Parsing Nixon

The transcript of Nixon’s testimony about Watergate became public Thursday, providing a detailed view of Nixon - combative, defensive and mindful of his place in history [link]. As an exercise in deception-detection, I suggested we parse a short passage of Nixon’s testimony. We limited it to the response Nixon gave to a specific question asked by federal prosecutors. We examined the implications Nixon made in order to give prosecutors the impression that he was acting as Chief Executive and giving high-level ‘directives’ to his staff ..and not ordering the Watergate break-in. When prosecutors asked about White House efforts to target Lawrence O'Brien (Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) and the events leading up to the break-in at his office in the Watergate complex, Nixon replied:

“I do not recall suggesting Mr. O’Brien files be checked ..I only suggested that in this campaign, we should be as effective in conducting our investigations as they (the Democrats) had been in conducting their investigations.”

[ I only suggested .. ] implies no direct orders were given. Although prosecutors may infer ‘tacit approval’, without knowing what was going on in the minds of the White House staff at the time; prosecutors couldn’t go there. That information was only available in discussions leading up to this point. But the previous 18 minutes were erased from the White House tape. *See Footnote* [conducting our investigation .. ] implies they were only discussing an equitable response to what Democrats were doing during the campaign. Since there was no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Democrats, prosecutors could only conclude Nixon wasn’t suggesting anything inappropriate. It’s clear Nixon was using pragmatic implications [link] ..a trick that lawyers routinely recommend to their clients. He could deny culpability but, at the same time, avoid perjury in the advent investigators found evidence that he actually did order the break-in. Instead of denying it outright, he says is he was making what amounts to a ‘suggestion’ that they conduct an ‘equitable investigation’. If it comes out later that he gave orders, he cannot be accused of perjury for the inferences federal prosecutors made in response to his statements. In other words, implications are not grounds for perjury. To the end, Nixon played the role of an attorney trying to create ‘reasonable doubt’ in the minds of his jurors (Historians).

* Footnote: Congress actually did infer that, by omission, the 18-minute gap probably contained incriminating information turning Nixon’s statement into a criminal act. This is what led to a vote of impeachment by over two-thirds of the House.

Justice department

“An operation called Fast and Furious allowed weapons to be sold to gun smugglers in the U.S. so they could be traced to drug cartels in Mexico. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which ran the operation, lost track of the weapons ..one of which was used in the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry near Tucson in December 2010.”   LA Times 

In his deposition to congress, Kenneth Melson, former head of ATF, says he was “..never advised” by his staff that they were involved in a program of selling illegal arms along the U.S./Mexican border. “My chief of staff never came in and told me either, and he’s on the same damn floor as I am.” Which leads me to suspect a cover-up. The phrase “I was never told” does not automatically register as “I didn’t know” in my suspicious brain. What I do detect is his use of pragmatic implication to deceive me into thinking that he didn’t know. Furthermore, not once in his deposition did he ever come out and actually say: “I did not know what my department was doing” ..which would have sounded incredibly stupid. So, instead .. he uses phrases like “I was never advised ..” or “no one ever told me ..” not only to avoid sounding stupid but to help him dodge any future accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice [link]. Members of the Justice Department coached him well. Now they too are saying that they were never told about the Fast and Furious program ..and cite his testimony as evidence. Which leads me to believe that they too were fully aware of what was going on. Lack of oversight ..I don’t think so. What I do think is that Fast and Furious was directed by the U.S. State Department and carried out, with full cooperation, by the ATF. When it resulted in the unfortunate shooting of a border patrol agent ..the operation became public; and the cover-up began. In order to conceal involvement by the U.S. government, Justice officials immediately began advising ATF against full disclosure ..telling them “it is a long-standing policy of the Department of Justice that we don’t talk about ongoing cases.” Which leads me to believe that the Department of Justice is also in the business of obstruction of justice.