Recommended Free Tools
Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman argues that renewed scrutiny of alleged misconduct by the Watergate prosecutors risks turning Richard Nixon into a victim of a conspiracy before the evidence in Nixon’s own recordings is addressed. His argument is a warning, not a verified account of the formal scope or current status of a Justice Department review.
Akerman made the case in an opinion article published October 3, 2026, and republished by AOL from MS NOW. He identifies himself as having served as an assistant special prosecutor from 1973 to 1976. The dispute he describes is not simply over whether prosecutors should be scrutinized; it is over what the evidence shows about Nixon’s conduct and how claims of prosecutorial misconduct should be weighed against it.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Why Akerman says the victim narrative is dangerous
Akerman objects to interpretations that cast Nixon as the target of a “deep state” effort to bring him down. In his view, that framing shifts attention from evidence he says is on the Oval Office tapes: Nixon’s response to the Watergate investigation and his discussion of payments to the burglars. His warning is that allegations against prosecutors can be used to dismiss that evidence without resolving what the recordings show.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThat is Akerman’s interpretation of the historical record. The account available here does not independently establish the wording or full context of the recordings, so the claims about what Nixon said should not be treated as a transcript.
#1 Best Overall
What the two recordings mean in the competing accounts
The June 23, 1972 recording
Akerman points to the June 23, 1972 “smoking gun” recording. He says it captures Nixon directing H.R. Haldeman to ask CIA officials to contact the FBI and limit the Watergate investigation, with national security and the Bay of Pigs offered as the stated rationale.
As Akerman reports it, Geoff Shepard interprets the CIA-related contacts differently: as an effort to keep the names of Nixon campaign donors from becoming public. Akerman disputes that account and argues that the recording does not support it. The competing explanations cannot be settled here without checking the full recording, an authenticated transcript, and the surrounding context.
Rank #2
The March 21, 1973 recording
Akerman also invokes a March 21, 1973 recording. He says Nixon approved hush-money payments to the Watergate burglars and argues that the discussion concerned the risk that they would disclose White House involvement, not donor names. This, too, is Akerman’s reading of a recording that has not been independently reviewed for this account.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What Shepard alleges about the prosecutors
Akerman attributes two serious allegations to Shepard: that Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski met secretly with judges, and that they suppressed evidence favorable to the defense. Akerman says he served under both prosecutors, calls the allegations baseless, and maintains that prosecutors met their disclosure obligations.
| Issue | Shepard’s position as reported by Akerman | Akerman’s response |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the CIA-related contacts | An effort to keep campaign donors’ names from becoming public. | The June 23, 1972 recording does not support that explanation; Akerman reads the contacts as part of an effort to limit the FBI inquiry. |
| Conduct toward judges | Cox and Jaworski allegedly met secretly with judges. | Akerman calls the allegation baseless. |
| Evidence disclosure | Prosecutors allegedly suppressed defense evidence. | Akerman says prosecutors followed their disclosure duties. |
These are opposing claims presented in Akerman’s opinion article, not findings established by the material available here. Assessing them requires evidence about the specific meetings and disclosure decisions, rather than treating either side’s characterization as proof.
What is known about the reported DOJ review
Akerman’s article attributes its account of the Office of Professional Responsibility’s activity to The Wall Street Journal. According to that account, OPR hosted Shepard as part of an effort to review whether the Watergate special prosecutor’s office committed misconduct.
Rank #4
- non-fiction african american book set
- non-fiction black book set
- non-fiction african american children's book set
- non-fiction black children's book set
The formal scope and present status of that review are not established here, and no OPR conclusion is reported. The fact that a review is described is not itself evidence that misconduct occurred—or that the allegations have been rejected.
What would resolve the historical dispute
The central questions are evidentiary: what the complete recordings say in context, what records support the competing explanations for the CIA contacts, and what documentation bears on the allegations about judicial meetings and evidence disclosure. A responsible account should distinguish the tapes’ contents from Akerman’s interpretation of them, and distinguish reported allegations from any formal finding by DOJ.
Akerman’s warning is ultimately about the risk of letting claims of institutional conspiracy substitute for that examination. Scrutiny of prosecutors can be legitimate; it does not, by itself, erase evidence about the president’s conduct. Conversely, a prosecutor’s account of the tapes does not settle allegations against the prosecution team. Both questions need to be evaluated on their own evidence.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
