WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING / 99 CLAIMS RATED
The claims board
Each claim is a proposition people repeat about Watergate, the theories around it and the people involved, rated against the public record as of 23 October 2026. Each claim is stated as its believers would put it and rated on evidence alone. Where a theory’s point is true, it is rated true. A starting point for research: new evidence may change these ratings. Grouped by rating, then topic.
← Interactive, filterable board · All Watergate case files
- DOCUMENTED — Shown by the tapes, sworn testimony, court records, official findings or other primary evidence. The claim as stated holds up.
- PARTLY TRUE — A real fact sits inside the claim, but the popular version adds, omits or overstates something material.
- DISPUTED — Credible evidence points in more than one direction, or informed people weigh the record differently.
- UNPROVEN — Not established by any public record available on 23 October 2026. It may be believed; it is not shown. Not the same as false. Some Watergate records, including part of one tape, are lost or still closed.
- FALSE — Contradicted by the tapes, sworn testimony, court records, official findings or other primary evidence.
DOCUMENTED · 47
DOCUMENTED Before Watergate
“Nixon’s 1968 campaign worked a secret channel to South Vietnam through Anna Chennault.”
Haldeman’s notes of 22 October 1968 record “keep Anna Chennault working on SVN”, and Johnson’s own calls show he knew of the channel.
Who says it: Historians; National Archives exhibit.
Evidence for the claim
- The Haldeman note survives in Nixon’s papers.
- Johnson called it “treason” to Senator Dirksen.
Evidence against / limits
- The notes record instructions, not their effect in Saigon.
Sources: National Archives exhibit: “Nixon’s Campaign Promise”, with H. R. Haldeman’s notes of 22 October 1968 ↗ · Miller Center: Johnson–Dirksen telephone call, 2 November 1968 (WH6811-01-13706) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Before Watergate
“Nixon ordered a break-in at the Brookings Institution.”
He is recorded saying “blow the safe and get it”. No break-in at Brookings is known to have happened.
Who says it: The Oval Office tape of 17 June 1971.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The order was not carried out, as far as the record shows.
Sources: Miller Center / PRDE: Nixon, Haldeman, Kissinger and Ehrlichman, 17 June 1971, Oval Office conversation 525-001 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Before Watergate
“Before Watergate, the White House burgled Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.”
The plumbers broke into Lewis Fielding’s office on 3 September 1971 after an August memo proposed it; the Ellsberg case collapsed in 1973 when it came out.
Who says it: Court records; the Krogh–Young memo.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Krogh–Young memorandum to Ehrlichman, August 11, 1971 (congressional exhibit) ↗ · Federal Judicial Center — The Pentagon Papers in the Federal Courts (2019) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Before Watergate
“Nixon’s White House kept an enemies list.”
Dean’s memo “Dealing with our Political Enemies” and the list sent on 14 September 1971 survive.
Who says it: John Dean’s own memo.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: UNC Library: John Dean memorandum, “Dealing with our Political Enemies”, 16 August 1971 ↗ · John Dean’s cover memorandum for the enemies list, September 14, 1971 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Before Watergate
“The White House tried to use the IRS against its enemies.”
The attempt was the core of the second article of impeachment, and IRS commissioner Johnnie Walters said he refused.
Who says it: House Judiciary Committee; Walters.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The attempt largely failed.
Sources: House Judiciary Committee: adopted articles of impeachment, July 1974 — transcript ↗ · Greenville News in USA Today: “Former IRS chief recalls defying Nixon”, 26 May 2013 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“The arrests happened on a second break-in.”
The team had entered in late May and planted bugs; they went back to fix a faulty tap and were caught.
Who says it: The Liddy trial record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗ · Nixon Library — Watergate Break-in, 50th Anniversary (2022) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“A security guard noticed tape on a door and called the police.”
Frank Wills’s log entry and call at 1:47 a.m. on 17 June 1972 are on record.
Who says it: National Archives.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives — American Originals: Watergate security log ↗ · National Archives — “Wills on Duty”: the guard who discovered the break-in ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“The door was re-taped after Wills first removed the tape.”
Wills found tape, removed it and came back to find it taped again. Why it was re-taped is one of the puzzles theorists cite.
Who says it: Wills; trial testimony.
Evidence for the claim
- The re-taping is what made Wills call the police.
Evidence against / limits
- Sloppiness explains it as well as sabotage does.
Sources: National Archives — “Wills on Duty”: the guard who discovered the break-in ↗ · Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“Nixon campaign money was found in a burglar’s bank account.”
A $25,000 check and Mexican checks routed through the campaign went into Bernard Barker’s account, and the burglars carried sequenced $100 bills.
Who says it: FBI; the Washington Post.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗ · FBI — Watergate investigative summary, part 1 (released records) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“The defendants were paid to keep quiet.”
Payments through Kalmbach, Ulasewicz and LaRue are documented in testimony and convictions; Nixon discussed raising $1 million on 21 March 1973.
Who says it: Senate testimony; the tapes; the courts.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The Hearings: Speaking of Money and Propriety”, 30 July 1973 ↗ · U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗ · Nixon Library — March 21, 1973 cancer conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The break-in & the money
“Dorothy Hunt was carrying cash and was part of the payments.”
She was carrying about $10,000, and testimony shows she passed hush money to defendants.
Who says it: Senate testimony; NTSB and FBI records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The Hearings: Speaking of Money and Propriety”, 30 July 1973 ↗ · FBI file on the United Air Lines Flight 553 crash (released under FOIA) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The cover-up
“Nixon personally joined the cover-up.”
The 23 June 1972 tape records him approving the plan to have the CIA ask the FBI to back off.
Who says it: The tape; the House Judiciary Committee.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗ · House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The cover-up
“The plan to use the CIA to stop the FBI failed.”
The CIA declined to keep up the pretext, and Nixon told acting FBI director Gray on 6 July 1972 to continue the inquiry.
Who says it: CIA and FBI testimony.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The attempt was still obstruction.
Sources: House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗ · Miller Center: the June 23, 1972 smoking-gun recording ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The cover-up
“Dean warned Nixon of “a cancer” on the presidency.”
The 21 March 1973 tape records the warning, and Nixon discussing how to raise money for the defendants.
Who says it: The tape.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Library — March 21, 1973 cancer conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The tapes & the gap
“The Nixon tapes are authentic.”
The recording system was installed in February 1971, revealed in July 1973 and held by the courts and the Archives ever since.
Who says it: National Archives.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Library: recording system, technology and processing history ↗ · National Archives: Listening to Nixon — tapes and their custody ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The tapes & the gap
“The 18½-minute gap was erased on purpose.”
The court-appointed expert panel found the buzz was made by several separate manual erasures, not one accident.
Who says it: The 1974 expert panel.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The panel did not say who did it.
Sources: Congressional Record, July 3, 1974: expert-panel finding on the tape erasure ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The press, the FBI & the Senate
“The Post got a major story wrong.”
The 25 October 1972 story said Hugh Sloan named Haldeman to the grand jury; he had not testified to that, though Haldeman did control the fund.
Who says it: The Post’s own record; Sloan.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The underlying point about the fund was right.
Sources: James M. Perry: Watergate reporting case study ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Mark Felt was Deep Throat.”
Felt’s family and Vanity Fair revealed it on 31 May 2005, and Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee confirmed it.
Who says it: Felt; the Washington Post.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: ABC News: Deep Throat is identified, May 31, 2005 ↗ · John D. O’Connor: original Felt identification, Vanity Fair, July 2005 issue ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Felt was a criminal himself.”
He and Edward Miller were convicted in 1980 of authorizing warrantless break-ins at the homes of relatives and friends of Weather Underground fugitives. Reagan pardoned both in 1981.
Who says it: Court records; the pardon register.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- That case was separate from Watergate.
Sources: Reagan: statement on Felt and Miller pardons, April 15, 1981 ↗ · DOJ: Reagan pardon register, including Felt’s March 26, 1981 grant ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Woodward was a cleared Navy officer who carried papers to the White House.”
He says so himself: he had top-secret clearances and was sometimes a courier.
Who says it: Woodward, The Secret Man.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: NBC News: excerpt from Bob Woodward’s The Secret Man, 6 July 2005 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The press, the FBI & the Senate
“The Senate investigation was bipartisan.”
The Senate voted 77–0 to create the committee. Republican Howard Baker asked “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
Who says it: Senate records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- Partisan motives were alleged on both sides.
Sources: U.S. Senate — Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities ↗ · AAPB: Baker questions Dean about knowledge, inference and hearsay, June 28, 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The fall & the pardon
“Nixon fired the special prosecutor to stop the tapes subpoena.”
He ordered Cox fired on 20 October 1973; Richardson resigned, Ruckelshaus left, and Bork carried it out.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives: Watergate constitutional chronology ↗ · Justice Department: Archibald Cox historical biography ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The fall & the pardon
“A court ruled the firing of Cox illegal.”
Judge Gesell held in Nader v. Bork that it broke the Justice Department’s own regulation.
Who says it: Nader v. Bork.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The ruling did not reinstate Cox.
Sources: Nader v. Bork, 366 F. Supp. 104 (D.D.C. November 14, 1973) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The fall & the pardon
“Nixon resigned because he faced certain removal.”
After the 5 August release of the June 23 tape, his support in Congress collapsed, and he resigned on 9 August.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives: Listening to Nixon — tapes and their custody ↗ · Richard Nixon: signed resignation letter, August 9, 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The fall & the pardon
“Haig was the real power in the White House in 1974.”
As chief of staff he ran the White House as Nixon weakened and handled the endgame, including the pardon options.
Who says it: Aides; historians.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Gerald Ford: statement and congressional questions on the Nixon pardon, October 17, 1974 ↗ · Washington Post: “Haig Tells of Theories on Erasure”, 7 December 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The fall & the pardon
“Dozens of officials were convicted.”
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell were convicted and upheld on appeal; others pleaded guilty. Mardian’s conviction was reversed.
Who says it: Court records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- Outcomes differed person by person.
Sources: U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗ · United States v. Mardian, 546 F.2d 973 — D.C. Circuit opinion ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The CIA question
“The burglars had CIA backgrounds.”
McCord and Hunt were CIA veterans, and several of the Miami men had CIA ties from the Bay of Pigs era.
Who says it: The Senate and the Rockefeller Commission.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗ · Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The CIA question
“The CIA helped Hunt before Watergate.”
It lent him disguise and equipment in 1971 and prepared a profile of Ellsberg.
Who says it: Rockefeller Commission.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The help stopped in August 1971.
Sources: Rockefeller Commission report — CIA assistance to Hunt and Ellsberg profiling ↗ · Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The CIA question
“Hunt worked for a CIA cover firm, the Mullen Company.”
Robert R. Mullen and Company provided cover for CIA officers abroad, and Hunt worked there while he was a White House consultant.
Who says it: Senator Baker’s report.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The CIA question
“The CIA destroyed its own tapes after Watergate.”
In January 1973 the CIA destroyed recordings, including Helms’s calls, days after the Senate asked it to keep evidence.
Who says it: Senator Baker; the CIA.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- What they held is unknown.
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The CIA question
“A CIA officer was at McCord’s home when papers were burned.”
After the arrests McCord’s wife burned papers with CIA officer Lee Pennington present, and Baker’s report charged that Pennington destroyed documents.
Who says it: Senator Baker.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- What was burned, and why, is not known.
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The alternative theories
“A jury found Liddy did not defame Maxie Wells.”
After a 2001 hung jury and an appeal, a 2002 jury found for Liddy. It was a defamation verdict, not a finding on the call-girl claim.
Who says it: Court records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Wells v. Liddy, 37 F. App’x 53 (4th Cir. 2002), unpublished ↗ · Associated Press in the Los Angeles Times: “Liddy Did Not Defame DNC Aide, Jury Finds”, 4 July 2002 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED The alternative theories
“Martha Mitchell was called crazy when she was telling the truth.”
She was widely dismissed at the time and is taken more seriously now, as the 2022 series Gaslit and the documentary The Martha Mitchell Effect show.
Who says it: Historians.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: Gaslit, Martha Mitchell and disputed details, 2022 ↗ · Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery: Watergate exhibition, including Martha Mitchell ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Hunt had CIA history and links while he worked for the White House.”
He was a CIA veteran and worked at a CIA cover firm.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Hunt committed crimes in Watergate.”
He organized the Fielding and Watergate break-ins and pleaded guilty. His CIA past is a separate question.
Who says it: Court records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“McCord was a former CIA security officer.”
He retired from the CIA in 1970 and became the campaign’s security chief.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Felt had inside access to the FBI’s Watergate case.”
As the number-two official, he saw the case files.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: FBI institutional history: Watergate and Mark Felt ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Haig had access to the tapes and the pardon talks.”
As chief of staff he did.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Gerald Ford: statement and congressional questions on the Nixon pardon, October 17, 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Dean had a role in the operation from the start.”
He was at the GEMSTONE meetings and ran the cover-up.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Foundation — Watergate Explained: proposal and approval chronology ↗ · Nixon Library: John W. Dean III biographical and archival note ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Dean committed crimes in the cover-up.”
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy. Ordering the break-in is a separate, unproven claim.
Who says it: Court records.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Library: John W. Dean III biographical and archival note ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Woodward had military intelligence clearances before journalism.”
He says so himself.
Who says it: Woodward.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: NBC News: excerpt from Bob Woodward’s The Secret Man, 6 July 2005 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Access vs. wrongdoing
“Helms knew the burglars’ backgrounds and the agency’s exposure.”
As director, he did, and the agency declined to keep up the cover-up pretext.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗ · House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Releases, reforms & now
“Watergate changed the law.”
Campaign-finance, records, ethics and surveillance laws followed. Some were later cut back by the courts or allowed to lapse.
Who says it: The record.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Senate History: Watergate Committee report and legislative outcomes ↗ · Federal Election Commission: Buckley v. Valeo and the limits of the 1974 reforms ↗ · National Archives: independent counsel records and statutory expiration ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Releases, reforms & now
“The Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling invoked Watergate.”
The comparison to Nixon’s pardon appears in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, not in the majority’s holding.
Who says it: The opinion.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), slip opinion ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Releases, reforms & now
“Nixon’s 1975 grand-jury testimony is public.”
It was released on 10 November 2011.
Who says it: National Archives.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives: Nixon grand-jury records released, November 10, 2011 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Releases, reforms & now
“The prosecutors’ Road Map to the House is public.”
It was released in 2018, with some grand-jury material still redacted.
Who says it: National Archives.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives: October 31, 2018 Road Map release and redaction limits ↗
Read the full file ↗
DOCUMENTED Releases, reforms & now
“New pages of Nixon’s testimony came out in 2026.”
James Rosen reported on seven pages in February 2026; they concern the Moorer–Radford affair.
Who says it: Rosen; Blackman.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- This site did not inspect them directly.
Sources: Josh Blackman: February 8, 2026 commentary on Rosen’s seven-page testimony report ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE · 14
PARTLY TRUE Before Watergate
“The Chennault secret is the real origin of Watergate.”
Nixon’s 1971 order to get a Vietnam file from Brookings is on tape, and the plumbers grew from that fear. That it drove the 1972 break-in is an argument, not a proven link.
Who says it: Ken Hughes and other historians.
Evidence for the claim
- “Blow the safe and get it” is recorded on 17 June 1971.
Evidence against / limits
- No record ties the DNC target to 1968.
Sources: Miller Center / PRDE: Nixon, Haldeman, Kissinger and Ehrlichman, 17 June 1971, Oval Office conversation 525-001 ↗ · National Archives exhibit: “Nixon’s Campaign Promise”, with H. R. Haldeman’s notes of 22 October 1968 ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE Before Watergate
“Liddy planned kidnappings and call girls to compromise Democrats.”
GEMSTONE’s first version included such ideas and was rejected. A reduced plan went ahead; the wildest parts were not shown to have been carried out.
Who says it: Testimony of Dean and Magruder; Liddy’s own account.
Evidence for the claim
- The proposal is in the testimony.
Evidence against / limits
- Proposed is not the same as done.
Sources: Nixon Foundation — Watergate Explained: proposal and approval chronology ↗ · Nixon Library — proposed Watergate exhibit script and supporting record references (2010) ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The break-in & the money
“The payments were just a legal defense fund.”
Some money did pay lawyers. The courts found the purpose was to buy silence, and that was the crime.
Who says it: Defenders of the defendants.
Evidence for the claim
- Lawyers’ fees were part of it.
Evidence against / limits
- The tapes discuss the money as the price of silence.
Sources: U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗ · Nixon Library — March 21, 1973 cancer conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The break-in & the money
“The FBI was at the crash suspiciously fast.”
FBI agents did go to the site soon after the crash, which the Bureau explained as routine in an air crash that might be a crime. That fact is the core of the theory, not proof of it.
Who says it: Theorists; the FBI file.
Evidence for the claim
- Agents were there quickly.
Evidence against / limits
- The FBI explained why it was there.
Sources: FBI file on the United Air Lines Flight 553 crash (released under FOIA) ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The cover-up
“Dean’s testimony was self-serving and wrong.”
He made errors of date and detail and played down his role at first. The core of his account was backed by the tapes that came out later.
Who says it: Nixon defenders; Silent Coup.
Evidence for the claim
- He was a participant with a motive.
Evidence against / limits
- The tapes support his central claims.
Sources: AAPB: John Dean testifies, June 25, 1973 ↗ · Miller Center: March 21, 1973, Cancer on the Presidency ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Woodward and Bernstein brought down Nixon.”
Their reporting kept the story alive and won the 1973 Pulitzer. The proof came from prosecutors, the grand jury, the Senate committee, the courts and the tapes.
Who says it: Popular memory; the film.
Evidence for the claim
- Their reporting was early and mostly right.
Evidence against / limits
- The proof came from official inquiries.
Sources: The Washington Post: 1973 Public Service winner and original reporting ↗ · National Archives: Watergate constitutional chronology ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Felt leaked because he was passed over to lead the FBI.”
Gray said in 2005 that revenge was Felt’s motive, and Felt did want the job. Institutional loyalty to the Bureau is another documented motive. His motives do not change what the evidence showed.
Who says it: L. Patrick Gray, 2005.
Evidence for the claim
- Felt was passed over after Hoover died.
Evidence against / limits
- Felt’s family cited duty.
Sources: Washington Post: “Revenge Was Felt’s Motive, Former Acting FBI Chief Says”, 27 June 2005 ↗ · FBI institutional history: Watergate and Mark Felt ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The fall & the pardon
“The Supreme Court ruled 9–0 against Nixon.”
It was unanimous but 8–0: Justice Rehnquist did not take part.
Who says it: A common slip.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) — official Supreme Court opinion ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The fall & the pardon
“The pardon cost Ford the 1976 election.”
It was very unpopular and cost him support; his press secretary resigned over it. How much it decided 1976 is a judgment.
Who says it: Political historians.
Evidence for the claim
- His approval fell sharply.
Evidence against / limits
- Other issues mattered in 1976.
Sources: Ford Library: Nixon pardon documents and contemporary reactions ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The fall & the pardon
“The Pentagon was told to ignore any order from Nixon to use the military.”
James Schlesinger later said he told commanders to check such orders with him. It is a later account, not a documented order.
Who says it: Schlesinger, later accounts.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- No written order has been found.
Sources: TIME: “James Schlesinger”, obituary note, 3 April 2014 ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The alternative theories
“Dean won his lawsuit over Silent Coup.”
Dean settled with St. Martin’s Press in 1997 on undisclosed terms. A settlement is not a verdict either way.
Who says it: Dean.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- No court ruled on the facts.
Sources: Spokesman-Review (Washington Post story): “Libel suit settled over Watergate book”, 10 August 1997 ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE The alternative theories
“Martha Mitchell was held and drugged to keep her quiet.”
Her basic account has strong support, including from McCord. Steve King, the security aide she accused, denied it, and some details are disputed.
Who says it: Martha Mitchell; McCord.
Evidence for the claim
- McCord backed her account.
Evidence against / limits
- The details are disputed.
Sources: HISTORY: Martha Mitchell and the kidnapping account, 2022 ↗ · TIME: Gaslit, Martha Mitchell and disputed details, 2022 ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE Access vs. wrongdoing
“The CIA under Helms hid records about Watergate.”
The agency destroyed recordings, including Helms’s calls, in January 1973, just before he left. What they held is unknown, and no link to planning the break-in is shown.
Who says it: Senator Baker.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
PARTLY TRUE Releases, reforms & now
“All the Nixon tapes are public.”
The final 340 hours were released in 2013. The 18½ minutes erased from the 20 June 1972 tape are lost.
Who says it: National Archives.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: National Archives: final Nixon tape release, 21 August 2013 (nr13-122) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DISPUTED · 5
DISPUTED Before Watergate
“Nixon’s campaign sank the 1968 peace talks.”
The interference is documented; whether it changed Saigon’s decision is argued, because South Vietnam’s leaders had their own reasons to stall.
Who says it: Many historians; disputed by the Nixon Foundation.
Evidence for the claim
- Saigon pulled back days before the election.
Evidence against / limits
- Thieu had reasons of his own.
- The Nixon Foundation reads the notes differently.
Sources: National Archives exhibit: “Nixon’s Campaign Promise”, with H. R. Haldeman’s notes of 22 October 1968 ↗ · Richard Nixon Foundation: “Misunderstanding a Monkey Wrench”, June 2017 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DISPUTED Before Watergate
“John Mitchell approved the Watergate operation.”
Magruder testified that Mitchell approved a reduced plan on 30 March 1972; Mitchell denied it. Mitchell was convicted of the cover-up, not of approving the burglary.
Who says it: Jeb Magruder; denied by Mitchell.
Evidence for the claim
- Magruder’s testimony is sworn.
Evidence against / limits
- Mitchell’s denial is sworn too.
- The jury verdicts were on the cover-up.
Sources: Nixon Foundation — Watergate Explained: proposal and approval chronology ↗ · U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗
Read the full file ↗
DISPUTED Before Watergate
“People on the enemies list were audited because of it.”
No audit has been tied to the list. IRS commissioner Johnnie Walters said he got the list from Dean and refused to act on it; Dean later said the list “never went outside my file drawer”. The two accounts conflict.
Who says it: Some people on the list.
Evidence for the claim
- The White House did press the IRS.
Evidence against / limits
- Both men say no one was audited because of it.
Sources: Connecticut Public Radio: “John Dean Says Nixon’s Enemies List Was Never Used to ‘Screw’ Anyone”, 1 May 2014 ↗ · Greenville News in USA Today: “Former IRS chief recalls defying Nixon”, 26 May 2013 ↗
Read the full file ↗
DISPUTED The tapes & the gap
“The gap hid talk of Watergate itself.”
Haldeman’s notes of the 20 June 1972 meeting show Watergate was discussed. What was erased cannot be known.
Who says it: Prosecutors; historians.
Evidence for the claim
- The notes mention Watergate.
Evidence against / limits
- The words themselves are lost.
Sources: National Archives: forensic examination of Haldeman’s handwritten notes ↗ · National Archives: results of the forensic examination of H. R. Haldeman’s notes, 2011 (nr11-142) ↗
Read the full file ↗
DISPUTED Releases, reforms & now
“Modern scandals are “worse than Watergate”.”
Both sides say it about the other’s cases. The facts of each case are documented; “worse” is a value judgment.
Who says it: Both parties.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Justice Department Inspector General: Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, 9 December 2019 ↗ · Special Counsel John Durham: Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns, May 2023 ↗ · U.S. House History, Art & Archives: List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN · 23
UNPROVEN The cover-up
“Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in.”
No tape, document or witness shows Nixon ordering the burglary. The tapes prove he joined the cover-up within six days.
Who says it: Popular belief.
Evidence for the claim
- His men ran it, and he joined the cover-up.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗ · Miller Center — The Smoking Gun: recording and historical explanation ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The tapes & the gap
“Rose Mary Woods erased the gap.”
Woods said she may have caused about five minutes by accident. That does not explain the rest, and no one has been shown to have made the other erasures.
Who says it: Common belief.
Evidence for the claim
- She had the tape and the machine.
Evidence against / limits
- Her own account covered only part of the gap.
Sources: Jill Wine-Banks: firsthand account of the Watergate prosecution and Woods examination ↗ · Congressional Record, July 3, 1974: expert-panel finding on the tape erasure ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The tapes & the gap
“Nixon erased the gap himself.”
He had access, and some aides suspected him. No evidence shows who made the erasures.
Who says it: Several historians and aides.
Evidence for the claim
- He had motive and access.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Congressional Record, July 3, 1974: expert-panel finding on the tape erasure ↗ · Washington Post: “Haig Tells of Theories on Erasure”, 7 December 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The tapes & the gap
“A “sinister force” erased the tape.”
Haig used the phrase in court and said the theories included an unknown person. No one has been identified.
Who says it: Alexander Haig, 6 December 1973.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- It was a guess, not a finding.
Sources: Washington Post: “Haig Tells of Theories on Erasure”, 7 December 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The press, the FBI & the Senate
“The FBI brought down Nixon to protect itself.”
The Bureau was fighting White House control, and Felt leaked. That the FBI as an institution set out to remove Nixon is not shown.
Who says it: Some writers and Nixon defenders.
Evidence against / limits
- The crimes were real either way.
Sources: Washington Post: “Revenge Was Felt’s Motive, Former Acting FBI Chief Says”, 27 June 2005 ↗ · FBI institutional history: Watergate and Mark Felt ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Woodward was an intelligence asset placed to bring down Nixon.”
No record shows it, and he denies it.
Who says it: Silent Coup; online theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- His service and clearances are real.
Evidence against / limits
- No document supports a tasking.
Sources: NBC News: excerpt from Bob Woodward’s The Secret Man, 6 July 2005 ↗ · John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Woodward briefed Alexander Haig at the White House.”
Silent Coup said so; Haig and Woodward both denied it.
Who says it: Colodny and Gettlin.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: NBC News: excerpt from Bob Woodward’s The Secret Man, 6 July 2005 ↗ · John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The press, the FBI & the Senate
“Butterfield was a CIA plant who exposed the tapes on purpose.”
The claim has been made by some writers; Butterfield denied it, and no record supports it.
Who says it: Some theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Capitol Visitor Center: Butterfield interview notes, July 13, 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The fall & the pardon
“Ford promised the pardon in exchange for the resignation.”
Haig raised a pardon as an option on 1 August 1974, and Ford pulled back the next day. No agreement has been shown, and Ford said under questioning “There was no deal, period.”
Who says it: Critics in 1974 and later.
Evidence for the claim
- The 1 August talk happened.
Evidence against / limits
- Ford testified under questioning.
- No document shows an agreement.
Sources: Gerald Ford: statement and congressional questions on the Nixon pardon, October 17, 1974 ↗ · Ford Library: Nixon pardon documents and contemporary reactions ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The fall & the pardon
“Haig engineered Nixon’s fall for the military.”
Silent Coup argued it. Haig’s power is documented; a plan to remove Nixon is not.
Who says it: Colodny and Gettlin.
Evidence for the claim
- He controlled access and the evidence.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: State Department historical documentary edition: Moorer–Radford affair, FRUS volume II, document 164 ↗ · John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The CIA question
“The CIA planned or ran the break-in.”
No investigation found it. McCord wrote to Sirica that Watergate was not a CIA operation.
Who says it: Hougan; Colodny and Gettlin; online theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- The ties and the destroyed records are real.
Evidence against / limits
- The Rockefeller Commission found no evidence of it.
Sources: Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗ · Ford Library: James W. McCord Jr. letter to Judge John Sirica, 19 March 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The CIA question
“The CIA brought Nixon down to get rid of him.”
Nixon did have bitter fights with the agency, but no record shows a plan to remove him.
Who says it: Theorists on left and right.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗ · TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The CIA question
“Helms used the CIA’s secrets to protect the agency against Nixon.”
The CIA declined to keep up the cover-up pretext, and later destroyed recordings. Use of secrets as leverage is argued, not shown.
Who says it: Some historians.
Evidence for the claim
- He resisted Nixon’s use of the agency.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗ · House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“The real target was a call-girl ring run near the DNC.”
Hougan and Silent Coup argued it, and a federal judge said the theory “may be correct”. No court or investigation found it, and Wells denied it.
Who says it: Jim Hougan; Colodny and Gettlin.
Evidence for the claim
- A desk key and phone extension are documented.
Evidence against / limits
- The call-girl evidence rests on a witness with credibility problems.
Sources: Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗ · Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999) ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“McCord sabotaged the break-in on purpose.”
Hougan’s case rests on the re-taped door and other puzzles. No investigation has found it.
Who says it: Jim Hougan.
Evidence for the claim
- The operation was oddly sloppy.
Evidence against / limits
- Sloppiness has ordinary explanations.
Sources: Contemporary review of Secret Agenda, preserved in the CIA Reading Room ↗ · National Archives — “Wills on Duty”: the guard who discovered the break-in ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“John Dean ordered the break-in to hide a link to the call-girl ring.”
Silent Coup said so; Dean denied it and sued. No court found it true.
Who says it: Colodny and Gettlin, 1991.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- Dean settled with the publisher in 1997.
Sources: John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗ · Spokesman-Review (Washington Post story): “Libel suit settled over Watergate book”, 10 August 1997 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“The Democrats set Watergate up.”
No record shows Democrats knew of or arranged the break-in, and Nixon’s own people planned, paid for and covered it up.
Who says it: Some Nixon defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗ · Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“The CIA set Nixon up.”
The CIA ties are real; no investigation found a setup.
Who says it: Theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗ · Ford Library: James W. McCord Jr. letter to Judge John Sirica, 19 March 1973 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN The alternative theories
“The press set Nixon up.”
Reporters had sources and motives; no record shows a setup. The crimes were proven in court.
Who says it: Some Nixon defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗ · Washington Post: “Revenge Was Felt’s Motive, Former Acting FBI Chief Says”, 27 June 2005 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN Access vs. wrongdoing
“McCord was working for the CIA in 1972.”
No investigation showed it, and he wrote that Watergate was not a CIA operation.
Who says it: Theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Ford Library: James W. McCord Jr. letter to Judge John Sirica, 19 March 1973 ↗ · Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN Access vs. wrongdoing
“Haig erased the tape or arranged a pardon deal.”
Neither is shown.
Who says it: Theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Washington Post: “Haig Tells of Theories on Erasure”, 7 December 1973 ↗ · Gerald Ford: statement and congressional questions on the Nixon pardon, October 17, 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN Access vs. wrongdoing
“Woodward reported Watergate on someone else’s orders.”
No record shows it, and he denies it.
Who says it: Theorists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: NBC News: excerpt from Bob Woodward’s The Secret Man, 6 July 2005 ↗
Read the full file ↗
UNPROVEN Releases, reforms & now
“The new releases change the verdict on Watergate.”
They add detail, mostly on the Radford affair. None identifies who made the gap, shows a CIA plan or changes the case on the cover-up.
Who says it: Some revisionists.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Josh Blackman: February 8, 2026 commentary on Rosen’s seven-page testimony report ↗ · National Archives: Nixon Grand Jury Records, page last reviewed 9 February 2026 ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE · 10
FALSE The break-in & the money
“The Mexican checks show foreign money behind Watergate.”
The Mexican route was used to launder U.S. campaign donations, not to bring in foreign direction.
Who says it: Online claims.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The money was American, washed through Mexico.
Sources: FBI — Watergate investigative summary, part 1 (released records) ↗ · Miller Center — Watergate: The Cover-Up ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The break-in & the money
“Dorothy Hunt was murdered when United Flight 553 was brought down.”
The NTSB found pilot error in the approach to Midway and no evidence of sabotage or foul play. The FBI examined the claims of cyanide and a bomb and answered them.
Who says it: Sherman Skolnick and later writers.
Evidence for the claim
- She was carrying about $10,000 in cash.
Evidence against / limits
- No sabotage was found.
- The FBI’s presence at the scene is explained in its file.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board: Aircraft Accident Report NTSB-AAR-73-16, United Air Lines Flight 553, Chicago-Midway, 8 December 1972 (adopted 29 August 1973) ↗ · FBI file on the United Air Lines Flight 553 crash (released under FOIA) ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The cover-up
“In context, the smoking-gun tape is innocent.”
The plan to use the CIA against the FBI is on the tape, and Nixon admitted it contradicted his earlier statements. The defense points, such as a security worry, do not change what was ordered.
Who says it: Some Nixon defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- The plan failed.
- Nixon told Gray on 6 July to keep going.
Evidence against / limits
- Nixon released it with an admission.
Sources: Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗ · National Archives: Nixon resignation letter and its legal effect ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The cover-up
“Dean was a whistleblower who did nothing wrong.”
Dean ran much of the cover-up and pleaded guilty to conspiracy. His testimony was largely backed by the tapes, but it does not erase his guilt.
Who says it: Some admirers.
Evidence for the claim
- His account held up against the tapes.
Evidence against / limits
- He pleaded guilty in October 1973.
Sources: Nixon Library: John W. Dean III biographical and archival note ↗ · Nixon Library — March 21, 1973 cancer conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The tapes & the gap
“The lost words have been recovered.”
The 2003 tests failed, and the 2011 examination of Haldeman’s notes of the meeting found nothing new.
Who says it: Online rumors.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
- The Archives says the erased audio has not been recovered.
Sources: National Archives: archivist accepts failed tape-recovery test results, 2003 ↗ · National Archives: results of the forensic examination of H. R. Haldeman’s notes, 2011 (nr11-142) ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The press, the FBI & the Senate
“The press manufactured Watergate.”
The crimes were proven by courts, guilty pleas and the President’s own tapes, not by the reporting alone.
Who says it: Some Nixon defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- Some reporters were hostile to Nixon.
Evidence against / limits
- The tapes are not press inventions.
Sources: U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗ · Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The fall & the pardon
“Nixon was impeached.”
The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles, but Nixon resigned before the full House voted. He was never impeached.
Who says it: A common error.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: House Judiciary Committee: adopted articles of impeachment, July 1974 — transcript ↗ · House History: impeachment inquiries into President Richard Nixon ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The fall & the pardon
“The pardon cleared Nixon.”
A pardon ends prosecution; it is not a finding of innocence. Nixon accepted it with a statement of regret.
Who says it: Some defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: Gerald Ford: Proclamation 4311 granting a pardon to Richard Nixon ↗ · Richard Nixon: statement accepting the pardon, September 8, 1974 ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE The fall & the pardon
“Haig was Deep Throat.”
Felt was confirmed as Deep Throat in 2005.
Who says it: A long-running guess.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: ABC News: Deep Throat is identified, May 31, 2005 ↗
Read the full file ↗
FALSE Access vs. wrongdoing
“Felt fabricated the Watergate story.”
His tips pointed reporters toward facts that were proven independently.
Who says it: Some Nixon defenders.
Evidence for the claim
- No supporting evidence identified in the public record.
Evidence against / limits
Sources: FBI institutional history: Watergate and Mark Felt ↗ · U.S. v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976): cover-up convictions affirmed ↗
Read the full file ↗
Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.