Known Unknowns: Watergate - Episode 5

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 27 дек 2024

Комментарии • 28

  • @imas2pid80it
    @imas2pid80it 5 месяцев назад

    This series is simply amazing! You are making me want to be a Watergate buff.

  • @brianlogan4243
    @brianlogan4243 3 года назад +3

    I thought I knew alot about watergate, but I have to admit its even more complex and nuanced then I even thought. It doesnt change Nixon's guilt but it does explain how a brilliant mwn can be swept up in circumstances. There are so many players and different tiers of the players. The special prosecutor, thr grand jury, the white house, thw justice dept, Watergate committe, the burglers, Woodward and Bernstein, The Supreme Court, Nixon himself, Deep Throat, CIA to a degree etc. Fascinating. It really was a domino effect starting from The Pentagon papers.

    • @JT-rx1eo
      @JT-rx1eo Год назад

      Nixon swept up in circumstances. Read about a man named Dick Tuck. They mention him in one of these videos in the series. Dick Tuck was a longtime Democrat party operative that spent years sabotaging Nixon in his earlier political career. He was the Democrats "Donald Segretti" before there was a Donald Segretti for the Republicans. He was the Democrats Dirty Tricks guy. Really. I read somewhere that early in Nixons career, while giving a campaign speech on the back of a train caboose in some small town, Tuck somehow commandeered the train and drove it away, with Nixon on the rear canoose, as Nixon was giving the speech! So Dick Tuck and political chicanery was firmly ingrained on Nixon's mind, and Nixon of course had a reputation of "paranoia" and fight back dirty. I tell this because it helps to develop a picture of Nixon's mindset while directing that a political intelligence effort be mounted. In fact, more than once, before the Watergate break-in, on the White House tapes you can hear Nixon and Haldeman talking about establishing "Dick Tuck activities". Nixon was going to fight hard, dirty if need be, and ensure a win. And interestingly, there is a photo taken after Watergate of both an older Dick Tuck and Bob Haldeman standing together! I think it was in Bob Haldeman's book published after Watergate was over and Haldeman was out of prison. I remember thinking Tuck had a big s___ eating grin on his face, probably thinking he got the Republicans to play the biggest dirty trick on themselves without himself even lifting a finger. Haha. Tuck escaped unscathed. And if the President in 1972 were a Democrat and the same Watergate activities were to unfold, would it lead to his resignation? Not a chance.

  • @ontledingen3348
    @ontledingen3348 4 года назад +3

    great stuff

  • @edhunt1215
    @edhunt1215 4 месяца назад

    I recently heard that one of the reasons for the burglary was that John Dean thought there was a file on his wife. Because before he was married to her. She had been a high end call girl?

  • @TheVaga9
    @TheVaga9 2 года назад

    Watched the movie last night!

  • @FLYEAL
    @FLYEAL 3 года назад +2

    Why wouldn’t ‘most of your audience’ have seen All The President’s Men? This isn’t Barstool. My guess is most have seen it more than once. And a few if not many have been to The Watergate Hotel. Or even worked in DC.

    • @tonyauxier5411
      @tonyauxier5411 3 года назад +3

      Most Nixon supporters at the time wouldn't have watched the movie or read the book, as they knew that Redford, Hoffman, as well as Woodward and Bernstein, all hated Nixon and the film and book would have been trash. As a student, I saw it when it first came out and was ready to walk out after the first twenty minutes, but suffered through to the end.

    • @bogeyman38111
      @bogeyman38111 3 года назад +1

      All the Presidents' Men came out before Nixon even resigned. It is pure fiction.

    • @KevinBalch-dt8ot
      @KevinBalch-dt8ot Год назад

      Don’t get your history or science from Hollywood!

    • @johnnotrealname8168
      @johnnotrealname8168 Год назад

      Why is the film so bad? The cinematography is epic though.

  • @shlmel
    @shlmel 3 года назад +2

    🇺🇸🍿🍿🍿👏👏👏👏👏

  • @bryanroberts3652
    @bryanroberts3652 2 года назад +1

    I began listening to this series with high hopes that I would learn new and useful things about Watergate from it. Unfortunately, Geoff Shepard completely destroys his credibility in this episode.
    At 20:30, he starts discussing the famous "cancer on the presidency" conversation, when Dean has an extensive discussion with Nixon about paying hush money to the burglars. At 22:30, Shepard states that hush money was paid to Hunt shortly afterwards but that it isn't clear if Nixon instructed this. At 27:07, Hewitt asks him when Nixon said that "It would be wrong" to pay Hunt and others, and Shepard states unequivocally that Nixon said this during the "cancer on the presidency" talk with Dean.
    This is false. The "cancer on the presidency" tape with transcription has been posted on RUclips since 2015 and is available here: ruclips.net/video/mZx7g74CvKc/видео.html Anyone can listen to this conversation in its entirety and see that at not one single point did Nixon say that it would be wrong to pay hush money. In fact, Nixon said repeatedly throughout the long meeting that it was crucially important to pay Hunt off. And Shepard states that Hunt received $75,000 that very night! It's pretty obvious that Nixon signed off on paying that hush money.
    It's incredible to see how Shepard tries to twist this record into Nixon saying "That would be wrong." I now understand why John Dean refuses to share the stage with him.

    • @SRBZZ
      @SRBZZ 2 года назад

      Agreed. This guy Shepard must have an axe to grind. Here and several other videos he states that Dean recruited Liddy for doing 'black bag' jobs. It's a crock. Liddy was working for Erlichman and Kreog years before Dean was on the scene.

    • @NGC6144
      @NGC6144 2 года назад +1

      @@SRBZZ Dean did hire Liddy from a recommendation, from Krough, IIRC. Dean put together that group from within CRP by directive from Halderman to set up a legitimate campaign intelligence operation, not black bag jobs of course.

    • @NGC6144
      @NGC6144 2 года назад +2

      @Bryan Roberts I've noticed a few instances where Shepard may characterize something in such a way that I find a bit questionable, but I think Shepard is more so solid. There is a lot that Dean doesn't want to get into and I'm not one of the conspiracy nuts.

    • @johnmoore4
      @johnmoore4 2 года назад +1

      But in the book, he does not say that “it would be wrong“ was on the transcript. He writes that this was Haldeman‘s testimony at the trial.
      Yes, there are some flaws in this interview but I am going to give his book a chance. It seems his principal aim is to show that judicial process was corrupted and that political information was so stacked against Team Nixon that fighting it was futile.

    • @JT-rx1eo
      @JT-rx1eo Год назад

      OK I just finished listening to this hour and a half recording of the "cancer on the presidency" meeting you linked. You are correct that Nixon never says that it would be wrong to pay Hunt.
      At about 49:44 of that "cancer on the presidency" recording.... Nixon says: "No its wrong, that's for sure." BUT he is saying it in context of the discussion of the possibility of Nixon granting clemency to Hunt et al and how politically untenable it would be, not the blackmail payments.
      And at about 1:12:00 of that recording Nixon tells Haldeman that they could arrange the million dollars for the jackasses in jail, then does not say explicitly that it would be wrong, but goes into the vulnerabilities associated with that course of action. He does not say "it would be wrong" nor seems to imply that in a legal or moral sense. But Nixon does mention several times once Haldeman was present, for emphasis and clarity, that Dean had pointed out that there were risks with going down the road of paying Hunt because "where would it end?". But essentially no moral qualms from Nixon.
      It is a glaring error, and surprising given his deep knowledge, by Shepard but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater on that. He isn't ultimately very apologetic of Nixon although he is probably more friendly to him than not (after all he was a Nixon Library Director, right?). It seems difficult to imagine he's trying to get one over on the audience because of the ready availability of the recording and transcript of the cancer on the presidency meeting. But its surprising his memory would be so flawed on that point too. He does say that Nixon emphasizes at least 10 times that those payments to Hunt must be done. Mostly to buy time.

  • @saidhassan865
    @saidhassan865 3 года назад

    #5

  • @SJ-qq5qk
    @SJ-qq5qk 3 месяца назад

    This talk is absolute nonsense by Sheppard who was the author of the White House tape transcripts that was later lampooned. The widely applauded oral histories conducted by Tim Naftali are far more informative & accurate.

  • @josephmccormack6910
    @josephmccormack6910 3 года назад

    Total bullshit. ....this hack would be in jail for perjury if he could even SEE the truth. How awful he is. Stay away from our youth..

    • @cindythompson1805
      @cindythompson1805 Год назад +4

      He has documents from personal papers from the people who were involved at the time that have now surfaced. Geoff Shepherd can document his arguments with actual written records. Sounds pretty convincing to me.