First offense burglary, with nothing taken and no one injured. I’m surprised he GOT four years.
I agree. It’s also surprising that he served any significant portion of his sentence. What did Carter say at the time he let Liddy out?
Looking at the news coverage of the commutation and the commutation text, it seems that Liddy’s sentence was wildly larger than that of other Watergate figures, and that this was solely because he refused to talk.
The scandal being pretty much over, it didn’t make much sense to punish him for that, so Carter commuted the term.
Let’s remember that the term sentenced was twenty years. Twenty. Now if anyone can defend that sentence on the face of it, I’d love to hear it. But it seems like a politically imposed sentence to me.
Purely on 20-ish years-ago recollection, the sentence was commuted “in the interests of justice.” Not sure if therte was any more detailed explanation offered…
Liddy was involved in two crimes we know about, perhaps three. All were failures. Among the things I don’t feel comfortable is the implied assertion that the man was an incompetent criminal. It doesn’t fit. He was the “go to” fixer for one of the biggest crooks in our history, and it seems more likely to me that he committed many crimes, and got caught twice.
I see nothing heroic in his life. Sociopath, yeah, maybe. He has strong principles, though. Evil ones, but Sociopaths generally don’t have principles at all. I think mostly he was a talented thug, with experience and connections. His connections included some of the most ruthlessly unprincipled people in the world, who were running the country. They threw him out the window when it got convenient, and I don’t really think he deserved any better.
Tris
Right. I’ll put you in the list of ones voting criminal. Still, I’d like your opinion of the disparity of his sentence. As I noted above, he originally got twenty years.
Do you think President Carter did the right thing by commuting the sentence? Remember, this was a commutation only. Liddy remains a convicted felon, which has limited some activities that he previously was fond of.
While I would not have done it, myself, had I that power, I cannot find fault with the decision, given the wrist slaps everyone else got.
I personally think Nixon should have been Banished, as was done to national leaders in antiquity, and John Mitchell should have received the maximum penalty that the Justice Department ever gave anyone, since he was the Top Cop, and a blatant Criminal at the same time. Liddy was, and is a testosterone addict, and a public clown. But that doesn’t make what he did legal.
Tris
I’ll have to go with both of Tris’s posts on this.
By they way, what were the three? 1. Elsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. 2. DNC HQ in the Watergate 3. …
How do we compare Segretti’s Ratfuckers? They seemed exhibit a rather cavalier attitude towards the democratic process.
At the time, there were accusations by others that another break in had been done at Democratic Party Offices. That one went nowhere, though, and with the fallout from the Watergate fiasco, it faded into obscurity. At the time I was a bit nonplussed that the existence of a burglary squad was not a red flag. Do you have a burglary squad at your workplace?
Perhaps Liddy was just an incompetent thug, who got caught every time he broke the law. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s remember him that way.
Tris
G. Gordon Liddy-Hero or Criminal?
Why can’t he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
I must admit, this one made me laugh.
I hate to bump this up, but I wanted to ask if the OP has bothered to read All the President’s Men? Having just finished the book, I would reccomend it.
Then come back and tell us that Liddy is a “hero”. Try Mark Felt, or Hugh Sloan.
I can answer this, I guess, especially since I responded above that Liddy was no hero.
Mark Felt wasn’t much of a hero either - he was a frustrated FBI careerist who took his frustrations out by becoming a snitch instead of utilizing his proper chain of command. Now, I’m sure we can argue all day about whether his results were good ones or bad ones - but let’s keep in mind that this kind of thinking gave us Liddy in the first place.
Hugh Sloan was an honest guy, by all accounts, and as he had resigned his post (which wasn’t a government one in any case) there was nothing preventing him from talking to the press.
Can’t shoot at cops, period.
Updating this thread:
I’ll miss him just as much as the last zit I popped on my butt.
I mean even if you don’t recognize Watergate as a huge crime and degradation of the American political process. How does taking part in it qualify him for “hero” status. He broke into a hotel, got caught, went to prison. Which bit of that is heroic?