Chapter 7 judge sirica

Brother Lu: Hello! Nice to hear from you, you said, waiting for me to tell you more about "Watergate" after Nixon became president again.Indeed, the subsequent development of the "Watergate Incident" is the most exciting part of the entire "big story".After reading the latter part, you will have a very vivid understanding of the design of the American founders more than 200 years ago and the operating mechanism of this "cash register" that restricts power.Nixon was re-elected, but the shadow of the "Watergate Incident" was still lingering.In the United States, every time a president starts his four-year term, no matter whether it is his first or second term, he always has to form a new cabinet.That is to say, the person in charge of each part of his administrative system must be re-arranged and adjusted.This time, among the various indicators of these new ministers, the qualities of "loyalty" and "powerfulness" were particularly important to Nixon.Because the "Watergate Incident" followed him like a shadow, following up Nixon's second term as president.At some critical moment, he will need his subordinates to hold him back.

At the same time, after being re-elected, in his "inner circle" in the White House, he also had to let several cronies related to "Watergate" leave their posts.There is his personal secretary, and there is also a "special adviser".He wants to take out those few flammable sticks "Commentary on the Problems of Economic Development in the United States", "On the Market Problem of Capitalism", "Economics, lest they start the fire in the backyard of the White House. However, you must remember that Nixon was, after all, only the "chief executive" of this government.Of the three major branches of the U.S. government, he only controls one of them.Not to mention that even in the executive branch, each department still has "independence" that cannot be controlled by the president.So, outside the control of President Nixon, what kind of state is "Watergate" developing?

Let's start with Congress, the country's legislature.The U.S. Congress in an election year is a bit "ridiculous".why?Because the Constitution stipulates that the term of office of members of the U.S. House of Representatives is only two years, one of their elections coincides with the presidential election year, and the other is in the midterm elections, which is the middle of the two presidential election years.As for the Senate, one-third is re-elected every two years. The term of office of a senator is six years, but they can be re-elected.That is to say, when the presidential candidates are nervously campaigning there, the two major parts of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are also busy with their campaigns.

Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives come from different states and are directly elected by the people of each state.They must go back to their hometowns, explain their political ideals to the local voters and communicate with them, debate with their election opponents, and do not deliberately focus on virtue in advertising campaigns, and believe that the virtue of a monarch lies in quietness and inaction. ,etc.Except that the scope of the campaign is smaller than that of the presidential campaign, (within the scope of a state or a constituency), their many other troubles are by no means smaller than the presidential candidates.

In this way, in the presidential election year, it is also their "election year" for all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the senators.Therefore, at the last period of time, Congress must close its doors and adjourn.No matter how big things are, we have to wait for the next Congress after the election.Is it a bit "ridiculous"? Perhaps, this is also one of the reasons why the "Watergate Incident" was not put on the agenda of Congress in the final stage before the general election.But the situation was very different when Nixon returned to the presidency and when new members of the Senate and House of Representatives arrived.Members of Congress are "professional" supervisors elected by the public, so they are more sensitive than the general public.

What's more, Nixon's opponent party, the Democratic Party, holds the majority of seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives this term.This is very common in the US.Americans are very accustomed to the two branches of the executive branch and the legislative branch to prove the social theory of utilitarianism.Emphasizing that "sensibility of the body" is the only thing to know, it is handed over to different parties.This seems to be more conducive to the principle of balanced and restrictive government structure, so the United States does not have the saying of the ruling party and the opposition party in European countries.The production methods of the three branches are completely different, which is the guarantee of the system of decentralization.No president wants to face a Congress with an opposition majority.However, these seats all come from voters in each state one by one, and Nixon has absolutely nothing to do with such a situation.

The Democratic Party has always had doubts about the relationship between President Nixon and the "Watergate Incident".Of course, they must investigate the "watergate trick" played by the Republican Party in the presidential election.As soon as the new Congress opened, the majority leader of the Senate wrote to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, suggesting that Congress form a neutral investigation team to investigate the abnormalities that occurred during the election.As for the majority leader of the House of Representatives, he always believed that the root cause of the illegality of the Republican Party in the campaign was Nixon. He told his colleagues in the House of Representatives that they could prepare for the impeachment of the president.Because the U.S. Constitution stipulates that only the House of Representatives has the power to impeach.

Meanwhile, on the judicial side, there was the grand jury of twenty-three ordinary Washingtonians.The secret hearings organized for "Watergate" are still going on as usual.More and more people involved were called to the hearing to testify. Before testifying, witnesses in the United States have to press one hand on the Bible and raise the other hand to swear that their subsequent testimony will be true.For a long time, I have always found such a plot quite amusing. According to my own interests, I selected the parts he paid attention to to form my own world. I always thought, what's the use of this.Later, I gradually discovered that such a ceremony does have its reason.

It is believed that this kind of ceremony originated from the deep Christian tradition of this country. Although the United States has always been a country where church and state are separated, and although people of all kinds and beliefs of different religions come to the court, this Christian ceremony that shows fear of God is not. It has continued.In the United States of all kinds of people, no one proposed to cancel this ceremony.It has been stripped of religious color, but the sacred and awe are abstracted.Everyone accepts such a ceremony, which has naturally become part of the dignity of the law.Everyone also agrees with such a contract. After you take the oath, you must tell the truth. Otherwise, you will commit perjury, and perjury is a felony in American law.If a witness backtracks in court, the judge can also convict him of contempt of court.

Do you remember?In the Simpson case I told you about last year, there was a Furman police officer whose false testimony was exposed by Simpson's lawyer at a critical moment.Finally, in court, some of his recordings were played, which he had provided to a female playwright in the past ten years about the situation of the Los Angeles police.He talked a lot in the recording, which was later determined to be bragging by the Justice Department investigation.However, this has nothing to do with "perjury", because this is a private conversation with the female writer, not a lie "under oath" in court, so no one can sue him for "perjury" on this basis.

However, Furman was still charged with "perjury" this year.The reason is that when he first testified in the Simpson case, he declared "under oath" in court that he had not used the word "nigger" in ten years.At that time, it was estimated that Simpson's lawyers had already grasped the evidence that his statement was not true.Therefore, he repeatedly asked Furman to confirm his testimony in court.He also confirmed it swearingly. As a result, in those recordings played in court, he was found to use the insulting word dozens of times.After that, in Simpson's case, he cited the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, refused to answer all questions, and walked away.Leave all the confusion he brought to the case by perjury to the distraught prosecutor. However, this year after the trial of the Simpson case ended, Furman was forced to go to the dock because of the problem of "obviously scolding someone but swore in court that he didn't scold", which became a felony, that is, "perjury" "The defendant.In the end, his lawyers represented him in exchange for a "no contest" for a lesser sentence.The court sentenced him to three years of supervision and he was banned from police service.The reason why he changed from a witness in someone else's case to a criminal in his own case was because he once lied "under oath". That is to say, in the United States, there is only one moral issue involved in a person lying anywhere.But the lie "under the oath" of the courts, Kantianism, an abstract supra-class interpretation of capitalist relations, makes capital, no matter how slight the lie, a felony criminal act.Of course, according to common sense, the witness itself is not the defendant, and a witness should not worry about any legal punishment.But if a witness doesn't want to stand in the dock and go to jail, it's better to tell the truth when he has sworn his hand on the Bible.Therefore, in American courts, when obtaining key testimony from a witness, lawyers often remind the witness that your answer is "under oath" before asking questions.Under such circumstances, ordinary witnesses dare not take such reminders as deaf ears. Therefore, more and more witnesses were called before the grand jury, which was definitely a serious threat to Nixon.You can't expect all of these witnesses to perjure themselves in order to keep their bosses, regardless of the felony charges they face.In fact, people have been telling the truth as they know it.For example, the cashier who resigned has already stated the exact amount of funds for illegal activities handed over to Li Di.At the same time, he also told how his former boss, the vice chairman of the Republican Presidential Reelection Committee, taught him to perjury.The clues are already being pulled up, but the reason why they haven't gotten to the root is entirely because those who have confessed have limited knowledge of the details. From Nixon's side, the work of "covering up" became more and more difficult.The difficulties mainly come from two aspects. One is that the president cannot get so much illegal "gag money", and the national treasury is not the president's personal pocket.The money needed must come from "begging" everywhere. In this way, the urgently needed money, such as the legal fees and living expenses of this group of people, cannot be paid in time, let alone a large amount of money is needed to settle these people's families in the next step. ,etc.The first problem is not solved well, and the implementation of "gag money" is not smooth, which naturally brings about the second difficulty of the "cover-up" work, which is that it is difficult to stop so many mouths. These people who are already in the hands of the Bureau of Investigation have all been promised that they will be "taken care of".These promises include legal fees, tens of thousands of living expenses a year, amnesty and release from prison within two years, and so on.These people were already doubtful about whether the promise would be fulfilled.If even the expenses before the trial cannot be paid in time, Zhong Shu will be fine.The representatives of modern teleology in Europe are Leibniz and Kerry in Germany. How safe would they feel about their future after being imprisoned?Feeling abandoned all the time.Therefore, they are like a pot of bubbles bubbling out, almost impossible to cover. Among them, only Li Di was an exception.He still maintains his original idealistic color.He assured his superiors of his silence and repeatedly claimed that his silence was not paid for by money. In addition to the "gag money" factor, there is the impending intractability of the "cover up" operation.That is, the people involved are afraid of going to jail.All the people involved in the case, when they got a promise of "good care", maybe they really thought about it, so they would go to jail for two years.However, when this imagination is getting closer and closer to reality, everyone's reaction is different.This kind of reaction is not only related to each person's personal quality, but also has a very close relationship with these people's original status and situation. Naturally, the better the situation and the higher the status of the person, the more unacceptable the reality of going to jail.As for some people who have been or are currently high-ranking officials, they have never even thought about the terrible idea of ​​going to jail.For them, learn to teach.Criticize Kant's "thing in itself" theory.Advocating that philosophy is "absolutely, from being a guest in the White House to being a prisoner, regardless of the length of the sentence, even if you only sit in prison for one day, it is a devastating qualitative change in life, a catastrophe. Rigorous enforcement is therefore a powerful deterrent for the judiciary.At the last moment when imprisonment is about to become a reality, the psychological defense of the person involved is the easiest to collapse all at once.For a moment, they will be like grabbing a life-saving straw, willing to tell all the truth in exchange for staying out of prison.Therefore, at the beginning of the entire "cover-up" operation, these people who participated in the "cover-up" were far from fully estimating this phenomenon.On the contrary, they, including Nixon, always have a higher degree of trust in the higher up and the people around them.But it was not expected that these people actually have weaker weaknesses than ordinary people.In this way, their "cover-up" operation was carried out on a gunpowder pile from the very beginning.Their only hope of safety was that every lead to this powder-pile should be cut. However, the gunpowder fuse had been ignited from several directions. First of all, those involved in the "Watergate case" who have been targeted by the FBI have been approved by the grand jury to be prosecuted by prosecutors. The "Watergate Incident" will be officially opened for trial.In other words, the role of the judicial branch of the US government in this case has officially started. The judge in charge of this case was named Silica, who had been a professional boxer when he was young.He finished law school early and, at age 68, became a chief justice of the federal district court during the Eisenhower administration.He is also a Republican, known as a conservative.He also hated the views and actions of liberals in the 1960s, and the impact of liberals on traditional American life.His personal political leanings look almost identical to Nixon's.Therefore, in his previous career as a judge, many of his judgments were overturned by the liberal appeals court.That's a frustrating record for a Chief Justice. During the trial of the "Watergate Incident" that just started, Li Di had already had two decisions overturned by the Court of Appeal shortly after the trial started.A decision that was overturned was that a reporter from the Los Angeles Times had a tape of an interview with one of the defendants in the "Watergate" case, that is, when the "Watergate Incident" happened, the man was watching Night scene, ignoring the two "hippie" plainclothes policemen and "negligent" lookouts.During the interview, he told some truths, and the confession of these truths is obviously conducive to Li Di's conviction.Judge Silica asked the reporter to hand over the tapes of the interview. Unexpectedly, this Times reporter quit.Because in the United States, the relationship between a reporter and his interviewees is like a lawyer and his client, a psychologist and his patient, a priest and his believers, and the content of their conversations is protected by law.A reporter's sources of news are protected by the constitutional "freedom of the press," and if he is unwilling to hand them over, no one can do anything to him.In a fit of rage, Judge Silica detained the reporter on the spot for "contempt of court".Because it is the judge's power to convict "contempt of court" in the United States, there is no need to go through a jury.However, if the sentenced person is dissatisfied, he can of course appeal, and the appeal court will supervise and review the power of the judge to prevent the power of the judge from being abused.As a result, after the reporter appealed, the Court of Appeal immediately ordered Judge Silica to release the reporter within two hours.Of course he had to obediently obey. Another decision that Sirica overturned by the appeals court was on the issue of the presentation of evidence.I also mentioned this in my letter to you last year. In the United States, due to the strict regulations on warrants in the Constitutional Amendment, all evidence presented in court must be obtained legally.Any evidence obtained by illegal means shall not appear in court.It is also the judge's power to decide whether evidence is admissible, but this power is also overseen by the Court of Appeal. At that time, one of the evidences for Li Di's prosecution was the recording I mentioned earlier that the FBI had installed a telephone bug in the White House at the request of Nixon when the legal restrictions were not very clear.This call was not made by Li Di, but the content involved was related to the case. As a result, the caller learned that the recording was going to be in court and immediately asked the American Civil Liberties Union for help.This alliance, which I also introduced to you last year, specializes in providing the best lawyers to litigate civilians whose civil rights have been violated, often for free.This time, on behalf of the caller, they disputed the call before it was recorded.In the end, Judge Silica ruled that the wiretap recording could be presented in court.However, this decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal. In his past judgment history, Judge Silica has a record of his judgment being overturned by the appeal court many times, but he also has his trump card.It is within the scope of his power, and he will make full use of this power.You know, in the United States, judges do not have the power to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not.This power is always in the hands of the jury.However, after being convicted of a crime, the length of the sentence for the same crime has a limited adjustable range, that is, there is a gap between the maximum sentence and the minimum sentence for the same crime.Judges have certain powers in sentencing within the limits prescribed by law.Silica often uses the maximum sentence as a deterrent weapon against criminals. Seeing this, you must be a little confused.Since Judge Silica, like Nixon and defendant Li Di, is also a republican and also holds very stubborn conservative views, then he has such a case in his hands and a political party to which he belongs. Why did the scandals that occurred during the campaign, instead of being sheltered and "merciless", seem to be "chasing and killing"? Your question is quite natural.However, in the United States, Judge Silica's reaction is also very natural.Why do you say this way?Because I have also introduced before, except for a few political activists, if an individual agrees with a political party, he basically only agrees with his views, and has almost no organizational identity.So, first of all, judge Silica will not have any scruples and psychological pressure on political party organizations.So, he's a lifelong Republican, which just goes to show that he's a guy with very hard-nosed conservative views. What's more, he is also a conservative legal worker.In fact, in the concept of this kind of conservatives, they hope to maintain traditional life and traditional values, advocate order, regard the law as the supreme criterion, hate the phenomenon of breaking the law and destroying order, and advocate severe punishment, etc. It is very typical and very in line with their belief logic.For Judge Silica, what he thinks is to maintain order, and the rest of the six relatives don't recognize it.Any crime that falls into his hands will be pursued to the end, because he must feel that this is the best way to realize his personal ideals. Therefore, not only will Judge Silica not be subject to any pressure from any party-related organization, but even though he and Nixon "belong" to the same Republican Party, Nixon is still the leader of the party, so the dignified President Nixon and the people around him So, can we rashly use the name of "partners" to "get close" with the judge and say hello? .That's not okay, "obstruction of justice," that's a felony. As a result, Judge Sirica, backed by his own beliefs, issued a barrage of "heavy" questions during the pre-trial hearing.He wanted the prosecution to take note that what the jury wanted to know was who hired these people; what they did; who paid; and who "started" the case.Judge Silica's target is obviously not just the few people who are already standing in the dock in front of him. He showed the enthusiasm to chase the end from the beginning. However, Judge Sirica's first round did not achieve the desired effect.The reason is that the few guys who have already sued, including Li Di, have started to "plead guilty" one by one. Here I would like to explain that in American courts, the procedure first announces the accused charges to the defendant.The defendant can then decide, in consultation with a lawyer, whether he feels "guilty".If the defendant denies it, the trial will continue in accordance with legal procedures.During the interrogation, various evidences will be presented and various witnesses will be called to testify.The lawyer will ask the witnesses various questions in court.Therefore, with the efforts of lawyers, during the trial of a case, it is possible to discover new circumstances or discover new persons involved in the case. At the same time, since the trial of a case requires a lot of manpower and material resources, the general prosecutors encourage the defendant to "plead guilty" so as to avoid lengthy trials.For this reason, a commutation of sentence is generally used as an exchange condition for "pleading guilty".Therefore, generally in cases where the evidence is conclusive and cannot be denied, the defendant will generally choose to "plead guilty" in exchange for a reduced sentence.In this case, this is an option that benefits both parties.In fact, most of the criminal cases in the United States are closed with the defendant pleading guilty because the prosecution has solid evidence. However, you must not see this, and a sentence that we are all familiar with pops up in your mind: confession is lenient, and resistance is strict.Because here, "confession" is not exactly the same as "confession".In this case, the defendant only finds himself guilty, and he is completely free to "confess" all the facts of the case related to others while "pleading guilty".Besides, once the defendant declares a "guilty plea," there is no further trial, and lawyers no longer have the opportunity to press every step of the way in court to track down loopholes and other perpetrators.As the prosecutor, the prosecution of this particular defendant was declared successful the moment the criminal "confessed".As a judge who wants to find out the backstage of the criminal, it may mean a failure instead. In this case, that's exactly what happened.The trial has just begun, and all those involved in the case who were prosecuted have pleaded guilty, and the trial seems to be coming to an end.Judge Silica was really unwilling to see the "big fish" behind the scenes slipping gently in his hands and escaping the law quietly.However, the prosecution's attempt to further induce several defendants to make a full confession in exchange for a reduced sentence was unsuccessful.The scene at the courthouse seems to be unstoppable. At this time, Judge Silica decided to use his "killer mace".He delayed the sentencing date, but he foreshadowed a legally intimidating sentence for several defendants who have already pleaded guilty.He said the outcome of the sentencing will depend on how well these individuals cooperate with the congressional hearings and the grand jury.If they don't cooperate, he will try to give a long sentence, otherwise, he will be merciful. What's going on here? This is because, although the defendants' own cases have ended with the "guilty plea", the prosecution is still considering indicting other suspects, so the grand jury in this case has not been dismissed, and they will continue to hold new hearings .It's just that, as the confessors' own cases ended, they changed from defendants to witnesses for other suspects.That is to say, the intervention of the judicial branch of government power in "Watergate" is not completely over.However, if all these witnesses do not cooperate, it will be difficult for the grand jury to approve the indictment of the higher-level figures, because they were not captured alive on the spot, and there are not as many criminal evidences exposed as the lower-level people.It can be said that the testimony of those who have confessed will be very important, and even the key to whether the court can make further progress in this case. More importantly, another branch of government power, the legislature Congress, has officially launched an investigation into the "Watergate incident".A Senate investigative committee has been established and hearings are imminent.The defendants involved will no doubt also be witnesses at congressional hearings. Judge Silica's "killer weapon" is a warning against the attitude of these "confessors" who will testify at the above two upcoming hearings. The court's first round was not considered a success, and the future of the next round is uncertain.Yet Judge Silica understands that even if the judiciary ultimately fails to hold evidence of who was behind Watergate, it doesn't mean the American people have thrown in the towel.He knew the congressional inquiry would be a powerful force.He said, "As you all know, Congress will investigate this case. Not only as a judge, but as a citizen of a great country, and as one of thousands of people who want to know the truth. I hope, frankly, that the Senate Under the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution, this case will be brought to light." The US Congress has always been extremely difficult to deal with investigations of the executive branch.Therefore, as soon as the switch was activated, Nixon and those around him who were engaged in the "cover-up" operation immediately felt like a big enemy.Nixon himself served as a congressional investigative committee more than 20 years ago. At that time, he also successfully caught other people's perjury.Now, he is instructing his subordinates to give perjury. It is impossible not to make him feel flustered and weak. Witnesses must also be sworn in before testifying in such congressional hearings.Generally speaking, the entire testimonial process is broadcast to the people of the United States through television.That is to say, the witnesses will press the Bible with one hand and raise the other hand to swear that everything they say will be the truth in front of all Americans.For those high-level officials who may be called to testify by the Congress, if they perjure "under oath" in front of the people of the whole country, how much political risk and even criminal risk will be taken. There is a preparatory stage after the establishment of the investigative committee of the Senate of the Congress. Therefore, there are still three months for formal hearings.Nixon and several of his trusted advisers repeatedly analyzed the situation and discussed countermeasures.For example, the seven defendants who have already "pleaded guilty" will definitely be summoned by Congress to testify.Will they let go and tell the truth?The problem is that even at least the "gag money" to be delivered is not sure to get it all.They are still considering, if they have to, whether to let the former Republican president serve as the chairman and vice chairman of the committee again, Mitchell and McGruder, and serve as scapegoats on top, and so on. Who would have expected that in the three months before the Congressional "Watergate Incident" hearings, Nixon failed to find a good countermeasure, but made a wrong move.As mentioned earlier, Nixon's attorney general never disclosed the progress of the "Watergate Incident" investigation to the White House.However, Gray, the deputy director of the FBI, was a close confidant of Nixon. He once disclosed some investigations of the "Watergate Incident" to the White House, but he did not get involved too deeply.In any case, from a legal point of view, he is already a "guilty insider". As mentioned earlier, Nixon wanted to adjust the team below while taking advantage of the re-election of the presidency.Perhaps the first is to consider Gray's loyalty, and secondly, Gray is already an insider, and perhaps Nixon also wants to appease him.In short, Nixon decided to promote Deputy Director Gray as the new director when the original director of the FBI died and was absent.For some reason, this time, the scheming Nixon actually ignored the seriousness of "Congress reviewing the hearings of newly nominated administrative officials". Once Gray's nomination reached Congress, Congressional scrutiny of Gray quickly focused on his role in the "Watergate" case.In this way, the hearing to review the nomination of Gray as FBI director quickly turned into a "rehearsal" of Congress' "Watergate" hearings. After all, this congressional hearing is Gray's eligibility for promotion.Therefore, Gray, who was going to the Congress to attend the hearing, only enthusiastically prepared to improve the director's mental preparations, and had no premonition to accept a serious investigation of the "Watergate Incident" at this time.Nor would he be adequately prepared to respond to questions about his responsibility for Watergate. On the second day of Gray's hearing, Nixon and his legal counsel, Dean, discovered that things were going well and badly.Although Nixon wanted to withdraw his nomination of Gray, under the circumstances at the time, he could not go forward and turn off the switch of this process.Gray, the "nominated bureau chief", can be the one he wants to be or not. It may be that Gray panicked under the sudden question about the "Watergate Incident", and instinctively tried to shirk responsibility.It could also be that he didn't dare lie at a congressional hearing.In any case, at the congressional hearing to review Gray's new appointment, he almost told Presidential Advisor Dean's meddling and interference in the FBI's "Watergate investigation". Prior to this, when investigating the "Watergate Incident", no one had thought of Dean.Because you also saw that up until the events, Dean had indeed been an "outsider".He did not participate in the "Watergate incident" in fact, and of course there will be no evidence or testimony about this incident pointing to him.He jumped in after the "cover up" had begun.So, to be precise, he really wasn't a "Watergate" criminal.However, he is now slowly surfacing as a suspect.This is a suspect in the crime of "interfering with justice". From this moment on, Nixon and the people around him probably woke up a little bit.Prior to this, all their attention was focused on how to "cover up" the "Watergate incident" itself.And at this time, when their "cover-up" operation itself begins to be exposed, they must realize that since the various actions of the "cover-up" operation triggered by the criminal behavior of the "Watergate Incident" are the crime of "interfering with justice", moreover, this is a more serious crime.Then, the "cover up" operation itself needs "cover up".The question is, what is the "new cover"?Is there still a need for an "updated cover"?And every "cover-up" will undoubtedly leave more or less clues, so what if there is no further "cover-up"?The prospect of an endlessly accelerating vicious circle has terrified all "insiders". However, up to now, facing the "past" that can no longer be erased, it seems that there is no way out if we don't continue to "cover up".But, as I have already said, the "cover up" operation has become a monster with multiple heads that keeps growing new heads, and it can't be cut down. At this time, it was early March 1973, two months after Nixon's second term as president had just begun.In addition to the two directions of the judicial and legislative branches of government power, another fuse was lit in a third direction.On March 8, the eighth day after Gray's hearings began, the Washington Post published an exhaustive report on Nixon's personal attorney Kambach's role in the "illegal use of funds."That is to say, the relationship between Kambach and the "gag money" of the "Watergate Incident" was introduced to the American people.This is yet another White House official exposed for his involvement in a "cover-up."At the same time, Senate investigators began investigating Nixon's personal lawyer.The Senate has also proposed that several White House advisers, including Dean and Kambach, will be required to testify at the hearing. On the side of the judiciary that seemed unsuccessful in the first round, Judge Silica's "killer weapon" is actually working invisibly.Sentence announcements for the seven people already indicted are scheduled for March 23.In it, four are Cuban refugees who are basically hired to work with very limited knowledge.The other three people are the connection points with the officials at the upper level.They all have considerable "inside information" in their hands, which can be used as bargaining chips in exchange for "leniency". Li Di is an idealistic and fanatical extreme rightist, and he insists on the role of "Silent Stone Wall" from beginning to end.But for two others, McCaulder, the wiretapping expert who was caught with the Cubans at the scene, and Hunter, the former White House counselor who directed "Watergate" with Liddy, the lengthy sentences Judge Sirica threatened, It kept buzzing in their ears. Former White House adviser Hunter finally lost his temper before the trial and issued a threat to the White House.All he wants is money.He put a new price on his silence and gave a deadline.He proposed that if the White House cannot satisfy him, he will give everything.You must know that not long ago, Hunter was a trusted adviser to Nixon. Who would have thought that after a short period of time, he might issue such a threat.这已经是一个信号，它说明，从此，由于面临的处境不同，这一圈人的分化和关系的恶化已经势不可挡。 前白宫顾问亨特尽管已经和尼克松撕开脸皮，尽管他提出的钱的要求也非常难办，但是，毕竟还是有可能解决的。如果说，他的怒火还可以用钱去熄灭的话，那么，对另一个被警察当场抓住的“认罪被告”麦克考尔德，对他不顾一切要达到的目标，白宫实在是无能为力了。 这位窃听专家他要什么呢？他要在自己被当场抓住，并且已经在法庭上承认了全部罪行之后，仍然舒舒服服地留在家里，而不去坐牢。他想来想去，他被许诺的两年以后的总统大赦他也不要，他一天牢也不肯坐，他一心就是要待在家里。 当然，作为一个多年的政府官员，麦克考尔德不至于愚蠢到连总统的权限都不知道。判刑是美国政府司法分支的事，总统只是行政分支的头儿，井水犯不了河水，想管也管不了。因此，他倒是表现得比亨特平静得多，没有频频向白宫提这提那，因为他知道，他们想救也救不了他。可是，他一天也没有停止琢磨，他不停地想出一些自救的花招，当这些花招都不起作用，而判刑的一天又逐步逼近的时候，他只有最后一招了。 麦克考尔德给法官西里卡写了一封信。这一天是三月十九日，正是法官西里卡六十九岁的生日。他看完信，又把它重新封了起来。法官西里卡只悠悠地说了这样一句话：“这是我一生得到的最好一件生日礼物，它将把这个案子兜底翻开。” 这一切，尼克松和他的“掩盖”行动的主要人物，还都被蒙在鼓里。但是，即使没有麦克考尔德，他们面前已经是一张千疮百孔的遮羞布。他们面临即将开始的国会听证会，他们面对新闻界的追踪，他们面对几名白宫顾问的曝光，他们面对亨特向法院坦白的威胁和筹集“堵嘴钱”的重重困难。导火索甚至在他们自己的座位下滋滋作响，在尼克松行政系统之下的司法部，又查出了前白宫顾问亨特和李迪，在“管子工”时期闯入艾尔斯博格的心理医生的办公室的旧账。 在三月二十一日，七名被告审判的前两天，尼克松召集那几个“掩盖”行动的主要人物，开会商量对策。第二天，同样性质的会又开了一次。 在这次会上，尼克松第一次知道他的前顾问亨特的威胁。尼克松在会上十三次提到要付亨特的钱。尼克松关照要“做好证人的工作”。尼克松谈到如何在今后两年里搞现金。尼克松关照有关他们自己“妨碍司法”的情况，要一刀切去。Etc., etc.那天晚上，他们把亨特所要求的现金的一半，派人偷偷扔进了亨特的律师的信箱。 在这两天的会议之后，尽管他们还在商量和进行新的“掩盖”活动，但是一种如临深渊，如履薄冰的感觉，象一条恶狗般紧紧追赶着他们。因此，除了尼克松之外，其余的几个人，都纷纷开始为自己寻找律师。 在五个月后，当尼克松被迫交出他的录音带时，这次会议的录音是当时的特别检察官听的第一盘带子，听完之后，检察官们就郑重建议尼克松自己去雇一个刑事律师。 三月二十三日，对已认罪的七名“水门案件”被告的宣判的时刻到了。开庭之后，法官西里卡宣布，被告麦克考尔德有一封信给法庭。随后，书记官打开信之后交给法官，西里卡当庭开念。主要内容就是，被告曾受到政治压力而保持沉默；此案凡涉及政府部门，涉及他们的作用及作案理由，都有人作了伪证；此案尚有其他罪犯。 事后人们形容这封信就活像一颗炸弹一样，在法庭上当庭炸开。记者们就像被炸飞了的弹片一样，一休庭就直扑电话机，不出多久，这已经是美国民众嘴里的一条新闻了。 你是不是以为，这一来，“掩盖”行动彻底破产，尼克松的“水门”故事就可以结束了呢？那你可就小看了权力的魅力和威力了。权力的魅力，使得尼克松无论如何不会轻易就交出白宫。而权力的威力，则使得掌握权力的人，会有比一般人具备强得多的能力去对付自己的危机。 因此，这个本来根本不起眼的“水门事件”，随着尼克松的顽强抵抗也越演越烈，直至最后的部分高潮迭起。今天已经很晚了，等我下封信在向你介绍吧。 wish it is good! Linda