comparing their Obama “scandals” to Watergate. The most ludicrous was of one political “expert” on FOX predicting their coverage of the Benghazi hearings would reveal that “scandal” to be bigger than “Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten” and that Obama might have to resign. Either that guy doesn’t know much about Watergate, assumes the FOX audience doesn’t know, or both. Having re-read this book, that clip seems even funnier, and this book more valuable. (Makes me wonder how FOX News would have covered Watergate.)
Following Nixon’s resignation, Jaworski was faced with the tough decision as to whether or not he should pursue criminal prosecution of Nixon. One of his primary concerns was that if he didn’t, an unrepentant and arrogant Nixon would, through books and interviews in the following years, be able to have the final say on the matter, and therefore exonerate himself and portray himself as the victim of political enemies. Hearing today’s easy comparisons of fabricated “scandals” to Watergate makes me wonder if he didn’t succeed, in the long run, at doing just that – or at setting the stage for future politicians and pundits who see rewriting history as a necessary skill of their career choices.
As for this book’s relevance today, I only wish I had kept count of the number of times I’ve heard Watergate mentioned since the last election. Most of those occurrences were in clips I saw on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report of FOX News pundits and House Republicans comparing their Obama “scandals” to Watergate. The most ludicrous was of one political “expert” on FOX predicting their coverage of the Benghazi hearings would reveal that “scandal” to be bigger than “Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten” and that Obama might have to resign. Either that guy doesn’t know much about Watergate, assumes the FOX audience doesn’t know, or both. Having re-read this book, that clip seems even funnier, and this book more valuable. (Makes me wonder how FOX News would have covered Watergate.)
Following Nixon’s resignation, Jaworski was faced with the tough decision as to whether or not he should pursue criminal prosecution of Nixon. One of his primary concerns was that if he didn’t, an unrepentant and arrogant Nixon would, through books and interviews in the following years, be able to have the final say on the matter, and therefore exonerate himself and portray himself as the victim of political enemies. Hearing today’s easy comparisons of fabricated “scandals” to Watergate makes me wonder if he didn’t succeed, in the long run, at doing just that – or at setting the stage for future politicians and pundits who see rewriting history as a necessary skill of their career choices.
November 11, 2019
While I found this book very interesting and informative, about a third of the book was a little too legalize for the lay person. However, The Right and the Power is a great review course on the legal battles of Watergate. It doesn't take a lot of imagimnation to transpose the actions of Nixon and his political cohorts to those of Trump. If the Supreme Court decisions on subpoenas and obstructionion of Justice hold for this administration than the outcome will be very similar.
It is a worthwhile read for people of all political stripes.
It is a worthwhile read for people of all political stripes.
July 29, 2016
7/27 - ran out of steam about pp167, when the legal brief quotations started getting really long. These are hard to read, difficult to comprehend, even though I think they were written by extremely good attorneys. I will finish this, just have to take a break.
January 25, 2018
I’m a zealous believer in the idea that those who refuse to understand our past will charge stupidly forward into an oblivion of their own making. Based on that, it won't surprise anyone who follows me here that I would spend time reading a book that has a 1976 copyright. I’m glad I did. Two things stand out for me; first, in these days when hypocrisy and corruption on both sides of the aisle are common, the Watergate affair looks positively amateurish and almost harmless by comparison. Second, I'm fascinated by the ability of those who disagreed to remain civil toward one another--more on that later.
This is the account of the whole nasty Watergate business from the perspective of the embattled special prosecutor who ever-so-reluctantly took the job on the heels of the incident known as the Saturday night Massacre, a decision on Nixon’s part that fired then-prosecutor Archibald Cox.
If you read this, you are drawn into the compelling accounts of those who prepared what would become the Watergate prosecution. In this book is all the uncertainty and urgency of that time. It focuses closely on the legal machinations that were part of the prosecution and the high court’s decision to allow it to go forward, but Jaworski never loses the human face component here. You read about telegrams and letters he received, some of which were pretty disturbing. I would love to see an alternate history in which Watergate could be played out in the sometimes-sleazy slugfest that is Twitter and Facebook. But perhaps we’re closer to that than we think with gunk coming from both sides of the aisle and what feels like a dizzying entropy on the part of our current social and political institutions.
I was struck by the climate that allowed Leon Jaworski and Al Haig, Nixon’s chief of staff who would become Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, to remain on friendly and respectful terms with one another. I doubt seriously whether you see that kind of respect and even civility among men and women who disagree on issues today.
I knew very little about Jaworski other than his name and title before I read this. I came away with a deep admiration and respect for the man. He had to make the difficult decision as to whether Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon should be challenged legally. There were many who urged him to do just that; he ultimately let the pardon stand without challenge to the disappointment and rage of “The New York Times,” whose writers seemed to think he resigned his post too soon.
But the truly best part of the book for me came near the end. These are Jaworski’s words. My apologies for any punctuation errors; I worked from an audio version of the book:
“The teachings of right and wrong were forgotten in the White House. Little evils were permitted to grow into great evils. Small sins escalated into big sins. In the hours and hours of tape-recorded conversations to which I listened, not once was there a reference to the glory of God, not once a reference to seeking spiritual guidance through prayer. Our Lord was mentioned, yes; but, on each pitiable occasion, his name was taken in vain. If only there had been an occasional prayer for help—an occasional show of compassion. Why was there not just a simple statement such as, ‘may we hold our honor sacred’?
“How different might have been the course of government if there had been an acknowledgment of God as the source of right instead of a denial of him in a seemingly unending series of ruthless actions.”
This is the account of the whole nasty Watergate business from the perspective of the embattled special prosecutor who ever-so-reluctantly took the job on the heels of the incident known as the Saturday night Massacre, a decision on Nixon’s part that fired then-prosecutor Archibald Cox.
If you read this, you are drawn into the compelling accounts of those who prepared what would become the Watergate prosecution. In this book is all the uncertainty and urgency of that time. It focuses closely on the legal machinations that were part of the prosecution and the high court’s decision to allow it to go forward, but Jaworski never loses the human face component here. You read about telegrams and letters he received, some of which were pretty disturbing. I would love to see an alternate history in which Watergate could be played out in the sometimes-sleazy slugfest that is Twitter and Facebook. But perhaps we’re closer to that than we think with gunk coming from both sides of the aisle and what feels like a dizzying entropy on the part of our current social and political institutions.
I was struck by the climate that allowed Leon Jaworski and Al Haig, Nixon’s chief of staff who would become Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, to remain on friendly and respectful terms with one another. I doubt seriously whether you see that kind of respect and even civility among men and women who disagree on issues today.
I knew very little about Jaworski other than his name and title before I read this. I came away with a deep admiration and respect for the man. He had to make the difficult decision as to whether Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon should be challenged legally. There were many who urged him to do just that; he ultimately let the pardon stand without challenge to the disappointment and rage of “The New York Times,” whose writers seemed to think he resigned his post too soon.
But the truly best part of the book for me came near the end. These are Jaworski’s words. My apologies for any punctuation errors; I worked from an audio version of the book:
“The teachings of right and wrong were forgotten in the White House. Little evils were permitted to grow into great evils. Small sins escalated into big sins. In the hours and hours of tape-recorded conversations to which I listened, not once was there a reference to the glory of God, not once a reference to seeking spiritual guidance through prayer. Our Lord was mentioned, yes; but, on each pitiable occasion, his name was taken in vain. If only there had been an occasional prayer for help—an occasional show of compassion. Why was there not just a simple statement such as, ‘may we hold our honor sacred’?
“How different might have been the course of government if there had been an acknowledgment of God as the source of right instead of a denial of him in a seemingly unending series of ruthless actions.”
July 16, 2024
THE SECOND WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S STATEMENT
Leonidas "Leon" Jaworski (1905-1982) was the second Special Prosecutor during the Watergate Scandal. In addition to this 1976 book, Jaworski also wrote the books 'The Lawyer in Society,' 'Confession and avoidance: A memoir.'
He wrote, "By early January, 1974, it became apparent that President Richard Nixon, for all his public posturing... had decided in private to keep the facts buried." (Pg. 87) Jaworski defends offering plea bargaining to persons such as Charles Colson because "successful plea bargaining was bringing us to a point where I could ask the United States Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and rule on our right to the President's tapes." (Pg. 160)
He quotes lawyer George Frampton's critique of the notion of not prosecuting Nixon after his resignation: "I wonder if ten years from now history will endorse the notion that Mr. Nixon has 'suffered enough.' The powerful men about him have also lost their jobs and been disgraced, but many of them will have lost their liberty and livelihood. Mr. Nixon, on the other hand, will continue to be supported in lavish style with a pension and subsidies at taxpayers' expense until his death... The prospect of Mr. Nixon publishing his memoirs (and thereby adding several million dollars to his net worth) should remind us that unlike his aides ... Mr. Nixon will have the 'last say' about his own role in Watergate if he is not prosecuted. This why... it is important (absent a full admission of guilt) to have some definitive resolution of Mr. Nixon's Watergate actions." (Pg. 227)
Nevertheless, Jaworski admitted that if the court had asked him whether he believed that Nixon could receive a prompt, fair trial, "I would have to answer, as an officer of the court, in the negative. If the question was then asked as to how long it would be before Nixon could (be tried), I would have to say in fairness that I did not know." (Pg. 238) He also refused to "procure an indictment of Richard M. Nixon for the sole purpose of generating a purported court test on the legality of the pardon (by President Ford)," as this "would constitute a spurious proceeding in which I had no faith." (Pg. 248, 255)
He concluded on the note, "From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known: our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one---absolutely no one---is above the law." (Pg. 279)
As Jaworski was definitely one of the "key players" of Watergate, this is essential reading for students of the scandal.
Leonidas "Leon" Jaworski (1905-1982) was the second Special Prosecutor during the Watergate Scandal. In addition to this 1976 book, Jaworski also wrote the books 'The Lawyer in Society,' 'Confession and avoidance: A memoir.'
He wrote, "By early January, 1974, it became apparent that President Richard Nixon, for all his public posturing... had decided in private to keep the facts buried." (Pg. 87) Jaworski defends offering plea bargaining to persons such as Charles Colson because "successful plea bargaining was bringing us to a point where I could ask the United States Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and rule on our right to the President's tapes." (Pg. 160)
He quotes lawyer George Frampton's critique of the notion of not prosecuting Nixon after his resignation: "I wonder if ten years from now history will endorse the notion that Mr. Nixon has 'suffered enough.' The powerful men about him have also lost their jobs and been disgraced, but many of them will have lost their liberty and livelihood. Mr. Nixon, on the other hand, will continue to be supported in lavish style with a pension and subsidies at taxpayers' expense until his death... The prospect of Mr. Nixon publishing his memoirs (and thereby adding several million dollars to his net worth) should remind us that unlike his aides ... Mr. Nixon will have the 'last say' about his own role in Watergate if he is not prosecuted. This why... it is important (absent a full admission of guilt) to have some definitive resolution of Mr. Nixon's Watergate actions." (Pg. 227)
Nevertheless, Jaworski admitted that if the court had asked him whether he believed that Nixon could receive a prompt, fair trial, "I would have to answer, as an officer of the court, in the negative. If the question was then asked as to how long it would be before Nixon could (be tried), I would have to say in fairness that I did not know." (Pg. 238) He also refused to "procure an indictment of Richard M. Nixon for the sole purpose of generating a purported court test on the legality of the pardon (by President Ford)," as this "would constitute a spurious proceeding in which I had no faith." (Pg. 248, 255)
He concluded on the note, "From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known: our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one---absolutely no one---is above the law." (Pg. 279)
As Jaworski was definitely one of the "key players" of Watergate, this is essential reading for students of the scandal.
January 29, 2024
This firsthand account of prosecuting Watergate was genuinely fascinating. As the American public lost faith in the integrity of the Presidency, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the concept of executive privilege and forced Nixon to comply with the Special Prosecution Force. The book also contains excerpts of transcripts subpoenaed from the Oval Office, Chief Justice Burger’s Opinion Piece, and letters between St. Clair and Jaworski. Coming from someone who is not a huge fan of nonfiction typically, I would even go so far as to consider this a page turner.
September 27, 2022
An unbelievable amount of detail and explanation.
June 2, 2015
For anyone interested in Watergate, the prosecution of President Nixon, White House aides, and CREEP staff members -- this is THE book to read. It's written in the contemporary time, so it has a "freshness" to the Watergate Special Prosecutor's thoughts/memories. He also writes in a "just the facts" lawyerly manner, laying out the case against all the defendants, fully explaining exactly what we now refer to as the "Watergate" crimes, and the case against the President. It is thorough, but enjoyable and not at all dry (one chapter is a listing and explanation of the charges & a Watergate timeline of the event, but it still comes across as interesting). From the Supreme Court to the White House to the impeachment proceedings in the U.S. House, this book hits everything in our national government during Watergate. Definite recommend.
May 8, 2009
A useful piece of the Nixon puzzle, I enjoyed this book for its first-hand account of a time of great turmoil in our nation. This is particularly useful as a history of the independent prosecutor's office.
January 30, 2013
This was a tough read. There were a lot of letters back and forth between Jaworski and the White House and various Courts. There were many legal pleadings or decisions. It was well documented and, again, contradicted many of the other Watergate books, which I expected.
February 17, 2013
About the only reason I don't give this and similar books a "5" is that this was the era of "piling on." Anything that spread bile about Nixon was taken as true hook, line and sinker. I happen to think Nixon was a thug, but there are limits.
May 26, 2013
A thorough and easy to read account of his role as Special Prosecutor (after Archibald Cox) of the Watergate affair. He adds his thoughtful and balanced judgements to the historical account. An excellent primer of what occurred and how it was adjudicated.
December 5, 2009
Starting about page 111 is a great summary of what the Watergate scandal was all about.
December 3, 2020
Somewhat dry at times, but very informative and worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews