The news has been full of concerns about the fate of our republic following the indictment of former President Donald Trump. There have been questions about the politicization of criminal laws and the credibility of the judiciary, the polarization of the electorate and threats of violent domestic reaction.
But these concerns pale in comparison to the threat to the democratic system posed 50 years ago this summer, when it became shockingly clear that the country was being run by a president, Richard Nixon, and a vice president, Spiro Agnew, who were both simultaneously under criminal investigation for wholly unrelated conduct.
What is now the controversy buzzword “obstruction of justice” was then the more mysterious buzzword “nolo contendere.” Where the first one refers to a provision of criminal law, the second refers to a rarely applied pleading device. And those distinctions make a difference.
For one involves criminal allegations involving a former president outside of power yet seeking a return to office. The other involves the criminality of those actually sitting in power — Agnew pleaded no contest to the criminal charge against him while serving under Nixon, who himself was under criminal investigation.
And the country’s ability to survive the latter threat strongly suggests its ability to survive the former.
By summer 1973, the public was becoming more aware of Nixon’s possible criminal involvement in the Watergate scandal. The Senate’s Ervin Committee was receiving testimony from witnesses that was eroding public faith in Nixon’s repeated denials of culpability.
Much of the Watergate saga, and the incredible breadth of its illegality, is well known. But what is not well known is an equally compelling threat to democracy that arose apart from — but at the same time as — Watergate, and resembled more old-time Chicago politics than political skulduggery.
Agnew was a physically imposing yet politically unremarkable figure when selected out of obscurity to be Nixon’s running mate in 1968. Agnew had worked his way up the political ladder, starting with local Baltimore-area government positions and ultimately to governor of Maryland.
As vice president, Agnew assumed the limelight with a series of highly charged political speeches in which he colorfully challenged many of the leading institutions of the day viewed by Nixon as his “enemies.” Agnew’s use of phrases such as “nattering nabobs of negativism” and “pusillanimous pussyfooters” endeared himself to ultraconservatives.
All the while, the U.S. attorney in Baltimore was assembling overwhelming evidence of Agnew’s participation in a bribery scheme involving kickbacks from vendors doing business with local government. These payments began in the early 1960s and continued while he was vice president; some cash payments were actually made in the White House.
Early in 1973, Agnew informed the White House of the existence of the investigation. On Aug. 1, Agnew was advised by the U.S. attorney that he was a target of the investigation, and on Aug. 7, The Wall Street Journal reported the existence of the investigation. Agnew immediately denied wrongdoing.
The Agnew investigation proceeded simultaneously with a dramatic escalation in the Watergate investigation: public disclosure of a listening device system in the Oval Office and the efforts of special prosecutor Archibald Cox Jr. to subpoena the underlying tapes. Nixon’s refusal to provide those tapes pushed the country to what Republican Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee referred to as “the brink of a constitutional confrontation.”
Privately, Agnew began plea bargain negotiations with the Department of Justice. Publicly, he denounced the investigation as the efforts of “small and fearful men who have been frightened into furnishing evidence against me.”
The plea negotiations continued into early October, when the DOJ yielded on its demand for prison time to the overarching public interest in Agnew stepping down from office given the tensions of the ongoing Nixon controversy. The stakes were simply unprecedented. On Oct. 10, Agnew agreed to resign immediately and pleaded nolo contendere (“no contest”) to one felony charge of tax evasion.
Gerald Ford peacefully succeeded Agnew as vice president, and the country survived the immediate crisis. Ultimately, Ford succeeded Nixon upon his Aug. 8, 1974, resignation, and again the nation survived the crisis. There was much joy in the knowledge that democratic principles prevailed through this unprecedented executive transition.
Yet there was — and should remain — overarching angst in the knowledge that for a period of almost two years the nation had been led by a president who was under active Senate investigation for a wide scope of allegedly criminal acts, while the vice president was under active investigation for accepting kickbacks during his term of office — a “run-of-the-mill crook,” as journalist and author Garrett Graff observed.
None of this is to diminish the significance of the concerns presented by the Trump indictment, for there is much to be concerned about. But it is to underscore the underlying strength and resilience of the American Constitution. History’s message is that the republic has been strong enough to overcome challenges that cut to its core principles.
For if the nation was able to survive the challenges of summer 1973, it certainly should be able to survive the challenges of summer 2023.
____
(Michael Peregrine is a Chicago attorney and was a volunteer for the Committee to Reelect the President in 1972 while at Oak Park High School)
