February 14th, 2012
The public expectations of President Nixon increased since World War II. Constraints placed on the authority of the office by congress, the courts, interest groups, the media, and elsewhere had also grown (Brinkley, 2007). Nixon sought new methods for the exercise of power, even stretching the law or breaking it. On June 17th, 1972, police arrested five men who broke in to the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office (Brinkley, 2007). Reporters began researching backgrounds and discovered that the people involved in the burglary were former employees of the Committee for Re-election of the President. They had been paid to execute the break in from a secret fund of the re-election committee, a fund controlled by members of the White House staff (Brinkley, 2007). As the burglars went on trial, the one scandal emerged in to two sets of scandals in the investigation. The first was a general pattern of abuses of power involving both the White House and the Nixon Campaign Committee, which included the Watergate break in. The other scandal became the major focus of public attention for nearly two years, was the way the administration tried to manage the investigations of the Watergate break in and the other abuses (Brinkley, 2007). It was becoming known as a “cover up” showing that there was never any conclusive evidence that the president planned or approved the burglary in advance. The American people began to question his role in the whole scandal, making their faith damaged. In the article “Public found disillusioned by the Watergate Scandal”, Steven Roberts talks to a citizen (Mrs. Bennett) about the scandal and wanted an opinion in the matter. “Mrs. Bennett wanted to feel that the president did not know, but they know that’s not true. I truly feel the president knew, and it hurts her. One would like to think that a leader is...