What do you think?
Rate this book
Witness to Power: The Nixon Years
Provides the definitive, inside account of the Nixon presidency, describing the events, people, and especially, the fascinating personality of Richard Nixon and exploring the uses and abuses, the fascination and toll of power
432 pages, Hardcover
First published February 26, 1982
8 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
About the author
John Ehrlichman
18 books10 followersJohn Daniel Ehrlichman was counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon. He was a key figure in events leading to the Watergate first break-in and the ensuing Watergate scandal, for which he was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and served a year and a half in prison.
Following his release from prison, Ehrlichman held a number of jobs, first for a quality control firm, then writer, artist and commentator. Ehrlichman wrote several novels, including The Company, which served as the basis for the 1977 television miniseries Washington: Behind Closed Doors. He served as the executive vice president of an Atlanta hazardous materials firm. In a 1981 interview, Ehrlichman referred to Nixon as a "very pathetic figure in American history." His experiences in the Nixon administration were published in his 1982 book, Witness To Power.
Ehrlichman died of complications from diabetes in Atlanta in 1999, after discontinuing dialysis treatments.
Following his release from prison, Ehrlichman held a number of jobs, first for a quality control firm, then writer, artist and commentator. Ehrlichman wrote several novels, including The Company, which served as the basis for the 1977 television miniseries Washington: Behind Closed Doors. He served as the executive vice president of an Atlanta hazardous materials firm. In a 1981 interview, Ehrlichman referred to Nixon as a "very pathetic figure in American history." His experiences in the Nixon administration were published in his 1982 book, Witness To Power.
Ehrlichman died of complications from diabetes in Atlanta in 1999, after discontinuing dialysis treatments.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 10, 2020
Interesting view of the Nixon campaigns 1960, 1962, 1968 & 1972, and the Nixon white house. Less then a quarter of the book is about Watergate. One insiders view of Nixon and Watergate. Ehrlichman admits his own guilt, but he make the case that Mitchell, Dean, Colson and Nixon are the most guilty players in the Watergate affair. It was interesting for me to read this part of not too distance American history, since most of it took place when I was in high school and college. I got to see a little bit of it first hand since I went to College at GWU starting in the fall of 1972, just a couple of blocks from the white house. I was at Nixon's second inauguration. I was in the courtroom for one morning of John Mitchell's Watergate trail.
December 14, 2012
Memoirs from those involved in Watergate and the Nixon Presidency are a dicey proposition. Now, those involved in events have knowledge and insights not necessarily available from others. But, as we’re dealing with illegal and unethical activities, you can assume that the author is trying to look as good as he possibly can. John Ehrlichman writes a very interesting biography that gives an inside look at the Nixon White House. In fact, Watergate is just a relatively minor portion of this book. And some of it is undoubtedly accurate. But, in light of what we know from the tapes, transcripts and other books on the subject, most of this tome should be taken with a grain of salt.
He breaks out several chapters based on his experiences with different areas, such as the Nixon Cabinet, the Congress, the President’s two brothers (oh, that Donald!) and such. Much of what he has to say is quite interesting, such as the Cabinet chapter.
George Romney was a popular Michigan governor and 1968 Presidential hopeful. He also fathered the Mormon 2012 Presidential candidate, Mitt. In 1970, he was Nixon’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, announced a cut in his own salary to help balance the budget. Nixon disparaged it as “an ineffective grandstand play,” and said he wanted Romney fired. While Nixon juggled cabinet members, he played it like a fantasy baseball game, talking endlessly about various moves before actually doing it: Romney didn’t leave until 1973. But two days after blasting Romney, he asked Eherlichman how they could reduce the President’s salary by $25,000; while increasing his pension by the same amount. That’s a pretty good snapshot of the type of man Richard Nixon was.
Nixon’s dealings with his cabinet member make one think of a bully. He had little respect for most of them, yet hated confrontations, so he tried to appear that he appreciated them yet refused to actually meet with them. He ran an administrative presidency, where Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were more powerful than his Cabinet members. His preferred tactic was to disempower Cabinet Secretaries in hopes that they would quit, rather than force him to fire them. Ehrlichman was often the man in the middle and recounts several instances of this sort of thing. Including two near revolts from Cabinet members who resented the barriers the President had erected before himself.
To quote Nixon on the Cabinet: “I’ve wasted a lot of time on the Cabinet problem. We should put more emphasis on the subcabinet and the Administrative wives (wives of appointees)….The boats and Camp David – that has now been done, as afar as the Cabinet is concerned. No more. The Cabinet has no divine right to such things.” Nixon was a petty and power hungry man.
We also learn of Nixon’s active attempts to get rid of sitting Supreme Court judges so he could appoint his own ‘strict constructionists.’ Those early nominees are largely forgotten today, but the names Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell do not reflect well on Richard Nixon’s character.
The Nixon White House was clearly in no hurry for desegregation (I believe that Nixon was a bigot and Ehrlichman’s stories certainly don’t change my opinion) and the Nixon – Hoover relationship is addressed.
Ehrlichman, not known for a sharp wit, displays such in his writing. However, his justification of his confrontational approach to the Senate Watergate Committee rings hollow and (justifiably) he clearly feels bitterness towards Richard Nixon. As you might have guessed, he’s not much of a John Dean fan.
He breaks out several chapters based on his experiences with different areas, such as the Nixon Cabinet, the Congress, the President’s two brothers (oh, that Donald!) and such. Much of what he has to say is quite interesting, such as the Cabinet chapter.
George Romney was a popular Michigan governor and 1968 Presidential hopeful. He also fathered the Mormon 2012 Presidential candidate, Mitt. In 1970, he was Nixon’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, announced a cut in his own salary to help balance the budget. Nixon disparaged it as “an ineffective grandstand play,” and said he wanted Romney fired. While Nixon juggled cabinet members, he played it like a fantasy baseball game, talking endlessly about various moves before actually doing it: Romney didn’t leave until 1973. But two days after blasting Romney, he asked Eherlichman how they could reduce the President’s salary by $25,000; while increasing his pension by the same amount. That’s a pretty good snapshot of the type of man Richard Nixon was.
Nixon’s dealings with his cabinet member make one think of a bully. He had little respect for most of them, yet hated confrontations, so he tried to appear that he appreciated them yet refused to actually meet with them. He ran an administrative presidency, where Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were more powerful than his Cabinet members. His preferred tactic was to disempower Cabinet Secretaries in hopes that they would quit, rather than force him to fire them. Ehrlichman was often the man in the middle and recounts several instances of this sort of thing. Including two near revolts from Cabinet members who resented the barriers the President had erected before himself.
To quote Nixon on the Cabinet: “I’ve wasted a lot of time on the Cabinet problem. We should put more emphasis on the subcabinet and the Administrative wives (wives of appointees)….The boats and Camp David – that has now been done, as afar as the Cabinet is concerned. No more. The Cabinet has no divine right to such things.” Nixon was a petty and power hungry man.
We also learn of Nixon’s active attempts to get rid of sitting Supreme Court judges so he could appoint his own ‘strict constructionists.’ Those early nominees are largely forgotten today, but the names Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell do not reflect well on Richard Nixon’s character.
The Nixon White House was clearly in no hurry for desegregation (I believe that Nixon was a bigot and Ehrlichman’s stories certainly don’t change my opinion) and the Nixon – Hoover relationship is addressed.
Ehrlichman, not known for a sharp wit, displays such in his writing. However, his justification of his confrontational approach to the Senate Watergate Committee rings hollow and (justifiably) he clearly feels bitterness towards Richard Nixon. As you might have guessed, he’s not much of a John Dean fan.
August 17, 2013
This book is basically well written but is telling in ways I doubt that Ehrlichman intended. He spends much time attempting to counter public perception and paint himself as an efficient, yet less than ideologically rabid, "Nixon loyalist". I have no doubt that he was considerably less enamored of Nixon after his conviction and incarceration, but no matter how hard he tried in the book and other attempts through the years, he remained "damned" by his own voice on the tapes. He spins and spins, in a very lawyerly fashion, trying to finesse innocence out of his guilty utterances. Where he knows this can't succeed, he claims not he, but Halderman, is the actual speaker. I found these arguements less than convincing, in large part because of the "tells" found in the sections of the book that are not connected to Watergate.
As he relates his experiences "Witnessing Power", his negative assessments of others and transparent, various attempts to relate "if only they had listened to me from the start" anecdotes, he thinks he is providing a newer, fuller, more sympathetic version of the Ehrlichman he wished the world could see. In fact, he simply reinforces the image he is attempting to counter. Those who give him trouble are characterized as "not very bright" or "lazy" or opperating outside of their limited abilities. It all serves to emphasize that despite what he wants us to think, he really was, and remained, an arrogant bully who could never quite stomach, or even believe, he was accountable in the real world for actions his obviously superior intellect had rationalized as legitimate. Especially interesting to me are the ways he ravages Nixon by spilling beans wholey unrelated to Watergate. It is all about contrast. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's racism. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's inability to deal with conflict. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's drunken, private moments. Funny, he was never appalled enough to resign when it might have helped.
This book is worth reading because of the truths it reveals, both through malicious intent and through unintentional seep. I found it fascinating on multiple levels but mostly for reasons Ehrlichman surely never intended. I would recommend reading it more for the insight it provides into the author's character than for it's value as an insider's view of watergate.
As he relates his experiences "Witnessing Power", his negative assessments of others and transparent, various attempts to relate "if only they had listened to me from the start" anecdotes, he thinks he is providing a newer, fuller, more sympathetic version of the Ehrlichman he wished the world could see. In fact, he simply reinforces the image he is attempting to counter. Those who give him trouble are characterized as "not very bright" or "lazy" or opperating outside of their limited abilities. It all serves to emphasize that despite what he wants us to think, he really was, and remained, an arrogant bully who could never quite stomach, or even believe, he was accountable in the real world for actions his obviously superior intellect had rationalized as legitimate. Especially interesting to me are the ways he ravages Nixon by spilling beans wholey unrelated to Watergate. It is all about contrast. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's racism. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's inability to deal with conflict. Ehrlichman is appalled by Nixon's drunken, private moments. Funny, he was never appalled enough to resign when it might have helped.
This book is worth reading because of the truths it reveals, both through malicious intent and through unintentional seep. I found it fascinating on multiple levels but mostly for reasons Ehrlichman surely never intended. I would recommend reading it more for the insight it provides into the author's character than for it's value as an insider's view of watergate.
January 19, 2013
Another pointing fingers book. This one points to Dean(everyone hates Dean), Colson and Nixon.
January 24, 2017
This was a fascinating book for so many reasons; it's It's gossipy and dishy, and you'll learn things about Richard Nixon you didn't even know would interest you.
This follows John Ehrlichman's career from his days as a practicing attorney in Seattle to his fall from federal grace and life in Santa Fe, New Mexico. You'll read about his early involvement in the Nixon campaigm as an advance man. Even the casual student of history has some knowledge about Nixon's farewell speech following a failed bid for the California governorship. What you may not know is the speech, in which he assured the press that it "wouldn't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more," was spontaneous and occurred while Nixon was well and thoroughly hung over.
There is a chapter that focuses on Nixon's family; Ehrlichman had no love for Nixon's brothers. You'll read about a first lady who was often overwhelmed by the job, and a presidential daughter who wanted nothing to do with the social wrappings and trappings that were a part of Nixon's white house years.
This is a fascinating highly readable study of Nixon, his flaws and graces, and his relationships with others. He seemed to hate former Treasury Secretary David M. Kennedy, and he complained bitterly and often about Henry Kissinger and former Secretary of State William Rogers. In fact, this is a snapshot of a presidential cabinet so embroiled in hatred for one another and knives-out ego and power plays that it's a wonder anything got done for the benefit of the country.
Ehrlichman comes off here rather far more more the angelic victim than I'm comfortable buying into, but such is often the nature of memoirs written so soon after life-shattering events.
Mostly, I came away from this book comforted. The divisiveness and presidential dislike for the press that is a main feature of our times was every bit as alive and well in the late '60s and early '70s. There are fascinating parallels that make this book worthy of your time, if you can still find it somewhere.
This follows John Ehrlichman's career from his days as a practicing attorney in Seattle to his fall from federal grace and life in Santa Fe, New Mexico. You'll read about his early involvement in the Nixon campaigm as an advance man. Even the casual student of history has some knowledge about Nixon's farewell speech following a failed bid for the California governorship. What you may not know is the speech, in which he assured the press that it "wouldn't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more," was spontaneous and occurred while Nixon was well and thoroughly hung over.
There is a chapter that focuses on Nixon's family; Ehrlichman had no love for Nixon's brothers. You'll read about a first lady who was often overwhelmed by the job, and a presidential daughter who wanted nothing to do with the social wrappings and trappings that were a part of Nixon's white house years.
This is a fascinating highly readable study of Nixon, his flaws and graces, and his relationships with others. He seemed to hate former Treasury Secretary David M. Kennedy, and he complained bitterly and often about Henry Kissinger and former Secretary of State William Rogers. In fact, this is a snapshot of a presidential cabinet so embroiled in hatred for one another and knives-out ego and power plays that it's a wonder anything got done for the benefit of the country.
Ehrlichman comes off here rather far more more the angelic victim than I'm comfortable buying into, but such is often the nature of memoirs written so soon after life-shattering events.
Mostly, I came away from this book comforted. The divisiveness and presidential dislike for the press that is a main feature of our times was every bit as alive and well in the late '60s and early '70s. There are fascinating parallels that make this book worthy of your time, if you can still find it somewhere.
November 6, 2025
The irony of this and other Watergate books is that if you assemble all who were convicted or pardoned you could never achieve a concensus about who ordered the breakin. Further irony includes the oatb of office where people swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States coupled with the fact that many of the convicted were attotneys.
I found Ehrlichmans candor interesting despite his viewpoint visualized through the lens that sought to minimize his culpability. What I found interesting wes the author's insight into Nixons thoughts and style and how it breeded a culture that often pitted players against each other as people sought to hold a higher mantle of power and influence.
The statement attributed to Carl Bernstien that the system worked may be tarnished by historical revisionists. Those of us who lived it watching as spectators may view the process as having worked, 'at that point in time'. Its hard to accept that those who rationalized that the ends justified the means should cling to their percieved and actual injustice by those prosecuting them. Not getting caught in a lie and telling the truth sre not the same thing. Whats not asked or answered here is, Once crossing the threshold of legality occurred why didn't he or others walk away?
I found Ehrlichmans candor interesting despite his viewpoint visualized through the lens that sought to minimize his culpability. What I found interesting wes the author's insight into Nixons thoughts and style and how it breeded a culture that often pitted players against each other as people sought to hold a higher mantle of power and influence.
The statement attributed to Carl Bernstien that the system worked may be tarnished by historical revisionists. Those of us who lived it watching as spectators may view the process as having worked, 'at that point in time'. Its hard to accept that those who rationalized that the ends justified the means should cling to their percieved and actual injustice by those prosecuting them. Not getting caught in a lie and telling the truth sre not the same thing. Whats not asked or answered here is, Once crossing the threshold of legality occurred why didn't he or others walk away?
March 5, 2021
I thought it should be a good read at least, since he wrote several successful novels after he wrote this. And it was. Though maybe not the page-turner his mystery/thrillers supposedly were.
It’s the most detailed and policy oriented of the Nixon administration books I’ve read, which was interesting.
It was nice to see stories about good people. Like John Connelly of Texas, who he said was nice to Erlichman’s 8 year-old son at Camp David and was a warm, friendly guy. He insisted on his privileges when Secretary, but a good guy. It made me remember that these were all complex humans, and they weren’t all criminals and manipulators.
If you want a behind-the-scenes White House book, a Nixon WH book, with details, both policy and personalities, this one is a good choice. I was surprised, I expected this and Haldeman's books to be fluffy, defensive and pretty worthless.
It’s the most detailed and policy oriented of the Nixon administration books I’ve read, which was interesting.
It was nice to see stories about good people. Like John Connelly of Texas, who he said was nice to Erlichman’s 8 year-old son at Camp David and was a warm, friendly guy. He insisted on his privileges when Secretary, but a good guy. It made me remember that these were all complex humans, and they weren’t all criminals and manipulators.
If you want a behind-the-scenes White House book, a Nixon WH book, with details, both policy and personalities, this one is a good choice. I was surprised, I expected this and Haldeman's books to be fluffy, defensive and pretty worthless.
December 14, 2017
The first half offers interesting glimpses into American politics and how presidential administrations are set up. The way the Nixon White House operated (disregard of the competent civil service, with the real power held by presidential advisors over Cabinet members) likely provided an example to Trump and others. However, the second half spends too much time on Watergate and Ehrlichman goes at length to try and convince readers that it was Nixon's fault, and that he was framed (with nothing but his personal recollections to prove his shaky case).
March 18, 2025
A great inside look into how the Nixon administration operated, focusing (obviously) on the domestic policy side. Part IV was about Watergate, so it was gratuitously self-serving, blaming everyone but himself, but that’s to be expected. The other three parts showed us Ehrlichman’s start and rise in Nixon’s admin, as well as how other players interacted (or were barred from reaching) the President. 5 stars for the first 3 parts.
August 8, 2017
It was an interesting take on the Nixon Administration especially on the interactions between the cast of characters who are now famous because of Watergate early before that. However, the focus on Watergate seems like an afterthought and much like the rest of the perspective it exculpates himself from the illegal and his complicity in the greatest scandal of the 20th Administration
January 21, 2018
fascinating frank inside view of a white house in nixon years. power corrupts.
July 2, 2018
Damn, now I guess I have to read every one else's books. Haldeman is next.
June 20, 2021
One of the better books about the Nixon presidency. I’m glad I read it.
April 13, 2023
Not completely chronological.
June 1, 2017
I actually didn't finish this book. I bought it because I'm trying to read all books about Watergate. There was only a small section about this topic. But I thought it would be interesting in light of Trump becoming president. Interesting to understand how a president fills his cabinet and the process. But it was so boring, I stopped mid-way and went straight to the Watergate section.
Even the Watergate chapters was boring. It was basically just him trying to prove his innocence. In regards to what he knew, he tries to defend himself by implying he shouldn't have been convicted because he himself, did nothing wrong. He assumes NO responsibility whatsoever in his involvement. He did absolutely nothing wrong. When he was aware of justice was being obstructed, he felt shouldn't be held guilty for that despite the position he was in.
Even the Watergate chapters was boring. It was basically just him trying to prove his innocence. In regards to what he knew, he tries to defend himself by implying he shouldn't have been convicted because he himself, did nothing wrong. He assumes NO responsibility whatsoever in his involvement. He did absolutely nothing wrong. When he was aware of justice was being obstructed, he felt shouldn't be held guilty for that despite the position he was in.
Read
April 24, 2015Mr. Ehrlichman, who seems very bitter, denies much and blames others - especially John Dean, the Judge, and the senators on the water committee. Mr. Dean deserves much blame, but if what Mr. Ehrlichman says is true, he must've had his head in the sand. Self-delusion, selective memory, lying? Still, a good addition to my Watergate obsession. Onto the Final Days, then back to Haldeman's the ends of Power.
June 2, 2012
One of the better Nixon debacle histories by one of them that was there.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews