COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Was the smoking gun taken out of context?

The case for Nixon, and the tape itself.

← 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

A worried president, not a criminal one.

Read the whole conversation and the theory goes like this. Nixon did not know who ordered the burglary. He was told the FBI’s trail ran through Mexico and might expose sensitive matters, including the Bay of Pigs. A president is entitled to ask the CIA whether an investigation touches its operations. [1][3]

The plan also failed almost at once, without Nixon stopping anyone. The CIA said it had no stake, and on 6 July 1972, when Gray warned him that people on his staff were trying to wound him, Nixon told Gray to go ahead with his investigation. The FBI kept working. [2]

On this reading, the tape captures a few minutes of political damage control by a president being given bad information by his aides. It was treated as decisive because by August 1974 Washington had already decided against him.

The sources

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Miller Center: the June 23, 1972 smoking-gun recording ↗

    University of Virginia Miller Center presentation of presidential audio with transcript. Its editorial introduction is interpretation; the underlying recorded words are primary evidence.

What the record shows

Discuss on XDispute thisSupport thisShare

The defense points are real. The tape still says what it says.

On the tape, the purpose is plain. Haldeman says the way to handle it is to have Walters call Gray and tell him to stay out of it, and he ties the danger to the money trail and the campaign, not to an actual CIA operation. Nixon approves and suggests what Walters should say. [1][2]

The defense points are partly true. The CIA did decline, and Nixon did tell Gray on 6 July to continue. But the House Judiciary Committee treated the 23 June decision, and the payments and false statements that followed, as part of a continuing obstruction. Telling Gray to continue did not undo it. [3]

Nixon’s own words count most. In releasing the transcript on 5 August 1974, he said it was “at variance” with his earlier statements and that he had not told his lawyers or the Judiciary Committee. Republicans on that committee who had voted against impeachment said they would now vote for it. He resigned four days later. [4][5]

What we can’t tell you. The July 6 exchange is known from Gray’s testimony and the committee record, not from a tape.

The sources

  1. 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.

  2. Miller Center: the June 23, 1972 smoking-gun recording ↗

    University of Virginia Miller Center presentation of presidential audio with transcript. Its editorial introduction is interpretation; the underlying recorded words are primary evidence.

  3. 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.

  4. National Archives: Listening to Nixon — tapes and their custody ↗

    Primary court record, original presidential statement, or official archival/institutional account; the article identifies what this source establishes and what it does not.

  5. National Archives: Nixon resignation letter and its legal effect ↗

    Primary court record, original presidential statement, or official archival/institutional account; the article identifies what this source establishes and what it does not.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

2 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
The cover-up reaches the Oval Office↗NEXT CASE
What the tapes actually say↗

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.