Different Way To Ponder Watergate Break-In 50 Years Ago Today

Though I am busy with the final stages of finishing my second book there was no way to not post about an event in history that not only energized my interest in Richard Nixon, but also one that profoundly changed the nation.

Fifty years ago tonight the Watergate break-in occurred. Five burglars were arrested at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, but what was to be uncovered in the following two years turned out to be a cast of characters best described as “white-collar criminals, hatchet men, and rogues” as Garrett Graff wrote in a Watergate: A New History.

The illegal, devious, and at times, truly absurd and comical activities would ultimately lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Though Nixon was well-read, educated, and to be praised for grand chess moves on the international stage, such as with the opening to China, his glaring character flaws defined his presidency. His actions and those he either condoned by others or by his conveyance of an attitude that stepping over legal boundaries was allowed proved his major ethical failing.

In 2017, more revelations were reported to underscore why a lenient tone and mindset from the Oval Office about illegal political activities gave license to others to act recklessly. It was stunning to learn Watergate prosecutors had evidence that operatives for Nixon planned an assault on anti-war demonstrators in 1972, including potentially physically attacking Vietnam whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

Anniversaries, such as the one we observe today, almost force one to reflect on the past. American politics would be vastly different had Nixon not used dirty tricks on his political opponents, or used the power of his office to attempt to thwart an investigation into wrong-doing.

But one can go a step further, as I have long argued, that had there been no stolen election in Texas that placed Lyndon Baines Johnson in the U.S. Senate the war in Southeast Asia would have played out differently. The anti-war movement and resulting violence and social upheaval might not have occurred, removing a theme Nixon used most successfully to win the 1968 balloting.

Longtime readers know of my deep respect for author and historian Robert Caro. His book Means Of Ascent about the 1948 special Texas senatorial election where LBJ’s win by 87 votes–votes that were manufactured by his backers and created from a phone book–makes the later newsreel footage of “Landslide Johnson” as it relates to Vietnam all the more biting and troubling.  

The story of Box 13 from Alice, Texas is not new by any means,   But the fully detailed and piece-by-piece unwinding of the drama over a large segment in Volume Two of Caro’s work on LBJ is not only masterly crafted but also a gut-punch even to those who know the background prior to opening the pages.  Caro submits an exhaustive amount of research in a polished manner where it seems that only intricate details are the ones fit to print.  In other words, he respects the readers he writes for, and that is most uplifting.

I had never before read the testimonies given in court by the individuals who conspired with LBJ to steal the election.  It was riveting.  The Johnson family is not fond of Caro and that is due to the writer, in grand detail providing historical evidence that coercion, lost ballot boxes, and corruption were practiced as high art by Johnson. Also, it needs noting for many decades by many Texan pols.

But the point here is that had Johnson not ‘won’ in 1948 he would not have been a national figure at the time of the Vietnam War.

In fact, had there been the lack of national angst that rose to levels of bombings and university strife and mayhem on the streets, due in large part to the Vietnam War, Nixon would not have had a natural opening to revive his political career. His loss in 1960, coupled with a spiritless race for governor in California had already removed him from national prospects for office.

The nation’s faith in elected officials, political institutions, and our standing on the world stage was tremendously impacted both by Vietnam and Watergate.

Those types of thoughts swirled around many years ago when James and I left the Jefferson Memorial and took a taxi to the Watergate. I thought perhaps there would be a coffee shop where we could catch a late lunch. Once we made the large arc of a driveway to the Watergate and were greeted by a uniformed man opening the car door I knew this was going to be even grander than I had first thought.    We asked about some food options and were seated outdoors. As you might expect, it was easy to get caught up in the history of the place.

To sit there and just take in the surroundings, while pondering the enormity of the break-in that would lead to the constitutional crisis that would envelop this nation was truly sobering.  Later that evening I would pass the courthouse where Judge John Sirica would make his rulings.

There were only a few items on the lunch menu and since visiting Washington requires carbs and calories for the constant adrenaline rushes I settled on bagels with cream cheese, lox, and capers.  It came with a side dish of fresh fruit–blackberries, raspberries, and blueberries.  And of course, coffee.

During lunch, I thought of former Wisconsin State Representative Lary Swoboda, an avid reader of books about Nixon who had many recollections about the events and mood of the nation during those tumultuous years.  He had died without making it to the famed building, so in some sense, Lary did make it to the Watergate–at least in memories.

Telling the friendly waiter at the end of lunch how pleased I was to have had the experience and made my interest in Nixon known, she put both hands over her head–the peace sign made with fingers in each hand–and said “I am not a crook.”

It was perfect!

What Might Founding Fathers Say About Trump’s Seditious Conspiracy?

Those who lived in the 1970s surely felt that Watergate was the granddaddy of all political scandals. After all, a vast array of illegal activity that led back to the White House and into the Oval Office resulted in the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Many people after following the 2-plus years of news reporting and committee hearings about Watergate understandably felt there was no way a more sinister and underhanded person could be president.

Over the past week, large segments of the nation have been watching the January 6th House Committee hearings. What we are witnessing being fleshed out with testimony and facts is nothing short of stunning. After all that we have endured over the past six years, it might seem impossible to be confronted with anything that sets one further back on their heels. Even though the framework of illegal and unconstitutional actions by Donald Trump and those around him has long been known, having a congressional committee detail the actions was still very hard to stomach.

The nation is learning about the insidious and seemingly ever-sprawling plot to commit a seditious conspiracy against the United States. A duly elected president was to be tossed aside like a burger wrapper and Trump was to be installed as an illegal one. James Patterson could not plot a more devastating drama.

But what struck me to my core was learning Trump was so desperate to retain power and authority that he stated Vice President Mike Pence deserved to be murdered by the bloodthirsty mob at our nation’s Capitol. The reason Trump felt that way, of course, was that Pence refused to go along with sedition.

There is no doubt when it comes to political chicanery and illegal activities Nixon was a mere piker compared to the outlandish and outrageous actions plotted and undertaken by Trump. It seems almost unfair to place Nixon and Trump into the same editorial cartoons, such as those now being published as we near the 50th anniversary of the famed break-in.

From the night of the November 2020 election, Trump knew that his hold on power was ebbing away, and when the final count from several states, including Wisconsin, was reported no question remained he had lost his bid for reelection.

But rather than accept the election returns from the balloting by his fellow citizens he instead chose to become the first president in the history of our country to dishonor the peaceful transfer of power.

I want to stay on that point for a minute. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if they could be made aware of these events and able to be interviewed?

What might President George Washington, a former general who relinquished his military command, and stepped away from an office he was twice elected to so a civilian could take the reins of power have to say? What might James Madison, who history calls the Father of the Constitution, have to say about the blatant power grab and attempted usurpation of what we know as Madisonian democracy?

Ben Franklin, a journalist and newspaper owner, would surely have another line of inquiry.

On the day of a Jan. 6th committee hearing, with much of the nation following events, Fox News spent 45 minutes detailing a surgical procedure for Ozzy Osborne. The dismantling of the very fabric of our democracy was being detailed by members of congress and a major news outlet felt there was no need to inform their viewers as to the dangers faced by the nation.

Franklin, doubtless with a pithy tone, would demand to know why a news operation would willingly deflect from a story that cuts to the essence of our democracy?

Much of our nation is discussing the damning headlines about the plots and attacks on the very foundation of our constitutional government. It is easy to get inundated with the latest breaking news about this story. As such, I would hope that at some point we can, as a nation, reflect on the ideals the Founders sought for the nation. It is glaringly clear why our constitutional guardrails can no longer just be taken for granted.

Why Journalism And Anonymous Sources Matter, Supreme Court’s Draft On Roe V. Wade Makes Point

We are told by some partisans that news sources are to be distrusted, reporters are not integral to democracy, and that there are even ‘alternative facts’.

Late Monday evening, all those lines fell faster than Russians on the Ukraine battlefield.

It was reported by Politico the Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

The ramifications of this story are enormous. Not only for health care rights for women, but also for privacy being understood, for decades, as an unenumerated right. Privacy has been a foundation for several large court decisions from the right to use contraception, to engage in private consensual sexual activity, and to marry someone of the same sex.

Make no mistake about how the legal weight of this abortion ruling could move the court going forward.

While all these issues and many more will be debated at length starting with Tuesday morning coffee in homes around the nation, I wish to give credit to the journalism profession, and specifically two reporters.

Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward.

We all should be proud of how they did their job with this story.

It needs to be noted that these journalists not only reported the story but also gave the full rounded coverage by writing that “it’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft” since February. They were not aiming for going beyond the fact the draft is a product from February.

They also fully grasped the gravity of the story surely being one of the newsroom’s biggest scoops and surely the biggest headline of their lives. They wrote that “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.”

The news about the court draft was able to be reported by the reporters due to the role of an anonymous source. It is these sources who are vital to a fuller understanding of what our government does and journalists are doing their job by then reporting on the information once it is firmly understood to have validity.

I understand that most people are not sitting around their living rooms contemplating anonymous sources. I can imagine how conservative media will be apoplectic today and feverishly disdainful of this news story, and how it was obtained.

To those who do not understand the role of anonymous sources, I have one name to add to this post.

Mark Felt.

It is absolutely true to say that had Felt not been an anonymous source there very well would not have been a Watergate story as we have come to know. It was “Deep Throat’ who alerted Bob Woodward in those parking garage conversations that presidential abuse was running rampant in the Nixon White House.

The pursuit of news, facts…the truth… is what reporters do. And anonymous sources are very much a way to allow the public to know what their government is doing.

And so it goes.

Donald Trump Phone Log Gap Requires A Modern “Rose Mary Stretch”

When it comes to the seditious and treasonous activity encouraged and undertaken by Donald Trump following the 2020 election it needs to be stated, much akin to the actions of the cover-up by President Richard Nixon and his White House following the famed Watergate break-in, that there is no place to hide from the light of day.

The news today showing internal White House records from the horrific day of the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters has a stupifying gap in Trump’s phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes!

Poor Rose Mary Woods, the thicker than thieves friend and secretary to Nixon fell on the political and legal sword, taking the blame for the missing 18-minutes of a most vital, and quite obviously highly-incriminating, Oval Office tape recording. She even performed a most illogical and embarrassing ‘re-creation’ of how the erasure occurred.

Nixon historians have long understood that Woods had intimate knowledge about the Watergate scandal. But now Trump, in light of the criminal activity that continues to unfold surrounding the insurrection of January 6, 2021, needs a modern version of the “Rose Mary Stretch.”

The crux of the latest stab at the heart of democracy is the lack of an official White House notation of any phone calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes, from 11:17 A.M. to 6:54 P.M. on the day his autocratic plans were put into practice. It goes without saying the audacity of destroying or hiding records plays counter to the facts which are demonstrated by broad-based reporting about phone conversations Trump had with allies during the attack

In March 2016 Bob Woodward gave a presentation about Watergate. He made a statement that reflected well on the national nightmare that was all the assorted crimes and criminal spokes of the wheel that we call Watergate.

“It has been said that Watergate was a ‘lust for political power.’  True, but it was much more—a broader, organized, well-funded, mean-spirited, criminal, secret assault on democracy.

I know that same statement can lean forward in history and also sum up Donald Trump and his brazen attack on democracy.

Who can now be found to explain–akin to Rose Mary Woods-why over 7 hours of phone logs simply disappeared?

And so it goes.

Dear Amazon…Another Watergate Book Delivery, Please

Just when you thought there was not another Watergate book to read comes, well, one more that is gaining great reviews. As with this New York Times review written by the much-respected Douglas Brinkley.

As a Nixon history buff, this topic still resonates and fascinates me.

“While Nixon’s predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, thrived amid disorder, Nixon maintained a clean desk and kept his circle of advisers small. “Just one dinky little phone to keep in touch with his people,” a flabbergasted Johnson scoffed after dining with Nixon. “That’s all — just three buttons and they all go to Germans!” — those being the chief of staff, Haldeman; the domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman; and the national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. Reporters variously referred to this team as the German Shepherds, the Berlin Wall, the Fourth Reich and “the King’s Krauts.”

With granular detail, Graff writes about the white-collar criminals, hatchet men and rogues who populated the outer circles of Nixon’s covert operations. The deputy campaign manager, Jeb Magruder, arguably comes off the worst, “an empty vessel of a man, all too ready to fulfill others’ ambitions, taskings and visions.” Though competent enough to help devise Nixon’s winning 1972 re-election slogan, “Now More Than Ever,” he displayed a carelessness that saw him nonchalantly introducing Liddy to Washington reporters as CREEP’s “man in charge of dirty tricks.” This caused Liddy to beg the White House counsel, John Dean, to fire the preppy loudmouth. “Magruder’s an asshole, John,” Liddy pleaded, “and he’s going to blow my cover.” Magruder stayed on, then flipped to federal prosecutors in exchange for reduced charges.

The heroes of “Watergate” are predictable: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. Charting their trajectory from the arraignment of the Watergate burglars on June 17, 1972, until Vanity Fair revealed the identity of Deep Throat in 2005, Graff celebrates their tenacity while also documenting dramatic embellishments in their best-selling memoir “All the President’s Men.”

Watergate studies can be a rabbit hole of hard-to-decipher tapes and half-baked theories. As a former Politico Magazine editor, Graff chafes at hunches and internet misinformation. Therefore, it’s notable that he suggests the C.I.A. might have set up the voice-activated system that sank Nixon’s ship. The mysterious figure of Alexander Butterfield looms large in this regard. According to Graff, Rose Mary Woods, Nixon’s secretary, believed that Butterfield, who installed the White House taping system, was a C.I.A. operative. “I have to agree,” Haldeman is quoted as saying. “She may have a point.”

John Dean Recalled Gordon Liddy During UW-Madison Law School Speech

G Gordon Liddy in 1977 after his release from prison: he had served four years of a 20-year sentence for conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping CREDIT: FRED R CONRAD/NYTNS/REDUX/EYEVINE

As a Richard Nixon history buff, I would be remiss if not commenting about the death of G. Gordon Liddy. It was, after all, his character, or lack thereof, which dealt one of the harshest blows to the Nixon White House. He masterminded dirty tricks and created the upside-down burglary in the Watergate complex. Others were also more than complicit in a series of crimes and attempts to undermine the law, but Liddy holds a special place for being ruthless. I have always questioned if he had a moral anchor. He seemed to relish in the wildly absurd, without a care about the institutions of the nation that were being damaged.

As my mind flashed back over the decades of Nixon, Watergate, and the newly departed I landed on a memory from 2013. John Dean—yes, that one–spoke at the UW-Madison Law School. I attended and was really pleased to have first-hand proximity to a central figure from a chapter of history that simply enthralls me. He was White House Counsel for President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973 and would be found guilty of a single felony of obstructing justice.

John Dean October 2013 at UW Madison Law School Credit: Gregory Humphrey

As John Dean started his presentation late that afternoon the lady introducing him had a typical-sized microphone that she was to hand over for his use.  Dean grinned, and said he had one attached to his jacket, and “my voice seems to be able to be picked up by small microphones.”

That set the tone for the time he was on stage. By being smart, agile with words, and comfortable in his own skin Dean held everyone’s attention.

Recounting Watergate to an audience that was largely older and informed made for some of the events in the mid-1970s seem almost a comedy routine.  If it all had not been so serious it might have made for a slap-stick movie.

Using a power-point style of presentation Dean showed a picture of the desk in the Watergate complex.  It was when he said this was the sight where the burglars were crouched while wearing suits and plastic gloves that made the audience break into laughter.  The fact they had large amounts of cash on them, and tell-tale signs that led them to people who worked in, or were connected with the White House, made it seem even more illogical.  No matter how many times the story is told it still seems utterly absurd.

No one could hold back, however, when Gordon Liddy was referred to by Dean as someone “not up to the Maxwell Smart test.”   

Dean concluded his remarks on a tougher and more biting topic. It was the fact that at least 21 lawyers were on the wrong side of the law in the Nixon Watergate mess that should be a prime lesson recalled about that entire episode. The reason for the high numbers of otherwise smart men being pulled so far astray, Dean noted, came down to incompetence, the arrogance of the law, and too much loyalty to President Nixon

Liddy was one of those lawyers.

I do wish to leave this post on a lighter note about Liddy. Wednesday morning on NPR someone quipped a person has to be over 60 to recall Liddy as the mastermind of the Watergate break-in, let alone that he held his hand over a flame. So the last memory from Liddy is that be made some of us feel old(er)!

Why Tapes Matter: 50 Years Ago Today–February 16, 1971–Nixon Taping System Began Operating

Many moments in history get recognized at Caffeinated Politics, so I would be negligent if there was not a post about the event which started today, February 16, 1971. As a result of President Richard Nixon starting to use a White House taping system 50 years ago there is a treasure trove of roughly 3,700 hours of his conversations as president. There are roughly 3,000 hours of those tapes available to be listened to, while the rest contain either national security information or family conversations and as such are off-limits.

These tapes matter, as do the other White House taped recordings from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford. The tapes are a great insight into the workings of the Oval Office, the leader of the free world, the creation of policy, and the art of politics.

In the case of the Nixon tapes, and in relation to the Watergate fiasco, we still do not know who ordered the June 1972 Watergate break-in that led to Nixon’s resignation. But we do know without any doubt whatsoever, due to the recordings, that Nixon ordered the break-in at the Brookings Institution in 1971. While the Brookings break-in never happened what can be understood from the tapes is the culture of lawlessness that started at the very top of that White House.

My fascination with Nixon has been a lifetime undertaking and the tapes are, without doubt, a historical mine that can be explored for new nuggets and perspectives that create an evolving understanding of our past. But long before I knew Nixon had been taping his conversations I had become interested in the man.

At  the age of ten I sat in the backseat of our family car as we drove to a  nighttime hair appointment for my mother in Plainfield, Wisconsin. My father had the car radio on, its soft glow radiating from the front dashboard. It was election night 1972. Perhaps I was somehow primed for that night due to my rural upbringing, having grandparents for neighbors, by family choice not having  a television in our home, and my already loving books. Whatever had preceded that night perhaps made me more receptive to what I heard and sensed from the radio.

I still recall the authoritative voices of the news announcers and the crowd noise from election night gatherings. I recall Nixon’s name being said over and over. And I recall my father telling me that Nixon would be elected president.

Countless times over the decades of my life I have thought back to that night, and how Richard Nixon would come to mean a great deal to how my interests were formed. He lit a fire of interest within me to follow the news, read the paper (which I did each day  while lying on our family couch or on the dining room floor following school classes), better understand the rough and tumble of politics, and care more about foreign policy.

And then the White House tapes were reported to not only exist, but started to be released. First for the impeachment process and then in years–and even decades later–larger batches of recordings were made available to the public. First in locations where researchers could conduct their work, then with books where many recordings were transcribed, and finally on the internet for political and history junkies to have access.

For the past 30 years, I have been listening to various batches of recordings as they first appeared in the hour-long Saturday C-SPAN programs, then online at sites such as this one. Over the past year as the pandemic kept us home, I have taken to reading some more of the transcripts, starting with the first volume as edited by Douglas Brinkley and Luke Nitcher. One of the benefits of reading a transcript is due to the, at times, difficulty of making out the words that can be muffled or distorted due to placement of the microphones or the lack of using a louder voice when talking. Without a doubt, however, the actual recordings are more informative as the inflections and tone are essential to measuring the conversation at hand.

So I was really pleased to wake up this morning to find a friend sent me this article by none other than Nichter, who pens it perfectly as to why these historical tapes matter.

As a result of the tapes, our democracy is stronger. Public officials are held to account. The field of investigative journalism grew exponentially after Watergate. We have more information about how our government runs than ever before. The scandals of the Nixon administration were as much a long-awaited check on executive power – the “Imperial Presidency,” as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called it – as they were unique to the personalities within Nixon’s White House.

On this commemoration, which immediately follows Presidents Day, let’s remember our leaders. Fifty years after Nixon began making the most controversial subset of White House tapes and more than 80 years since FDR made the very first, these records — while part of popular lore — remain largely underutilized and misunderstood. From each one we can learn something. Rather than canceling them, we should embrace history for what it can teach us.

About 30 years ago I was involved with the primary election for Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction, while working in the office of State Representative Lary Swoboda, who was seeking the position. One of the things we both enjoyed was the life and times of Richard Nixon, and the intrigue of Watergate.  I still recall after some of the long days while campaigning in the primary that Swoboda would start talking about Watergate.  He could be exhausted, and almost as a way of unwinding and relaxing he would ponder again how the missing section of the tape happened, or how things would have changed had the tapes been destroyed.  The conversations were really quite lively. Those tapes and the discussions which follow about their contents have long been a part of my life.

I was truly delighted to have lunch and coffee at the famed Watergate–while looking out towards the Potomac during a long vacation in D.C. James still makes me smile over the most expensive coffee that I will likely ever enjoy. During lunch I told James that Lary would have much loved the experience as he was also an avid reader of books about Nixon and had many recollections about the events and mood of the nation during those tumultuous years.  So in some sense Lary did make it to the Watergate–at least in our memories.

A friend of mine has labeled me a Nixonologist, knowing over four decades I have read and studied the man. I recall at one point saying it is without doubt that very few people have actually listened to more than an hour of the Nixon tapes. But if more started that journey with listening, they too, would be more fascinated about not only Nixon, the process of governing, but also our history as a country.

Therefore, I absolutely agree with Luke Nichter. The tapes can teach us so much.

Donald Trump Must Not Receive Presidential Pardon

Last week I received emails from two of my friends who both underscored the need for Donald Trump to face legal proceedings regarding a wide array of criminal behavior. Neither of them linked their notes to me in the context that I have been a decades-long believer that President Ford was correct when granting a pardon to Richard Nixon. It goes without saying that when it comes to crimes committed Nixon was a piker in comparison to Trump. That is the prime difference that needs to be understood as the nation weighs this issue.

I firmly believe Trump absolutely must face legal consequences for his actions as columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr listed them in his most recent column. The crimes range from “extortion, treason, tax fraud, bank fraud, obstruction of justice, campaign-finance violations, and sexual assault.”

My readers know my strongly held views about the correctness of Ford’s pardon in 1974. There have been many points of view registered about the action over the decades but I still view it to be one of the most sincere and brave decisions that any president has made in my lifetime.  I grew up in the final months of Watergate and was fascinated by the events taking place in Washington.

Watergate not only destroyed the Nixon presidency but also cut a wide swath through the American mindset of what our government was all about.  After Nixon resigned there was a battle cry from many that he should be tried for his criminal behavior. I have long thought that while on principle that idea made sense the reality of the situation demanded that the national bloodletting be stopped.  It was a political suicide, but yet Ford was determined to put the country before every other consideration. Ford understood there was a difference between what the nation wanted, and what it needed.  It was because Ford showed real leadership that our national nightmare did end. 

But is would be just the opposite should any presidential pardon be granted to Trump based on the enormity of his crimes. Nixon, after all, had enough honor to put the nation over his own selfish desires when push came to shove. While Nixon had dark demons that were allowed to roam with domestic partisan outcomes there was never a fear that he would put our nation at risk.

With Trump, there has been a continuous thread of criminal behavior that has undermined our Constitution and imperiled our standing in the world. Trump obstructed justice, attempted to bribe the leader of Ukraine, illegally separated children from their parents at the border…and that is just the warm-up to his full rap-sheet.

Upon leaving office Trump will find himself in legal fights and civil suits about his businesses, taxes, and sexual attacks. If his legal fights do not drain his resources the back taxes and financial shams he has erected will bring him to his knees. Trump’s crimes are of the gravity and enormity that there must be a legal reckoning. His were far more dangerous to democracy than Nixon pulling in campaign funds to pay for burglars at the Watergate or using the CIA to lull the FBI off of an investigation. That is not to say Nixon was not a criminal, too.

During the past weeks as Trump has tried every ploy he could concoct to undermine the election returns, it was noted by a pundit on television that the Oval Office was the only thing keeping Trump out of jail or the Charles Dickens version of the poorhouse. That image alone deserves the work of an editorial cartoonist. Meanwhile, historians will work over the fact of an impeached one-term president needing a pardon.

They, too, will argue the need for justice to win out over a pardon. It is our duty as citizens to make sure we act in accordance with what democracy demands.

And so it goes.