# Richard Nixon's state crimes **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 26, 2016, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753 "2016-10-26T05:26:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/21 "2016-10-26T20:56:24Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Isn’t “breaking and entering” a crime all in itself, regardless of what happens after the entry? Or how about “trespassing”? The common law definition of “burglary” (which is now sometimes re-named as "breaking and entering) had a requirement that the person intended to commit an offence inside. The wiki article gives a good summary: > **[Burglary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary)** > > Burglary, also called breaking and entering (B&E) and housebreaking, is the act of illegally entering a building or other areas without permission, typically with the intention of committing a further criminal offence. Usually that offence is theft, larceny, robbery, or murder, but most jurisdictions include others within the ambit of burglary. To commit burglary is to burgle, a term back-formed from the word burglar, or to burglarize. > Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) explains at the start of Chapter... But note that in the section on the US, it suggests that intention to infringe civil rights might qualify as an underlying offence? Would that have qualified for the Fielding break-in, **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/22 "2016-10-26T22:02:27Z")
Recording phone calls can be illegal depending on the state. NY is “one party consent,” meaning Nixon could have recorded a conversation with Nelson Rockefeller, not told Rockefeller, and no law would be broken in NY’s eyes. California on the other hand is a two-party consent state, so recording a call with Governor Reagan would have been illegal under CA law (unless Nixon told Reagan that he was recording, and Reagan said fine). However, I don’t know if the laws were the same in the early 70s, so someone else will have to weigh in. Not to sidetrack the thread, but I believe that part of the Monica Lewinsky kerfuffle were state charges against Linda Tripp for recording her calls with Lewinsky–if I remember one was in MD and MD is two-party consent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/23 "2016-10-26T22:45:54Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > If someone is charged with robbery or burglary in DC, I’m pretty sure they aren’t brought before a Federal judge. Is this GQ? Despite your being pretty sure, you are wrong. Someone charged with robbery or burglary in DC is prosecuted by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, or by a prosecutor in his office. That US Attorney is appointed by the President, and is a federal prosecutor. Currently the office is held by the ruggedly handsome [Channing Phillips.](https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney) They are tried by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which consists of a chief judge and 61 associate judges, each and every one a federal judge appointed by the President. Their initial appearance might be before one of them, or before one of the 24 federal magistrate judges that assist in matters such as setting bond and hearing arraignments. Apppeals from a ruling of this court are heard by the federal District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which – you guessed it – consists of federal judges appointed by the president. Minor traffic matters are handled by the DC Attorney General, but still before a federal judge. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/24 "2016-10-26T22:58:19Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The common law definition of “burglary” (which is now sometimes re-named as "breaking and entering) had a requirement that the person intended to commit an offence inside. The wiki article gives a good summary: > > [Burglary - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary) > > But note that in the section on the US, it suggests that intention to infringe civil rights might qualify as an underlying offence? Would that have qualified for the Fielding break-in, **Bricker**? Most probably not, although it’s hard to know exactly what that author was imagining when the sentence was written: “Burglary may be an element in crimes involving rape, arson, kidnapping, identity theft, or violation of civil rights; indeed the “plumbers” of the Watergate scandal were technically burglars.” That reads as though the burglary is one element of the denial of civil rights. So far as I am aware, there’s a federal offense involving denial of civil rights, but it’s not something that would reach this conduct. If you’re interested, I can share my thinking more fully. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/25 "2016-10-26T23:00:39Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So in 1973 people could break into houses with impunity, so long as they behaved themselves once inside? In 1973, in California, the prosecution had to show intent to commit a crime inside. Usually this is not a problem, since very few people break into houses only to “behave themselves” once inside. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/26 "2016-10-26T23:02:57Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Glad to learn the Nixon White House had some standards!! Sort of. They also refused a plan to buy a firetruck, set a fire, and then arrive in the confusion to remove documents they wanted. No moral qualms, apparently, but the fire truck was too expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/27 "2016-10-27T01:26:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I am aware, there’s a federal offense involving denial of civil rights, but it’s not something that would reach this conduct. If you’re interested, I can share my thinking more fully. Yes, please! I always enjoy your elaborations of US criminal law - find them very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/28 "2016-10-27T02:41:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 1973, in California, the prosecution had to show intent to commit a crime inside. Usually this is not a problem, since very few people break into houses only to “behave themselves” once inside. I can’t be the only one surprised that breaking into a home without the homeowner’s permission isn’t a crime all by itself? Trespassing, at least, plus whatever property was destroyed “breaking” in? Or are these just civil matters? Interestingly, my cousin used to break into his neighbor’s house when he knew they were gone and just sit on the couch, watch TV, and soak up the air conditioning. He never was one to be very law-abiding, but here we are. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/29 "2016-10-27T02:46:49Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I can’t be the only one surprised that breaking into a home without the homeowner’s permission isn’t a crime all by itself? Trespassing, at least, plus whatever property was destroyed “breaking” in? Or are these just civil matters? Oh, no – sorry to leave that impression. Just meant to say it wasn’t burglary – there was an offense called “housebreaking,” although that too not applicable in Fielding’s case since what was broken into was an office, not Fielding’s home. And as you intuit, anything broken or damaged would indeed be a crime on its own. But in Fielding’s case the crew entered without damaging anything, drawing on Liddy’s FBI training in “black bag” entry. But typically, the charge of burglary would be easy to prove, because a finder of fact can infer intent from the evidence. You didn’t need to have a tape recorded “Burglar’s Manifesto,” to conclude that someone breaking into a home intended to commit a crime therein. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/30 "2016-10-27T03:20:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, no – sorry to leave that impression. Just meant to say it wasn’t burglary – there was an offense called “housebreaking,” although that too not applicable in Fielding’s case since what was broken into was an office, not Fielding’s home. And as you intuit, anything broken or damaged would indeed be a crime on its own. But in Fielding’s case the crew entered without damaging anything, drawing on Liddy’s FBI training in “black bag” entry. I can’t find California Code from 1972, but looking at older codes, from the 19th century, the distinction between burglary and housebreaking was that burglary took place at night, and housebreaking took place during the day, but in 1872, the offense of housebreaking was replaced by “Burglary in the second degree”, and burglary replaced by “Burglary in the first degree” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/31 "2016-10-27T03:22:37Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I can’t find California Code from 1972, but looking at older codes, from the 19th century, the distinction between burglary and housebreaking was that burglary took place at night, and housebreaking took place during the day, but in 1872, the offense of housebreaking was replaced by “Burglary in the second degree”, and burglary replaced by “Burglary in the first degree” Wasn’t another element “dwelling place?” And don’t they both require an intent to commit a crime thereini? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/32 "2016-10-27T03:32:47Z")
Also, regarding entry to Fielding’s office, apparently the first time, Liddy and Hunt entered through deceit (convincing the cleaning lady to unlock the door by saying they were doctors who had to leave Fielding a message), in order to identify the files, and the second time, when the photography was actually done, Liddy and Hunt stayed outside, while Barker, Martinez, and de Diego broke the window, pried open the door with a crowbar, and then, after the photographs were taken, smashed windows and doors and trashed the office, in order to convince the police it was done by “junkies looking for drugs”. So the second case, at least, appears to be burglary under California law, at least, for Barker, Martinez, and de Diego. I’m not sure what the conspiracy law in California was at the time, but that seems like it would be conspiracy for Liddy and Hunt. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/33 "2016-10-27T03:39:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wasn’t another element “dwelling place?” And don’t they both require an intent to commit a crime thereini? They both require intent to commit a crime therein. Here were Burglary and Housebreaking in the 1871 code (before Housebreaking was abolished in 1872) > [@](#): > > Every person who, in the night time, forcibly breaks and enters, or without force enters through any open door, window, or other aperture, any house, room, apartment, or tenement, or any tent, vessel, water craft or railroad car, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, is guilty of burglary. > > Burglary is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than fifteen years. > > Every person who, in the day time, enters any dwelling-house, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, out-house, other building, or railroad car, with intent to steal or to commit any felony whatever therein, is guilty of housebreaking. > > Housebreaking is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years. > > The phrase “night time” as used in this chapter, means the period between sunset and sunrise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/34 "2016-10-27T03:51:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Also, regarding entry to Fielding’s office, apparently the first time, Liddy and Hunt entered through deceit (convincing the cleaning lady to unlock the door by saying they were doctors who had to leave Fielding a message), in order to identify the files, and the second time, when the photography was actually done, Liddy and Hunt stayed outside, while Barker, Martinez, and de Diego broke the window, pried open the door with a crowbar, and then, after the photographs were taken, smashed windows and doors and trashed the office, in order to convince the police it was done by “junkies looking for drugs”. So the second case, at least, appears to be burglary under California law, at least, for Barker, Martinez, and de Diego. I’m not sure what the conspiracy law in California was at the time, but that seems like it would be conspiracy for Liddy and Hunt. I agree that whatever crime it is includes Liddy and Hunt as conspirators or principals. And the destruction of the interior is clearly a crime which was intended at the outset. So – I was wrong. Based on this set of facts, it’s clearly burglary, not at common law but under California law. Teach me to get on a high horse about GQ answers! ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/35 "2016-10-27T05:32:13Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > Recording phone calls can be illegal depending on the state. NY is “one party consent,” meaning Nixon could have recorded a conversation with Nelson Rockefeller, not told Rockefeller, and no law would be broken in NY’s eyes. California on the other hand is a two-party consent state, so recording a call with Governor Reagan would have been illegal under CA law (unless Nixon told Reagan that he was recording, and Reagan said fine). But presumably Nixon would be doing the recording from federal territory, so wouldn’t the jurisdiction be exclusively federal, regardless of whom he called? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/36 "2016-10-27T15:12:12Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Isn’t “breaking and entering” a crime all in itself, regardless of what happens after the entry? Or how about “trespassing”? I can actually see the sense of adding the criminal intent clause. Would you want to see firefighters, for example, being held legally liable when they break into a building to put out a fire? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/37 "2016-10-27T15:30:18Z")
Ellsberg has raised an interesting point. He was not aware of the 1971 break-in of Fielding’s office until his trial in 1973. He pointed out that if it had been known earlier, the Nixon administration would have most likely disbanded the “plumbers” unit in an attempt to cover their tracks. And if that had happened, the plumbers wouldn’t haven’t been available in 1972 so the Watergate break-in would have had to have been called off. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/38 "2016-10-27T19:47:13Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > But presumably Nixon would be doing the recording from federal territory, so wouldn’t the jurisdiction be exclusively federal, regardless of whom he called? I don’t know, maybe federal trumps state here, and I don’t know what the relevant federal statute is/would have been. **BRICKER** , help! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753/39 "2016-10-27T21:54:50Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > I don’t know, maybe federal trumps state here, and I don’t know what the relevant federal statute is/would have been. > > **BRICKER** , help! I don’t think the jurisdiction would be exclusively federal, but it’s not an easy question. “Choice of law” disputes are not nearly as common in the criminal law realm as they are in civil. California has, IIRC, a very comprehensive statutory scheme that in effect says, “If any aspect of the act impinges on California, California asserts jurisdiction.” Here, the “protected interest” rule probably would give California some traction, but I have no idea without some research. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-nixons-state-crimes/769753.md?page=1)