Fred Thompson Was A Nixon Mole During Watergate.

[senseamp]

I hope the party of Nixon nominates Thompson.

 

[UberNeuman]

At the rate they're going, the GOP might just dig up Nixon and run him again....

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
At the rate they're going, the GOP might just dig up Nixon and run him again....

LOL.. too true

 

[Lemon law]

I am quite surprised that the GOP field lacks a true moderate---to a certain extent Guiliani might fit that bill because he is pro-choice---and so might Ron Paul who is really a libertarian. But the 08 field has an over abundance of radical right wingers.

But I think someone like Chuck Hagel and other moderate Republicans might well make a fine addition to that Republican field---and provide some needed balance. All Thompson will do is add more competition for the larger set all fighting to be the choice of the far right.---as they all fight to be the next Goldwater.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
At the rate they're going, the GOP might just dig up Nixon and run him again....

LOL.. too true

I wasn't kidding - the GOP has been running test polling in my area on the viability of running a dead ex-president for the white house...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
At the rate they're going, the GOP might just dig up Nixon and run him again....

Are any of the Republicans who are running actually alive. I don't think so.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Some of you may know that, during Watergate, as minority counsel to Republican Senator Howard Baker, Fred Thompson was the one who spilled Nixon's beans by asking one of his aides to whether there was a White House taping system. The nation was shocked when the aide confirmed that the system existed, and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

Now, it turns out Thompson's objective was not to bring evidence to light about Nixon's criminality, but rather, to prove that he was innocent of the charges against him. Since he was a Republican, I can't fault him for that. What does bother me greatly is, Thompson did more than hope his man was innocent. He has since admitted that he was a mole for the Nixon Whitehouse, and he phoned Nixon's lawyer and tipped the committee's hand the day before asking that history rocking question in the publicly televised hearings.

Thompson said in an interview (full story, below), "In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.

Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."

Asked about the matter this week, Thompson -- who is preparing to run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination -- responded via e-mail without addressing the specific charge of being a Nixon mole: "I'm glad all of this has finally caused someone to read my Watergate book, even though it's taken them over thirty years."

The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired. Indeed, the website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee boasts that he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office." It is an image that has been solidified by Thompson's portrayal of a tough-talking prosecutor in the television series "Law and Order."

But the story of his role in the Nixon case helps put in perspective Thompson's recent stance as one of the most outspoken proponents of pardoning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Just as Thompson once staunchly defended Nixon, Thompson urged a pardon for Libby, who was convicted in March of obstructing justice in the investigation into who leaked a CIA operative's name.

Thompson declared in a June 6 radio commentary that Libby's conviction was a "shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, stopping short of a pardon.

The intensity of Thompson's remarks about Libby is reminiscent of how he initially felt about Nixon. Few Republicans were stronger believers in Nixon during the early days of Watergate.

Thompson, in his 1975 memoir, wrote that he believed "there would be nothing incriminating" about Nixon on the tapes, a theory he said "proved totally wrong."

"In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

Thompson was a little-known assistant US attorney in Tennessee when the Watergate investigation in Congress got underway. He had served as campaign manager for the successful 1972 reelection of Senator Howard Baker, a powerful Tennessee Republican.

When the Senate Watergate Committee was established in 1973, Baker became the ranking Republican member and brought Thompson to Washington to serve as minority counsel. Baker, who has been among those now urging Thompson to seek the presidency, did not return a call seeking comment.

John Dean , Nixon's former White House counsel, who was a central witness at the hearings, said he believed that Baker and Thompson were anything but impartial players. "I knew that Thompson would be Baker's man, trying to protect Nixon," Dean said in an interview.

The website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee, imwithfred.com, suggests that Thompson helped reveal the taping system and expose Nixon's role in the Watergate coverup. And while Thompson's question to presidential aide Alexander Butterfield during a Watergate hearing unveiled the existence of the taping system to the outside world, it wasn't Thompson who discovered that Nixon was taping conversations. Nor was Thompson the first to question Butterfield about the possibility.

On July 13, 1973, Armstrong, the Democratic staffer, asked Butterfield a series of questions during a private session that led up to the revelation. He then turned the questioning over to a Republican staffer, Don Sanders, who asked Butterfield the question that led to the mention of the taping system.

To the astonishment of everyone in the room, Butterfield admitted the taping system existed.

When Thompson learned of Butterfield's admission, he leaked the revelation to Nixon's counsel, J. Fred Buzhardt .

"Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."

Armstrong said he and other Democratic staffers had long been convinced that Thompson was leaking information about the investigation to the White House. The committee, for example, had obtained a memo written by Buzhardt that Democratic staffers believed was based on information leaked by Thompson.

Armstrong said he thought the leaks would lead to Thompson's firing. "Any prosecutor would be upset if another member of the prosecution team was orchestrating a defense for Nixon," said Armstrong, who later became a Washington Post reporter and currently is executive director of Information Trust, a nonprofit organization specializing in open government issues.

Baker, meanwhile, insisted that Thompson be allowed to ask Butterfield the question about the taping system in a public session on July 16, 1973, three days after the committee had learned about the system.

The choice of Thompson irked Samuel Dash , the Democratic chief counsel on the committee, who preferred that a Democrat be allowed to ask the question. "I personally resented it and felt cheated," Dash wrote in his memoirs. But he said he felt he had "no choice but to let Fred Thompson develop the Butterfield material" because the question initially had been posed by Sanders, a Republican staffer.

When Dash told Thompson on the day of the hearing that he had agreed to let Thompson ask the question that would change US history, Thompson replied: "That's right generous of you, Sam."

So it was, at the hearing, that Thompson leapt into the national spotlight:

"Are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?" he asked Butterfield during the national televised hearings.

"I was aware of listening devices, yes, sir," Butterfield responded.

Even as he quizzed Butterfield during the hearing, Thompson said later, he believed the tapes would exonerate Nixon, so he saw no problem in pressing for their release. It was after Thompson heard Nixon incriminate himself on the tapes that Thompson finally decided that Nixon was a crook -- and stopped be ing a Nixon apologist.

"Looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to realize at once . . . the significance of the tapes," Thompson wrote. "I realized that I would probably be thinking about the implications of Watergate for the rest of my life."

Michael Kranish can be reached at kranish@globe.com

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

I don't care what his hopes and beliefs were, he was ethically way out of line in disclosing information about what the investigating committee knew to those they were investigating. For a man who spouts "law and order" dogma, as well as riding the same image from his role on the TV series of that name, it looks like he doesn't walk the walk and talk the talk when it gets down to doing it in real life.

This, alone, should be enough to sink any aspirations he has about running for President. :thumbsdown: :roll: :thumbsdown:

Who cares???

 

[1EZduzit]

Tastes great!

Less filling!

Really, who cares about the Republican nominees? No Bush or Bush Lite for me anymore.

 

[Fern]

Meh, looks like more overblown political huey to me.

About the only thing I see revealed is that, gasp, a Repub lawyer had "alligience" to another Repub under investigation by a committee. Am I the only one who watches these things on C-Span these days? It seems par for the course to me.

Thompson's question was asked during a public session. Everybody was gonna know anyway:

Baker, meanwhile, insisted that Thompson be allowed to ask Butterfield the question about the taping system in a public session on July 16, 1973, three days after the committee had learned about the system.

AFAIK, impeachement is a trial. In a trial, the prosecution HAS to share all it's info with the defense. To do otherwise is unethical/illegal.

Otherwise, it's pretty clear he's not above (falsely) taking the credit for something. At the time looks like everybody thought Thompson had "amazing" cross examing skills that uncovered the secret tapings. We know better now.

Anyway, this is the story I read on it in my newspaper (a NYT version). Link

The "spin" is a little different:

Quote from historian kutler:

"Fred (Thompson) and Baker carried water for the White House, but I have to give them credit - they were watching out for their interests, too," Kutler said. "They weren't going to mindlessly go down the tubes for this guy."

Sounds more like he & Baker were "playing both sides of the fence".

This story also noted how Nixon disliked Thompson and thought him stupid.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Who cares???

Good citizens.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, looks like more overblown political huey to me.

Bias has that effect.

AFAIK, impeachement is a trial.

No, it's not. Impeachment is an accusation, the equivalent of filing of charges, which causes a trial.

Furthermore, normal trial law does not apply to impeachment and the trial in the Senate. The Congress is free to make its own rules.

 

[kage69]

Yeesh, rough days for the GOP! I thought Thompson's own past and words did a great job of illustrating why he won't get the nod, but now this comes out! In a time rampant with Republican scandal after scandal, most revolving around corruption and exec conflicting with the Constitution....it turns out he was a tool for the former text book example of right-wing corruption.

And it's a matter of record that he's an ardent Scooter Libby defender? Wow, how things...don't change much.

The Dems are terrified of Thompson

Hehehe, sure - providing he's packing a Cuban briefcase nuke. But then again, conservatives do kinda go a little nuts for actors with no real political merit...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: kage69
Hehehe, sure - providing he's packing a Cuban briefcase nuke. But then again, conservatives do kinda go a little nuts for actors with no real political merit...

Charlton Heston and John Wayne could have been king. They even elected Gopher of the Love Boat to congress.

 

[kage69]

Who cares???

People interested in the thread's subject? Wtf is your problem?

Charlton Heston and John Wayne could have been king. They even elected Gopher of the Love Boat to congress.

Chuck Heston I can at least respect - never heard of him compromising professional ethics or his integrity, a la Thompson. Still, I doubt even someone like Gopher could do a worse job than a mildly retarded cheerleader being led around by the hand.

 

[XMan]

If this is the best stuff that can be dug up about Thompson, he's a shoe-in. Most of the voters weren't even alive during Watergate, and probably couldn't even begin to name who any of the persons involved were save Woodward and Bernstein, and Nixon.

Look at Kerry. More people voted for him than voted for Bill Clinton in either election, and despite all the stuff that was put out about his activities during and after Vietnam. If he'd had any sort of appeal factor, Kerry would be President right now. But he had all the charm of a fish.

I think Thompson beats any of the Democrat candidates except possibly Obama. If Hilary is the nominee, I think we'll see a 1984-esque landslide. She has all the charm of John Kerry with a dash of witchiness.

 

[kage69]

So Fred Tompson, an accomplice in a very serious crime against our nation, has a chance to become a nominee for president? What has the republican party been watered down to?

Actually, I think you could view him as a kind of thickening agent for the party! His willingness to act on a severe lack of moral fiber, however loathsome, is still not as bad as going AWOL (in my book anyway).
He's still a horrible choice. Anyone hoping for a pro-Bush lobbyist to change things in DC needs a CAT scan.
If it comes down to him or Hillary...ugh, sorry, just upchucked a little...

 

[Lanyap]

Fred's wiki has been busy lately. History changes by the hour...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...mit=300&action=history