To Set the Record Straight: The Break-In, the Tapes, the Conspirators, the Pardon

by John J. Sirica

Judge Sirica's recollections of his childhood, legal careers, and friends and advisers met along the way are overshadowed by his account of his role in the Watergate case and of all the people and issues it involved

Genres: History, Politics, American History, Biography, Nonfiction, True Crime, Law

394 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 1979

Reviews

[Namera [The Literary Invertebrate] · Rating 5 out of 5]

It sounds weird to say that one of my comfort reads is the memoirs of the judge who presided over the Watergate trials. But you know what? It damn well is.

I first got super interested in the Watergate scandal last summer. I read practically everything I could get my hands on - the two excellent books by Bernstein and Woodward, of course, but also a bunch of autobiographies from key figures. This is one of the best ones. Sirica is lucid, a little sardonic, honest, straightforward, and trustworthy. He is a product of a bygone age, a political man with no political partisanship, a Republican who works to bring down a Republican president because it's the right thing to do.

I'm grateful he's not here to see what a mockery Trump has made of the office of President.

[Blog] - [Bookstagram]

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important character's perspective on a key moment in our history, one that ultimately, which much anguish and gnashing of teeth, reaffirmed the durability of the American system, in the aggregate if not always in the particular.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book containing probably the most honest description of Watergate. I read a plethora of those books back in 1976, when many came out. Most of those authors had an "axe to grind." Sirica didn't. I am a lawyer but I felt his explanation of the legal process was classic.

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good description of the various crimes and the judicial process.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE JUDGE OVER THE WATERGATE AFFAIR TELLS HIS STORY

John Joseph Sirica (1904-1992) became famous for his role in the Watergate scandal, when he ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over his recordings of White House conversations. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1979 book, "I received scores of letters from friends and from the general public urging that I set down my own impressions of that crucial period in our national history... I also found that many of the previous accounts were self-serving. I felt I had an obligation to set the record straight... I have deliberately avoided making this a book for lawyers alone... my desire is that the young people in this country ... will see that our system works... and that it must be nurtured and preserved..."

He wryly notes, "I remember that back on April 30, 1973, President Nixon, then trying to save himself from the Watergate scandal, told the nation I was 'a courageous judge.' I wonder why he didn't tell the nation then that the sentences I had imposed on March 23, 1973 were outrageous. I guess he misspoke himself, as he did frequently during that period." (Pg. 86)

Commenting on the transcripts which Nixon provided of some of the tapes, he notes, "Compared to the tapes I had heard, the transcripts were mild indeed. In places where the president had used one vulgarity or another, the transcripts noted 'expletive deleted.' This phrase was repeated so often in the texts that it became a national joke... More important than the deletion of curses, however, was the editing out of long and critical sections of the conversations. I... found the stunning 'I don't give a s___' quote missing... with the most incriminating statements by the president either fuzzed over or missing altogether, so that the real impact of that tape was gone." (Pg. 176)

He is critical of President Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, observing that "though publicity surrounding the case would indeed have been a problem, it would not have been an insurmountable one... The argument came to this: Nixon couldn't be properly tried because he wouldn't allow anyone to try him properly." (Pg. 186) Noting that Nixon often claimed that his reluctance to "clean house" was based on his loyalty to his staff; Sirica adds, "The tapes paint quite a different picture, showing not a president worried about the welfare of his aides, but rather a president worried about his own political skin. And in the end... the very aides Nixon said he wanted to protect were the men who suffered most, serving jail terms while their chief escaped that fate." (Pg. 190)

His ultimate conclusion on Nixon is that "If Nixon had had the character of President Eisenhower... this scandal would never have happened... I regret that I supported him in his national campaigns. I hope no political party will ever stoop so low as to embrace the likes of Richard Nixon again." (Pg. 192)

One of the most interesting of the various Watergate memoirs, this one is essential reading for anyone studying Watergate.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid 4-star as a personal angle and first-draft-of-history take on Watergate by the man who was, more than anybody other than Nixon himself, at the center of the storm.

It has normal first-draft limitations. We know so much more about the backstory today.

And, the real reason no fifth star? Page 212:

But it seemed fairly clear that the Constitution prescribed that Congress, through the impeachment process, should have the primary jurisdiction over a president who committed criminal acts.

NO. And I don't care if you're John Sirica. It neither says nor implies that. And, this is also the bad thinking behind the Nixon-era opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice that sitting presidents can't be indicted, an opinion only, advisory only, that Robert Mueller stupidly bought into.

Rather, with the Constitution making clear that the penalty for conviction upon impeachment is limited to loss of office, I see it as implying that impeachment is an adjunct to criminal charges for an officeholder who won't remove themselves. (Congress can expel its own members; it must impeach judges and executive officials.)

And, that said, while Ron Jaworski getting the grand jury to name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator was good? IMO, better would have been indicting Nixon under seal.

[morgan]

Very concise text, well organized into small chapters. Sirica comes across quite earnest and forthright throughout. His passion for the rule of law comes across. The prologue where he discusses his childhood, his boxing years, law school and early law career, is well written. It winds up feeling like you are reading a suspense novel when Sirica gets the McCord letter. Most of the book has a strong degree of clarity. *Some of the Kenneth Parkinson charges and subsequent arguments though I found a bit confusing. Appendix contains a number of Opinions/Verdicts regarding the release of the tapes, rejection of Liddy's motion for reduction of sentence, some WH Tape transcript where Nixon appears to call Kenneth Dahlberg 'a bum' for only contributing $25,000. It's a good resource, I'm glad we have Sirica's perspective and thoughts on Watergate on record.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe it is just the events we are now living through, but this account really explains what is at stake in the impeachment process.

[Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the years, I've read numerous takes on Watergate from a variety of perspectives. Until now, I've never read about the scandal from the perspective of the judge who handled the case from its nascent days to its bitter sad conclusion as late as 1977.

This is the story of Watergate from inside the court room. The judge was a lifelong Republican who had been appointed by Eisenhower. You read here about his personal agony as he sees men who were tasked with defending the constitution conducting their lives such that they mock the very constitution they were sworn to defend.

Everyone knows how Watergate turned out. What you won't get unless you read this is the story behind the decisions. How do you take a hard line without further exacerbating a constitutional crisis.

In the spirit of full disclosure, you should know that I didn't read the appendices and some of the supplemental material. There are, for example, full texts of opinions and some transcripts. You can thoroughly enjoy the book without having to read the material beyond the epilogue. You'll note the high cost the scandal placed on the nation and the much more personal toll it imposed on the judge in the case. I was intrigued to read his reasoning behind some of the sentencing decisions he made. You needn't be some kind of constitutional wonk with a JD to enjoy this book. I found it highly readable, and rarely does it bog down in legal minutia.

[Belliott128]

How nasty Republican Politics were in the 70's. Hard to believe these foul beasts were in a position to run the US. Also it was encouraging to see how the Executive Branch could be checked by the Legislative branch, subpoena powers ultimately enforced and connected burglars, perjurers, and coveruppers exposed and punished.

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lawyerly. Dry reading unless you lived it like I did.

[Andrew Scholes · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok. Another view of what happened at Watergate. It was a good thing that Judge Sirica was on the bench. The country was saved by his work and decisions.