Is John Dean still a leading suspect in arranging the bugging? It’s been awhile since I saw a good review of the weight of opinion of the serious historians, as opposed to the propaganda crowd.
I have encountered three people irl who took the time to listen to Nixon’s oval office tapes. None were professional historians or political hit men; all were highly intelligent, professionally educated laymen who took enough of an interest in history and politics to go above and beyond. All three said — as have a number of the serious historians — that if you listen to the tapes, it is very clear that Nixon didn’t know what he was dealing with.
That always seemed to me to pass the Occam’s Razor test. By far the easiest way to account for Nixon’s blunders is that he was flying blind. There was a skunk at the dinner party, but who? Had Nixon known, he presumably could have tossed the culprit overboard, or found his own Bobby Baker.
That said, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a review of the literature. Has the consensus shifted, or has the propaganda narrative simply taken over, as often happens?
Exactly.
I was the biggest anti-Nixon Watergate nerd, back in the day. I LIVED for the latest FBI forged propaganda, delivered from the FBI Deputy Director to the Washington Post.
And I believed every word.
I believed that a man who won 520 electoral votes and 61% of the popular vote got that from cheating.
I believed his domestic and foreign policy was not supported by the American people.
I was an idiot.
We know so much more now about the inner workings of the FBI, thanks to President Trump's courage.
Don't fall for the same tricks again.