News-Record.com

Felt had a legal and moral obligation to safeguard investigation details. He violated his sworn oath, and possibly grand jury disclosure laws.
Would you be so gleeful if it was suddenly revealed that a high ranking "journalist" violated his oath and conditions of employment by secretly participating in a criminal investigation, disclosing information gathered by his fellow "journalists" to the FBI, in an attempt to destroy his employer?
I somehow doubt it.

John, I've worked with enough minor-league Deep Throats over the years to feel no glee whatsoever about them -- just gratitude for their public spirit and gratitude that for most of my adult life I, unlike they, have never had to wonder much about whose side I'm on.

Yes, Felt violated the law. But he did so because he knew that his immediate supervisor, and possibly other high-ranking agency officials, were obstructing justice on behalf of the Nixon White House. Under those circumstances, I think it's questionable whether any honest U.S. attorney even would seek an indictment, let alone whether any honest jury would vote to convict.

I think any reasonably rigorous examination of the law, the circumstances, Felt's duties and the stakes to the nation results in his looking pretty good. Not to compare Nixon to Hitler, but the generals who tried to assassinate Hitler in '44 were breaking the law, too.

In the hypothetical case you describe, I would have to perform a similar, rigorous examination of the issues, law, circumstances, stakes and stakeholders. And frankly, if my employer were gravely endangering the public in a way that violated the law, not only would I be cheered if someone on the inside were assisting law enforcement, I would hope that I'd be that person. "Landmark Communications" is my employer of record, but I try to work for the public, and I think most of my co-workers feel the same way.

Felt had legal, official channels within which to work if he felt (no pun intended) that illegal doings were in the works. He failed to pursue those. Instead, he chose a route outside the law by violating the law.
"Journalists" are not a part of the legal system; indeed, they're often violators themselves when it come to obtaining information.
You're using 30 years of hindsight to try and justify something your profession is gleefully proud of, the destruction of a politician by the power of the press.
Sounds strangely similar to the media's position when Bill Clinton swore to his God on a Bible to tell the truth, then lied in order to deny a regular citizen, Paula Jones, her right to a fair
trial.
Does any means justify the end to something you personally or professionally disdain?
Hundreds of thousands of law enforcement professionals take their oath of office and obligation to obey the law very seriously.
I decry applauding a man who violated both for the sake of spiting his superiors, and I decry journalists who proudly boast of abetting violations of federal law to achieve their politically motivated goals.

Lex, you are all wet on this one. Felt did have a dark motive, Woodward said it did not matter because every thing he said was true. (to bad Linda Tripp was treated differently). And Felt was later cited for abuse of power himself.

Many FBI reformers said he was one of the guys holding back change. Buchanan said it best, if he thought their was a cover up, the right thing to do would have been to resign and report to Congress.

As for Colson, he actually confessed to crimes he was not indicted for- a real sign of repentance.

[[Felt had legal, official channels within which to work if he felt (no pun intended) that illegal doings were in the works. He failed to pursue those. Instead, he chose a route outside the law by violating the law.]]

On paper, he did. In fact, as I pointed out, his immediate supervisor, FBI director L. Patrick Gray, was obstructing justice at the White House's request. Moreover, Gray had come to the FBI from the Justice Department, which had its own criminal problems (John Mitchell, anyone?). And those are just the problems we know about. It's entirely possible that Felt was aware of even more.

In any case, I'm quite sure he knew what laws/regulations he was violating and that he wouldn't have embarked upon the course he chose had he not been willing to suffer the consequences. The fact that he made the choice that he did in light of those possible consequences, after a career built on going by the book, speaks volumes to me.

I'll grant you one point: We're BOTH speaking with the benefit of 30 years of hindsight. Neither of us knows now everything that Felt knew at the time he made his decision. All we can do is try to judge him on the basis of all the evidence available, on the context of his time AND in the light of history.

[["Journalists" are not a part of the legal system; indeed, they're often violators themselves when it come to obtaining information.]]

Journalists who are worth a damn have never claimed or tried to be a part of the legal system. They've tried to be an independent, honest broker of news people need to govern themselves. In this case, the most significant effect of the Post's reporting wasn't on the legal system but on the political system, and Nixon's presidency didn't end at the hands of the legal system, it ended at the hands of the political system, inasmuch as impeachment is a political (in the best sense) act.

For those of you following along at home: The Post's reporting led to the Senate Watergate Committee's hearings, which led to the revelation of the White House tapes, the contents of which led the House Judiciary Committee to approve three articles of impeachment, which led Nixon to resign.

And while you might think that accepting such illegal confidences by journalists is itself a violation of the law, neither statutes nor case law supports your position. Put less tactfully, you're factually, objectively wrong.

[[You're using 30 years of hindsight to try and justify something your profession is gleefully proud of, the destruction of a politician by the power of the press.]]

First, John, when you claim that "my profession" is gleefully proud of anything, you make a pretty damned lightweight argument. Just for starters, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you polled us? Have you, in other words, done the reporting necessary to support such a claim?

Second, the media didn't destroy Nixon. Nixon destroyed Nixon. It's been 31 years, people: If you're so big on personal responsibility for one's actions, stop blaming "the media" for what Richard Milhous Nixon did quite without the media's help. Nixon's tragic flaw -- call it paranoia, insecurity, whatever -- led him to cheat in his re-election campaign even though he almost certainly would have won big in a fair contest.

Whatever else it might be, that is NOT the media's fault.

[[Sounds strangely similar to the media's position when Bill Clinton swore to his God on a Bible to tell the truth, then lied in order to deny a regular citizen, Paula Jones, her right to a fair trial.]]

What IS it with people and Bill Clinton? Did Bill Clinton make the Committee to Re-Elect the President hire people to break into the Democratic National Committee?

[[Does any means justify the end to something you personally or professionally disdain?]]

Uh, no. What, exactly, have I said that makes you think differently?

[[Hundreds of thousands of law enforcement professionals take their oath of office and obligation to obey the law very seriously.]]

Very true. Your point being ... ?

[[I decry applauding a man who violated both for the sake of spiting his superiors ... ]]

His justice-obstructing superiors. Important qualification there, John. And, again, having worked with minor-league Deep Throats for more than 20 years, I'd be surprised if I didn't know far more than you about the complex mixture of motivations that can lead a source to come forward. But Felt has said publicly he felt that he had to preserve the independence and integrity of the FBI. And why is THAT important? So that Felt can go to sleep at night with a warm, fuzzy feeling in his tummy? No. It's important because it's what the public needs, wants and pays for.

[[... and I decry journalists who proudly boast of abetting violations of federal law to achieve their politically motivated goals.]]

Do you mean that you think the highest, greatest good is adherence to the strict letter of the law? If you really think that, fine -- that's a philosophically consistent position, at least as long as you apply it across the board. (Ever speed, John?) And to call accepting a source's information "abetting violations of federal law" overlooks the fact that, as I pointed out above, doing so is not, in fact, abetting such a violation or in any other way itself a violation.

As for political motivation, that's your assertion, unsupported by any evidence I know of. (Bob Woodward, at the time, was a Republican. For the record, I've been one myself since turning 18.)

To conclude, although there might well be an argument that would convince me to change my opinion of what Felt did, none of the ones you've made is it. But feel free to keep trying. I always enjoy a good discussion.

[[Lex, you are all wet on this one. Felt did have a dark motive, Woodward said it did not matter because every thing he said was true.]]

What was Felt's "dark motive," Chip? To get back at the White House for not making him FBI director? That might be so, but I've seen no evidence of it. I'm unaware of anything else Woodward has said about any "dark motive." And the fact is, everything he said was true. I'm not arguing that that counts for everything, but shouldn't it count for something?

[[(to bad Linda Tripp was treated differently).]]

Huh? You wanna flesh this out? I'm not sure what you mean.

[[And Felt was later cited for abuse of power himself.]]

Yes, he was. He was convicted of a crime and was later pardoned. That affects the accuracy of what he said how, exactly? And it affects his motivation how, exactly?

And to make one side point for just a second, frankly I'm not sure why everyone's dwelling on Felt's motivations, because to entertain the aspersions being cast on them is in effect to assert that Felt knew, at the time he was giving Woodward the information, what would happen as a result of what he was doing. And that's just nuts. As even Woodward and Bernstein made clear in "All the President's Men," for a long, long time there was no guarantee that anything really bad was going to happen to senior administration officials, let alone Nixon himself.

[[Many FBI reformers said he was one of the guys holding back change.]]

And that's relevant how, exactly? If anything, that kind of traditionalist, by-the-book thinking makes his decision to talk to the Post all the more remarkable: It makes more plausible the notion that he really must have felt that there was no other way to address the crisis.

[[Buchanan said it best, if he thought their was a cover up, the right thing to do would have been to resign and report to Congress.]]

I'll grant, Chip, that I can't say with certainty why he didn't go that route. Perhaps he should have. But I'd be inclined to take Buchanan a whole lot more seriously if he at least would concede that Watergate was wrong. But he won't. Instead, he calls Felt a "traitor." Do you honestly think that Buchanan thinks that Felt's a traitor for talking to the Post but would not have been a traitor for quitting and talking to Congress? Because if you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[[As for Colson, he actually confessed to crimes he was not indicted for- a real sign of repentance.]]

Perhaps. And as I said, his post-Watergate, post-prison work with convicts is laudable. But it is at best a starting point. The fact remains that Felt did what he did in significant part because Colson did NOT do what he admits he knew he should have done. I stand by my assessment for that reason.

Felt acted illegally in what he did. That he knew he was acting illegally in no way relieves him of the responsibility imposed by his oath of office and sworn allegience to uphold the laws.
The fact that he made the illegal choices he did knowing the consequences also speaks volumes to me, albeit from a different pulpit than you heard it from.
Was L. Patrick Gray convicted of obstructing justice? No. Then your characterization of that is your opinion and has no basis in fact.
Many reporters, and some I've dealt with from the N&R, will act illegally or be a party to illegalities to obtain information. 'Nuff said.
Nixon lied, so did Clinton. Nixon was forced by the press to resign, Clinton was hailed as a hero by the press. Can you say hypocrite?
Nixon was not impeached.
Felt could have preserved the independence and integrity of the FBI by pursuing legal avenues to report violations, not by illegally disclosing information to reporters.
I've worked with far more covert sources than you, by the way. I know how to recruit them, motivate them, control them, and terminate the relationship when it goes beyond legal limits. I never take part in illegal activities vis a vis sources, but some professions do.
I don't have to poll news media to see where they stand, their public personna addresses that very well. I know what I see.
My point on sworn oaths and professional ethics should need no explantion, but I'll make it clearer. Felt violated the very basis of our legal system, that they law enforcers obey the laws. He knowingly violated his oath of office. His conduct is a slap in the face to every law officer who ever took that oath.
Whether Nixon's resignation for lying was a good thing depends on who you ask. Bill Clinton WAS impeached and still did not have the common decency to resign. That says volumes to me about Richard Nixon.
Woodward and Bernstein stand to make million$ because they aided and abetted a violation of federal law. Isn't there a law against that?

John, simply repeating factual inaccuracies and unconvincing arguments makes them no more accurate or convincing. "Because I say so" is not an argument a reporter can muster with me and still expect an unsupported assertion to get into print. As to a couple of your other points:

-- If you know of any N&R reporter who has acted illegally, by all means let me or John Robinson know. Or call the police. Seriously. Today. Right now.

-- Nixon lied, but he also committed other crimes while in office that constituted clear violations of U.S. law and his oath of office. Bill Clinton lied under oath about a personal matter irrelevant to the subject of the special prosecutor's investigation. Both did wrong, but only one abused his office.

-- No, Nixon was not impeached, but only because he resigned before the full House took up the impeachment articles voted out of the Judiciary Committee. Clinton did not resign because he thought that the matter for which he had been impeached had nothing to do with his performance in office. A majority of the Senate agreed, and American voters in the fall of '98 kicked quite a few pro-impeachment Republicans out of the House.

-- Yes, Felt violated his oath of office, a crime. But that violation did not take place in a vacuum. And for all your admiration for the concept of adhering to one's oath, such violations go on all the time. New York City cops were caught on video violating the rights of protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention in violation of their oaths. How many have been punished, and how severely?

-- Finally, I would find your argument perhaps more convincing if you agreed with Felt's ends but were criticizing only his means. But you're not doing that, are you? (Or am I misreading you?) Do you think that what Nixon and his cronies did was wrong, and deserving of prosecution and/or impeachment, or not? And if not, please explain why Bill Clinton's transgressions, upon which you keep harping, were deserving of prosecution and/or impeachment when Nixon's were not.

Thanks.

Lex, we'll never see eye to eye on this one.
You're a "faux Republican" who claims that title when it suits you, while you do everything in your journalistic power to destroy Republicans.
The illegal activities of reporters are ones the N&R has already taken care of, but happened while I was privy to that arena. By the way, I was the police at the time.
I'm not gonna waste the time of both of us on this anymore, I think of Felt as a "corrupt cop" and you think of him as a "hero."
Not much middle ground here.

John, obviously this is news to you (and a lot of other people who have been drinking dangerous amounts of protofascist Kool-Aid), but you don't get to decide who's a real Republican and who isn't. I joined the party in 1978 because I believed in fiscal responsibility; a strong defense; a foreign policy dedicating to advancing America's interests and values in the world, preferably peaceably; limited, accountable government; and a variety of other virtues. I still believe in them. So either I'm a Republican or the Republican Party has a serious problem on its hands.

I neither know nor care whether we're going to see eye to eye on the virtues of Mark Felt's behavior. All I know is that you could have tried to persuade me to change my position and adopt yours by using facts and logic. However, although your response wasn't completely fact-free, you chose instead to impugn my character and integrity and that of my employer. And what did that get you?

You know, you could have tried to change my mind with facts and logic. I welcome and respect all such efforts, successful or not, and it's what these forums are for. But you didn't do that.

I'll let that fact speak for itself. We're done here.