PEOPLE POWER
How Watergate Led to Richard Nixon’s Resignation
A political burglary became a constitutional crisis when investigators, Congress, and the courts forced a president’s own recordings into the open.
A break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters grew into a constitutional crisis when White House tapes revealed an effort to obstruct the investigation.
At 1:47 a.m. on June 17, 1972, Watergate security guard Frank Wills logged a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. Five men were arrested inside the offices that morning. Within two years, the case would force President Richard Nixon from office. [1][2]
The burglary mattered, but the presidency unraveled over what followed: efforts to restrict the investigation, shield participants, and keep evidence from Congress and the courts. Watergate became a constitutional crisis because the evidence eventually reached beyond the people caught inside the Democratic headquarters and into the Oval Office.
The Break-In Pointed Beyond the Watergate Complex
The men arrested at the Watergate had ties to the Committee to Re-elect the President, commonly called CRP, and to White House-connected operatives. Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray was notified of those links. [6]
The available evidence did not establish that Nixon personally ordered the June 1972 burglary. That question remains separate from the documented actions taken after the arrests. The central issue became whether Nixon and his administration used the powers of the presidency to obstruct the investigation.
The criminal case widened rather than ended in court. In January 1973, G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord were convicted on charges including conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping. [4]
The Cover-Up Became the Central Question
Six days after the break-in, Nixon met with his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. Their June 23, 1972 conversation recorded a plan to have the CIA limit the FBI’s Watergate inquiry. Later known as the “Smoking Gun” tape, the recording placed Nixon in a discussion of blocking the investigation at its outset. [5]
That recording changed the meaning of the scandal. Watergate was no longer only a case about political operatives entering an opponent’s office. It raised the question of whether a president could use federal power and claims of national security to keep a criminal inquiry from moving forward.
White House counsel John Dean later testified about the administration’s cover-up discussions. In April 1973, Haldeman and domestic affairs adviser John Ehrlichman resigned, and Dean was dismissed. [1]
Those departures did not settle the matter. They made it harder to portray the break-in as the work of isolated subordinates, and Congress moved toward a public investigation.
The Senate Hearings and the Tapes
The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities began televised hearings on May 17, 1973. Chaired by North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, the committee brought testimony about campaign activities and the administration’s response to a national audience. [1][3]
On July 16, Alexander Butterfield, a former deputy assistant to Nixon, told Senate investigators that the White House had a secret recording system. Oval Office conversations had been captured automatically. [3]
The disclosure gave investigators a route around competing accounts. Nixon had denied wrongdoing, while Dean had described his participation in cover-up discussions. The recordings could preserve what had been said when memory, loyalty, and public denials pointed in different directions.
Nixon argued that executive privilege protected the tapes from compulsory disclosure. Prosecutors and congressional investigators argued that confidentiality could not put potential criminal evidence beyond legal reach.
The Saturday Night Massacre
The confrontation over the tapes intensified in October 1973. Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox sought recordings and other evidence. On October 20, Nixon ordered Cox dismissed. Senior Justice Department officials resigned rather than carry out the order before Cox was fired in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. [7]
The episode sharpened the crisis. The president was not simply resisting an investigation; he had removed the prosecutor pursuing evidence from the White House. Calls for impeachment gained force, while the legal fight over the tapes continued.
The Senate committee investigated for 16 months and helped lay the groundwork for later legislative reforms. Its hearings showed how congressional oversight could assemble a public record from testimony, documents, and contested accounts. [3]
The Supreme Court Order and Nixon’s Resignation
By the summer of 1974, the tape dispute had reached the Supreme Court. In *United States v. Nixon*, the Court ruled 8–0 on July 24 that Nixon had to comply with a subpoena for recordings needed in a criminal proceeding. The ruling recognized that presidential confidentiality had limits when the administration of justice required evidence. [7]
At nearly the same time, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. The full House never voted on them. Nixon resigned before impeachment reached the House floor and before any Senate trial could begin. [1]
After the Court’s decision, the White House released the June 23, 1972 transcript on August 5. It showed Nixon approving the effort to have the CIA impede the FBI investigation. [5][7]
On August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned. He remains the first and only U.S. president to do so. His signed resignation letter was addressed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded him. [2][4]
What Watergate Changed
Watergate clarified limits on presidential secrecy when criminal evidence is at issue. It also demonstrated the separate roles of Congress, prosecutors, courts, and federal officials during a conflict involving the presidency.
The episode left a durable mark on public trust. Nixon had won reelection in 1972 while the break-in and the cover-up were still unresolved. The tapes exposed the distance between public assurances and private discussions. The Senate investigation later contributed to reforms concerning campaign practices, government ethics, and public accountability. [3]
Ford granted Nixon a full presidential pardon on September 8, 1974. The pardon ended the prospect of a federal criminal prosecution of Nixon, though it did not end the debate over accountability. [4]
Watergate did not resolve itself. A guard logged a break-in, investigators followed connections, witnesses testified, Congress held hearings, judges enforced subpoenas, and recordings preserved conversations the White House had tried to control. The tapes did not create the crisis, but they made its central facts harder to deny.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Richard Nixon impeached?
No. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned on August 9 before the full House voted. Because the House did not impeach him, the Senate did not hold an impeachment trial. [1]
Who was “Deep Throat” in the Watergate investigation?
“Deep Throat” was the name journalists used for an anonymous source who supplied background information during Watergate reporting. The FBI identifies the source as Mark Felt, then the bureau’s associate director. [6]
When did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon?
Ford issued Nixon a full presidential pardon on September 8, 1974, shortly after succeeding him as president. [4]
TIMELINE
Key moments
Sources
- Watergate and the Constitution | National Archives — U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
- Exhibit: Nixon and Watergate - National Archives — U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
- Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - U.S. Senate — United States Senate
- The Watergate Files | Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library — Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
- Watergate Trial Tapes | Richard Nixon Museum and Library — Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- Watergate - FBI Famous Cases — Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Watergate timeline: From the crime to the consequences — Associated Press
RELATED STORIES