The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President

by Geoff Shepard

Geoff Shepard’s shocking exposé of corrupt collusion between prosecutors, judges, and congressional staff to void Nixon’s 1972 landslide reelection. Their success changed the course of American history.

Geoff Shepard had a ringside seat to the unfolding Watergate debacle. As the youngest lawyer on Richard Nixon’s staff, he personally transcribed the Oval Office tape in which Nixon appeared to authorize getting the CIA to interfere with the ongoing FBI investigation, and even coined the phrase “the smoking gun.” Like many others, the idealistic Shepard was deeply disappointed in the president. But as time went on, the meticulous lawyer was nagged by the persistent sense that something wasn’t right with the case against Nixon.

The Nixon Conspiracy is a detailed and definitive account of the Watergate prosecutors’ internal documents uncovered after years of painstaking research in previously sealed archives. Shepard reveals the untold story of how a flawed but honorable president was needlessly brought down by a corrupt, deep state, big media alliance—a circumstance that looks all too familiar today. In this hard-hitting exposé, Shepard reveals the real smoking the prosecutors’ secret, but erroneous, “Road Map” which caused grand jurors to name Nixon a co-conspirator in the Watergate cover-up and the House Judiciary Committee to adopt its primary Article of Impeachment.

Shepard’s startling conclusion is that Nixon didn’t actually have to resign. The proof of his good faith is right there on the tapes. Instead, he should have taken his case to a Senate impeachment trial—where, if everything we know now had come out—he would easily have won.

Genres: History, Politics, Audiobook, Nonfiction, United States, American History, Biography

384 pages, Hardcover

Published November 23, 2021

Reviews

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most important history books of our time; it will completely change the way you understand the Watergate scandal. The author, Geoff Shepard, was an attorney who ended up on Nixon’s defense team, so he has an insider’s perspective, in addition, he has, over the last several years, uncovered documents from the special prosecutors’ files, and succeeded, after a years-long court battle, in getting the infamous “Road Map” unsealed as well. From his personal insights and these documents, you will learn that:
- John Dean, instead of being the hero portrayed by the media, was the person who most deserved to go to jail;
- The presiding judge, John Sirica, Time Magazine’s 1973 Man of the Year, was vain, corrupt, and inept; he held numerous ex parte meetings with special prosecutors to discuss trial strategy, and conspired with them to assign himself to oversee the cover-up trial after presiding over the break-in trial so that he could pursue his vendetta against Nixon, in exchange for helping the special prosecutors to deliver the “road map” to the House Judiciary Committee;
- The special prosecutors were highly partisan: in addition to the above mentioned, highly inappropriate ex parte meetings with Sirica, they withheld exculpatory evidence from defense (in particular, how John Dean’s testimony changed over time as a result of his desire to earn immunity), and claimed that they had evidence that did not exist. Moreover, their mandate allowed them to investigate every aspect of the Nixon presidency from the day he entered office. Nothing like that had ever been done to a president before. No doubt, if Johnson or Kennedy had been subjected to similar scrutiny by one hundred partisan prosecutors, their reputations would have suffered just as Nixon’s did.
- The “road map,” which was key to forcing Nixon’s resignation, contains key assertions of undisputed facts that turn out to be baseless, and omissions that would have helped Nixon’s defense.
In short, Watergate, which I have always thought of as an indictment of one of the most corrupt presidents in our history, is better understood as an entirely partisan effort to overturn unsatisfactory election results.

[Stewart Cotterill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting argument put forward as to why Richard Nixon should not have faced impeachment and thereby should not have had to resign as President of the USA. Whilst I disagree slightly with the conclusions put forward, there is no doubt that this lawyerly argument is well stated and backed up by substantial evidence. The special prosecutors who worked on the various task forces should hang their heads in shame that they relied on what can only be considered unprofessional conduct in their behalf. Further, the Judges should have never allowed political favouritism to colour their judgment, but they did. Whether the arguments put forward by the author, of the frankly illegal work by the special prosecutors and Judges negates the obvious obstruction of justice by Nixon, meaning he didn’t have to resign is up for debate. A really enjoyable presentation of “the other side of the argument”.

[Literati · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trump was Nixoned

All my adult life I believed that Nixon was framed, he was the first potus I ever voted for and by absentee ballot from Vietnam. My father, a staunch conservative and veteran of the Korean War almost had a nervous breakdown over Nixon's resignation. I only wished he would have lived to read this book.

[Sylvia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was challenging to get through due the various names, details, timelines and my general lack of judicial and political knowledge, BUT it was so worth it!!
Geoff Shepard worked for Nixon and even at such close distance he too was disappointed at Nixon’s criminal behavior exposed with the smoking gun tape. It will be decades later after a sitting president was forced into resignation that Geoff finds out the truth.

The two key dates are March 21st, 1973 and June 23rd, 1972.

On the morning of March 21st, 1973, Nixon is informed of Hunt’s demand for hush money. 10 hours later Hunt is given $75,000 cash for his lawyer fees. The prosecutors concluded that it was Nixon who ordered the money to be paid. They built their whole case on that even though they were never able to supply witnesses or concrete documentation of Nixon giving the order for the hush money. Larue’s testimony consistently states that he met with Mitchell to pay Hunt the morning of 3/21 which would have been before the meeting with Nixon which ended after 11am. Not to mention that the prosecutor met with the presiding Judge Sirica in secret on multiple occasions. How was this allowed??

On June 23rd, 1972 was the date of the smoking gun tape. On it Nixon tells Haldeman he wants the CIA to stop the FBI investigation into Watergate. This is when Nixon decided to resign in August 1974 and left the oval office. He lost the support and respect of his closest base.
Decades later after looking closely at tape transcripts, the truth comes out. In the smoking gun tape, Nixon wanted the CIA to stop the FBI investigation into the bank leaks so that the two prominent democrat donors would not be exposed and embarrassed. FBI did not stop but at the end the names were not revealed. This was of no consequential value and it was soon forgotten.
Nixon did NOT want the Watergate investigation to be stopped, he was talking about something entirely different. In fact, when Hunt demanded money, Nixon wanted to expose the whole thing and undercut the blackmail. He encouraged an aggressive investigation into the watergate matter.
Unfortunately, the lawyers were not aware about the democrat donors and Nixon and Haldeman had long forgotten the context of the tape and took it face value.

The prosecution created The Roadmap with all their accusations of Nixon but the defense was not allowed to see it and therefore prepare a proper defense strategy. President was not allowed a due process as stated in the 5th and 6th amendments.

This was a very systematic, purposeful and highly partisan attack on a sitting president and everyone should educated himself on the matter. Even after all of this is out in the open, if one googles Nixon-Watergate scandal, it still quotes the smoking gun tape as Nixon trying to stop the Watergate investigation. This misinformation should worry every American because history repeats itself. It already has- most recent examples are the impeachments of President Trump and even imprisonment of private citizens in the J6.

[Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Fascinating Read! If you have a desire to be deceptive during your lifetime, go to Law School. It is where you will learn all the tricks of the trade. This book is a must read as you will soon come to realize that President Nixon was obviously railroaded through the wrongdoings of the special Watergate prosecutors. Surreptitiously, these "Lawyers" frequently met secretly with the judges and congressional staff during the course of their investigations to purposely convey unproven allegations. They were also deceptive and very selective in what misinformation they chose to disclose. Had Nixon stayed the course, he may have won a Senate trial. We will never know.

[Randal Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an outstanding book. One of the best I have read in years. It is thoroughly researched and is an absolute page turner. It will leave you outraged that this could happen to not just any President but one of the of the four greatest Presidents in American history. I hope that the Justice Department will investigate and hold the reprehensible human beings in the Watergate Special Prosecutors office that are still living accountable. Nothing short of disbarment would be satisfactory. Well worth the read!!

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I "read" this as an audiobook, which is not optimal given the nature of the book -- a revisionist history critically assessing the establishment Watergate narrative. Shepard was an entry-level White House staffer with a law degree: while not remotely connected to the CRP drama, he did participate in Nixon's defense as a staffer, helping prepare tape transcripts and the like. Although the affair broke his faith in his employee, he also believes it was a miscarriage of justice, more of what we today call 'lawfare' -- an attempt to take down Nixon outside the electoral system. (It's worth noting that Nixon was reelected with a landslide not surpassed until Reagan in '84.) He details a lot of abuses, like the prejudice of the judge and the prosecutor's frequent illicit meetings with him. It's hard for me to judge this as a book since I know so little of Watergate's details -- my opinions on Nixon are based more on his bad economic policies than the kind of skulduggery I assume politicians always get up -- but I enjoyed listening to it and it's possibly whet my appetite to learn more.

[Paul Vawter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know enough about the Watergate situation or the politics of the 1970s to really assess the veracity of Shepard's claims, but he's in a much better position than I am on these matters. I found the account compelling and would love to see a really open investigation take place to either confirm or refute his claim that Nixon was steamrolled by a corrupt political system.

[Nick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Apparently everyone but Richard Nixon is to blame for Watergate. Poor Dick. He's just misunderstood.

Shepard clearly has an axe to grind, especially with John Dead, the biggest devil of them all, followed closely by judge John Sirica. And of course the media, the “Eastern establishment”, the courts, the “career prosecutors” - in short anyone who isn’t a Richard Nixon true believer.

As we will see, Shepard will go through some pretty serious mental gymnastics in an attempt to piece together a new Watergate narrative.


Narrative
Shepard kicks off the book with a bullshit story meant to serve as a template for the reader: I thought Nixon was guilty, but I changed my mind, so you should too:

By August of 1974, America had lost faith in Richard Nixon. I had lost my faith in him, too. This is the story of how I got back my faith and how all of us have gotten it all wrong for so long.

Reading the book it's clear this is nonsense. He never stopped believing in Nixon. It's just a literary device to build a narrative.


18 minute gap
First of all we have the June 20, 1973 tape recorded mere days after the Watergate break in on June 17. That crucial tape had a mysterious 18 minute gap in the middle of the conversation. Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods, always the loyal servant, claimed she was inadvertently responsible for that little oopsie by accidentally erasing it while getting a phone call. In order for that to have happened she would have to assume a position later dubbed the Rose Mary stretch.



Keep in mind she, in order for her story to be true, had to stay in this position for over 18 minutes.

How does Shepard attempt to explain this?

Two further observations that may be of interest. First, the famous picture of the “Rose Mary Stretch” appears to me to be incorrect. That is a picture taken in her ceremonial office, situated between the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room. This was the office shown to the public, demonstrating how wonderfully the president’s secretary was being treated. Let me assure you that such an open and public place was not where Rose or Marge would have been trying to transcribe the tapes. No, it was in that tiny office off to the side and well off the beaten track where they could go to find the silence and privacy they needed to struggle over transcribing those pesky tapes. My guess is that Rose didn’t want to reveal that location and somehow got trapped into doing her demonstration in a much larger office where her supposed “stretch” was unrealistically long.

What Shepard, of course, doesn’t mention is that these pictures were taken and released by the White House itself. And he can’t mention that, because why would the White House intentionally sandbag their own narrative by taking the pictures which are supposed to be their own defense in the wrong location?

But it goes even further than that as described by Garrett Graff in Watergate: A New History:

To test the theory, Volner gave Woods a similar tape recorder and asked her to demonstrate her stretch as she reached for the telephone—as soon as she did, her foot came off the pedal. (A photo later released by the White House of Woods, at her desk, awkwardly re-creating her stretch to answer the phone while keeping her foot on the pedal was almost laughable in her contortions; it ran on the cover of Newsweek with the headline “Rose Mary’s Boo Boo.”)

Even if Woods’s story was believable, it still only accounted for five or six minutes of the eighteen-minute gap, and over the course of the three days, she never tried to offer an explanation for the full loss. Moreover, the timelines she’d listed didn’t add up. Woods said she’d spent more than two hours transcribing the tape on October 1, but the Uher 5000 machine was only delivered to her sometime after 1:15 p.m., and she said she reported the problem to Nixon at 2:08 p.m., a time stamp backed up by White House records.

Again Shepard conveniently leaves this out since it doesn’t fit his attempt at a new narrative.


$1 million in cash
Shepard copies long swathes of text from various sources except the perhaps most crucial one, namely the March 21, 1973 “cancer on the presidency” meeting between Nixon and John Dean. Oh sure, he writes about it, especially in chapter 5, but funnily enough he leaves out the main point of the meeting: The discussion of paying the burglars hush money in cash, where Nixon is the one saying he knows where it could be gotten.

Garrett Graff includes a large part of the conversation in his book Watergate: A New History and it is also included in King Richard by Michael Dobbs.

And if one doesn't believe these authors, who I am sure are part of the same Eastern Establishment cabal Nixon (and Shepard) lamented, the audio recording (Conversation Number: 886-8 circa 30 minutes in) and transcript (page 33) of that meeting are available on the Richard Nixon library website:

“Hunt now is demanding another $72,000 for his own personal expenses; another $50,000 to pay his attorneys’ fees—some $120,000. Wants it—wanted it—by the close of business yesterday,” [Dean] said, adding that Hunt also now was explicitly threatening Ehrlichman and Krogh.

Suddenly the Oval Office conversation took a surprising—and ominous—turn. “It’ll cost money. It’s dangerous. Nobody, nothing—people around here are not pros at this sort of thing,” Dean began. “This is the sort of thing Mafia people can do: washing money, getting clean money, and things like that, uh—we’re—we just don’t know about those things, because we’re not used to—we are not criminals and not used to dealing in that business.”

“That’s right,” Nixon said.

“It’s a tough thing to know how to do,” Dean concurred.

“Maybe we can’t even do that.”

“That’s right,” the counsel replied. “It’s a real problem as to whether we could even do it. Plus there’s a real problem in raising money. Mitchell has been working on raising some money—feeling he’s got, he’s one of the ones with the most to lose. But there’s no denying the fact that the White House, and uh, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Dean are involved in some of the early money decisions.”

“How much money do you need?” the president asked, bluntly.

“I would say these people are going to cost, uh, a million dollars over the next, uh, two years,” Dean guessed.

“We could get that,” Nixon said. “On the money, if you need the money, I mean, you could get the money. You could get a million dollars. And you could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten.”

Once again, confronted with a decision point that was clearly illegal, the president did not condemn or reject the possibility, but instead chose to advance the scheme himself. There was no question that the hush money would continue—the debate was only over where it would come from and who would deliver it.

Later in the conversation Nixon sums it up:

"First you’ve got the Hunt problem. That ought to be handled.” As they prepared to wrap up, Nixon made a final point: “No problem, we could, we could get the money. There is no problem in that. We can’t provide the clemency. The money can be provided. Mitchell could provide the way to deliver it. That could be done.”

It’s blatantly clear why Shepard conveniently leaves out this crucial conversation in his book, since it blows his ludicrous thesis that Nixon didn’t know about or was part of any cover up straight out of the fucking water.


Smoking gun
And then we get to the so called “smoking gun” tape from June 23, 1972 (Conversation Number: 741-2).

Shepard’s new narrative is that the attempt to get the CIA to put a halt to the FBI investigation wasn’t about stopping the investigation in toto. It was to protect Democratic donors who had raised funds for Nixon’s re-election campaign from embarrassment:

The sole purpose of involving the CIA was not to interfere with the FBI’s investigation but to prevent disclosure of the identities of two prominent Democrat donors. Critics can quibble over whether even such a limited effort constituted a technical obstruction of justice, but in no one’s book does it rise to the level of the sort of high crime or misdemeanor necessary to impeach a president.

It doesn't matter if Shepard's attempt ar a new narrative would happen to be true: This “limited effort” is not a hypothetical “technical obstruction of justice”, it is obstruction of justice.


Media
Shepard goes on an on about the media having double standards, scrutinizing a Republican president in a way they would never do to a Democrat one, or what he calls "the media double standard on most things Republican".

Meanwhile, in The Wars of Watergate Stanley Kutler paints the following picture of how the media covered the president immediately preceding Nixon, Lyndon Johnson (of course a Democrat) in the later stages of his administration:

The ever-growing hostility alarmed and saddened some reporters. The New York Times’s White House correspondent, Max Frankel, told the President’s Press Secretary that it was “most painful for me to see my President being cut up.” Frankel complained that Johnson and his staff had fostered the bitterness, but he also acknowledged that both sides had lavished excessive attention “on the most petty aspects of policy and personality.” Why, he said, “must we all punish each other so strenuously on things that don’t [count]?” UPI’s White House correspondent, Merriman Smith, whose son had been killed in Vietnam, told his colleagues that Johnson was “the object of some of the worst vilification—even obscenity—that I’ve seen or heard in more than 25 years on the White House assignment.

As LBJ declined to seek a second (and a half) term, he too blamed the media:

The President’s withdrawal was cloaked in typical, albeit understandable, secrecy. The day after announcing it, Johnson insisted that his action had been long planned and had nothing to do with his declining political fortunes. Nevertheless, it seemed—and again, the perception was important—that media and street politics had, for the first time, driven a president from the White House. Johnson acknowledged as much when in a speech to broadcasters in Chicago on April 1, he blamed the failure of the war on the media which had fostered and marshaled unfair opposition to that war and his policies.

So politicians' preoccupation with the media doesn't seem to have to do with the coverage per se; the just wish the media would cover someone or something else.

That said, there is a problem with media bias. And it is a problem still to this day, something which have become blatantly obvious with their consistently pro-Israeli coverage of the Jewish apartheid regime's genocide in Palestine, and in a longer perspective their full support for US imperialism. But the remedy is hardly the one suggested by Shepard: more biased and sectarian media, just with a different slant.


Final words
I was looking forward to reading this book, as it is valuable to look at events from different angles. And Shepard does have some points regarding judge John Sirica’s actions and media bias.

But it is so dishonestly written that it's difficult to take seriously. This book truly is incredible - not as in extraordinary, but as in too improbable to be believed. With the examples listed above in mind, what else has Shepard misrepresented in order to construct his new narrative?

Shepard comes off as naïve, duped or duplicitous as the kind of people who claim that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust since there doesn't exist a written document from Hitler ordering the extermination of minorities.

If this is the only book you read about Watergate your view of this story will be very skewed.

[Innocent · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book written by Geoff Shepard, who served in the Nixon Administration as Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs immediately after he had graduated from Harvard Law School in 1969. An excellent look back at the Watergate scandal from a someone on the inside of the scandal. Detailed and legalistic, this book serves as a counterpoint argument to the totality of history's view that Watergate was entirely Nixon's fault, and that the ensuing investigation was entirely morally righteous. Well-written, though yet, sometimes this book veers of into political bias and spite resentments, with many unnecessary present-day political comparisons needlessly sprinkled throughout. Overall, an interesting book if you are seeking an investigative look on an open-and-shut legal case already consigned to history.

[Ron · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book looking into the Watergate events. Mr. Sherpard has uncovered, through recent released documents, what really happened and events that didn't need to take place. A must read for anyone interested in this time in history. The Watergate outcome would have been different if a certain group fall back on their dirty and evil doings. They are doing the same things today, along with the mainstream media (MSM).

[Urey Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shepard was a White House staffer during the Nixon administration. He was untainted by the Watergate scandal, but was familiar with the people involved on both sides of the investigations that transpired, and was engaged with the White House defense team. Over the years since, he has researched in depth the scandal, its evolution, the inves6tigative process and the activities and operations of the prosecuting staff as well as the White House pirnci0plals involved in the scandal. In 2018, additional records were released comprising much, if not most, of the prosecution records, memos, personal notes and policy and planning documents. The final analysis, offered with compelling evidence and documentation is that Nixon was railroaded out of office wi5thout cause.

The Special Prosecutor and his staff were determined to get Nixon. They were not investigating to determine whether a crime was commited and who did it – they had decided up front that Nixon had committed a crime and were investigating to confirm that. As a result, the Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox and later Leon Jaworski) and the huge staff supporting them colluded in secret with the trial judge Sirica on numerous occasions to facilitate their case, colluded with the DC Court of Appeals to insure that any appeals of Sirica’s decisions were fast-tracked to approval. They ignored exculpatory evidence, altered testimony, created false facts, and conspired successfully to release selected secret Federal Grand Jury testimony curated out of context. When the House Judiciary Committee was dilatory in its impeachment investigations, they provided staff, documentation including Grand Jury materials to advance the process and direct the results. There is more – much more – and it all comes from the actual long-sealed records of the Special Prosecutors themselves. Shepard painstakingly takes the reader through it, event by event, putting it and the people involved all in context. Although he was convinced of Nixon’s guilt in the aftermath of Watergate, he has now learned, and proved, the opposite.

There exists in the ruling class that populates much of our senior government (elected appointed and hired positions) a level of bonhomie, a shared heritage that crosses partisan lines. They attended the same schools, write letters of recommendation for each other’s children, share the same social and cultural circles, institutions and experiences. It is an insider’s world, and when an outsider intrudes, they resent it. They resist. And Nixon was an outsider – he was detested within the inner sanctums of Washington. The same dynamic has been in play, perhaps more intensively, regarding Trump and has continued ever since his unexpected and unwelcome election in 2016.

What was done to Nixon, and how it was done, is beyond outrageous. It is fascinating to read, and Shepard has built a compelling case – an irrefutable case. It is the antithesis of legal due process, constitutional rights, and fair play. And it is still with us today.

[AttackGirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dry talking about everything like um…you already know the complete story and how the government and all its different offices, their responsibilities and how they work and who works there… back then. Do you even know how they work now? How about a break down of key watergate players? No of course not!

So, good luck trying to enjoy the story. I just noticed on the left side of the screen the 4.47 star rating. I’m going to have to go read a little of them. Wonder what the typical age of readers and 4.47 readers is/are.

Hmm

On a different note I’ve started to read these books about Nixon because of the ‘shorts’. He is extremely smart and articulate and I’ve enjoyed watching him. He changed the landscape of the USA government and world which I think is the game plan for single term presidents.

Even if he took the impeachment investigation he did NOT have to resign as we have witnessed with Trump over and over so really who holds the power. I will tell you this one which is still completely untested! Completely untested. Did you hear what I said? Completely untested. People are shocked about Trump but even he has not come anywhere close to using any authority of his office. If he wanted to eliminate the whole CIA, FBI, IRS change any thing he could with the swipe of his pen. PERIOD! He is the executive! Yes people would act crazy demand all kinds of idiocy but it wouldn’t matter he could close door on all of it because he was elected by the people of the USA his whole complete purpose is to carry out the will of the people or should I say voters…. Their kids? The popular vote..era. NO!

He could immediately cut the government in half! Close it all down, do whatever he wanted with the legal people they ALL fall under him!

Completely Untested! Unexercised because as this book points out the media control of the news cycle and what did Trump have to answer to all the ‘leaks’. NO he didn’t have to answer anything at all, I think he should move the media Out of the Whitehouse!

Untested! Unexercised! A puppet. We have yet to see a real executive using real leadership under his authority given to him by the founding documents!

[Sean Claycamp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Shepard has taken the time… it appears to be his entire life… to thoroughly research Watergate and come to a conclusion that Nixon was not guilty of the high crimes he was accused of. Shepard’s arguments are centered in legal parlance and prosecutorial infringement but his core thesis is sound.
Nixon was a flawed man who became more flawed as his political world shrunk during his time in the White House. He was paranoid and probably focused too much on his enemies.
But there was a “Get Nixon” crowd who at the very least used the press and shoddy investigative practices to prosecute Nixon associates and eventually the president himself. At the very worst, intelligence agencies and mouthpieces in the media leveraged the worst parts of the cloak and dagger world to ruin a presidency and force him out of office solely because he was increasingly not one of them and was working towards getting out of Vietnam, normalizing relations with China and the Soviets, and limiting the reach of crony capitalists in the third world.
In no way does it appear Shepard is excusing Nixon’s worst traits and underhanded use of the plumbers. What he does do though clearly is point out that John Dean dug a hole that Nixon couldn’t detect and then the president fell right in it. Then Dean flipped to save himself and Nixon clumsily tangled himself deeper in the coverup.
John Dean is one of the worst Americans ever. He was disbarred and has never practiced law again. He and Bob Woodward are mouthpieces for the blob and intelligence agencies who operate outside the law. Shepard points to the early days of that potential development and we’d be wise to see it now.
It’s a clear and present danger to the US.

[Max Stirner · Rating 5 out of 5]

A mixture of memoir, investigatory journalism, legal analysis and political thriller.
The points it is making – Nixon's lacking involvement in Watergate, improper and unconstitutional conduct by politically biased special prosecutors, judges and politicians and their collusion with each other, misunderstandings of key evidence, Dean's role, among other things – are very well argued and presented clearly and entertainingly, with many references to their evidential support.
The people, settings, scenes, events, especially the ones to which Shepard was a personal witness to, were described wonderfully. At times an exciting, nostalgic, bitter-sweet trip down memory lane.
The whole tragic saga and all of their key players were enormously thrilling and interesting and the author did a great job at highlighting and commentating the various ironies and fateful moments, sometimes humorously, sometimes very poignantly.
9/10

[Tammy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book blew my mind. I had no idea. There was any other version that what we’ve always heard. I love the way. The author started off from his perspective when his time working with the Nixon administration ended and then moved backwards working through all the different pieces that were left out of a much bigger story. I will definitely be reading this one again as there were so many details that made my head explode at times. But he did such a good job of explaining a very complex and complicated situation. It is hard for me to understand how many times we believe partial truth about real people because it fits a narrative that pushes us towards agenda.I’ve read other books on Nixon and I wonder if those authors would have written a different story had they known the full truth? Must read.

[Travis Trupe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shepard gives a detailed and substantive account of the facts and reality of the watergate scandal. The truth is you find that the real scandal was not in Nixon and his team, but the judgments thrown upon from a corroborative gang in a corrupt system that only meant to oust someone who didn’t play ball their way.

The smoking gun tape was not damning evidence and not interpreted right, and the only person that brought on the so called evidence against Nixon was one who changed his story multiple times to get all he could out of it.

This book shows the coup of the Nixon era.

[Paulfrancis O'sullivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prosecutorial misconduct

Though I lived through Watergate, I had no recollection before that of all those on the House Judiciary Committee, only the chair and the ranking member saw the “Road Map,” the prosecutors’ summary of the charges that could be brought against Richard Nixon, from the special counsel’s office. Would this long-hidden evidence and other evidence have come out at trial in the Senate?

[Jill Bowman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating. I remember the trials and the news. My mother was OBSESSED so we had it on constantly. Even to the point of having a tv under the awning of our trailer at the beach campground. But I was about 14, so no details.

This was eye opening especially the information that became available in 2018 - and what a farce this was. They were SO out to get this President it was ridiculous. At least this can never happen again… 🙄

[Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" (Polish proverb)

It’s a hell of a theory, Geoff.

I really enjoyed this book. I think it’s a critical counter narrative that really throws shade on Dean and Sirica, and many others, as putting up a frame job on Nixon, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman. I’m not entirely convinced but it’s an intriguing and firsthand account. There’s very interesting leads. Will have more to say in the future.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important read for those like myself who absorbed the popular story around Nixon growing up. Turns out, it's not so simple. Geoff Shepard is detailed and makes a strong case for Nixon's innocence.

[Kurt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful document of History. Hifhly reccommend