COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Was Watergate a setup?

By the Democrats, by the CIA, or by the press.

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Watergate Files hub: the history, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The strongest version of this theory

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

Nixon was trapped.

The Democratic version: no tap was found on O’Brien’s phone; the line the burglars monitored was used for sexual conversations, according to a monitor’s testimony; If the Democrats knew what was on that line, the second break-in walked into a trap. [1]

The CIA version: the burglars were ex-CIA, the tape was put back on the door, McCord’s wife burned papers with a CIA man present, and the Agency destroyed records. [2]

The press and FBI version: the leaks came from a deputy who was angry at being passed over, the reporting had errors, and a hostile establishment made a burglary into a crisis no other president would have faced. In 2022 James Rosen argued that prosecutors had handled evidence unfairly. [3][4] On every version, Nixon was the target, not the author.

The sources

  1. Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗

    A defamation ruling addressing fault, sources and evidence, not a final history of Watergate. This 2001 procedural stage was followed by an appeal and a later 2002 jury verdict; no historical truth ruling is inferred.

  2. TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗

    Contemporary summary of Howard Baker’s minority report on the CIA and Watergate. Used because the CIA reading-room copy of the report could not be opened when checked; the report itself drew no firm conclusions.

  3. James Rosen: revisionist argument about later evidence, June 20, 2022 ↗

    A later revisionist argument. Linked so readers can inspect the challenge itself; its allegation of suppressed exculpatory evidence is not adopted as an established finding.

  4. Washington Post: “Revenge Was Felt’s Motive, Former Acting FBI Chief Says”, 27 June 2005 ↗

    L. Patrick Gray’s view of Felt’s motive, with the Felt family’s and Felt’s own accounts. Gray was the man Felt’s leaks undermined.

What the record shows

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

Oddities, motives and no setup.

The oddities are real, and a federal judge listed some of them. He also said they do not settle why the burglars were there. [1] The Rockefeller Commission found no CIA planning, and McCord, the CIA man, wrote that it was not a CIA operation. [2][3]

What is proven is who sent the burglars. The appeals court’s Liddy decision describes a plan approved and funded by the Committee to Re-elect, carried out by its security chief and a White House consultant. [4]

And a setup cannot explain what happened next. Nobody tricked Nixon into the 23 June plan to use the CIA against the FBI, or into the payments, or into the statements his own tapes contradicted. [5][6]

Rate each version separately: Democratic foreknowledge is unproven; CIA sabotage is unproven; a hostile press and FBI is partly true as a description of motives, and false as an explanation of the crimes.

What we can’t tell you. Some of this evidence, such as what was overheard on the tapped line, comes from sealed or disputed testimony.

The sources

  1. Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗

    A defamation ruling addressing fault, sources and evidence, not a final history of Watergate. This 2001 procedural stage was followed by an appeal and a later 2002 jury verdict; no historical truth ruling is inferred.

  2. Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗

    Executive commission investigation of CIA activities. Its conclusion was no evidence of Agency participation or advance knowledge of the Watergate burglary; it also criticized other assistance and responses. Not proof that every secret activity is known.

  3. Ford Library: James W. McCord Jr. letter to Judge John Sirica, 19 March 1973 ↗

    Image and citation of the letter filed in United States v. Liddy (NARA, Record Group 21). Sirica read it in court on 23 March 1973; the letter is dated 19 March.

  4. U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗

    Published appellate opinion reproducing the government’s trial evidence and affirming Liddy’s conviction. Appellate narrative is not a new, neutral fact-finding trial.

  5. Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗

    Prosecution trial transcript of the June 23 conversation, selected excerpts rather than an omniscient narrator. Audio remains the underlying evidence; transcript includes uncertain words.

  6. House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗

    Contemporary House Judiciary Committee impeachment report and evidentiary account. Committee conclusions were not a Senate conviction or a criminal verdict against Nixon.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 99 rated claims ↗

← The Watergate Files hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

PREVIOUS CASE
Silent Coup: Dean, the call girls and the lawsuits↗NEXT CASE
Martha Mitchell and the cost of speaking↗

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesWatergate shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesWatergate.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.