Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman argues that portraying Richard Nixon as the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy risks obscuring evidence he says is in Nixon’s own Oval Office recordings. The warning responds to a reported Justice Department review of whether Watergate special prosecutors committed misconduct—but the review’s formal scope and status have not been independently established here.
What Akerman says is at stake
In an opinion article published October 3, 2026, Akerman says the reported focus on alleged misconduct by Watergate prosecutors could recast Nixon as the target of a conspiracy rather than a president who used federal institutions in an effort to contain the fallout from the burglary. That is Akerman’s argument, not a finding about the purpose or outcome of a Justice Department review.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
All the President's Men | $10.20 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Watergate: A New History | $14.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President | $14.53 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Truth About Watergate: A Tale of Extraordinary Lies & Liars | $24.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Reopening Watergate: An Insider's Account of Why Nixon Lost | $19.76 | Buy on Amazon |
Akerman’s account of the review is attributed to reporting by The Wall Street Journal: he says the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) hosted Geoff Shepard as part of an effort to examine whether the Watergate special prosecutor’s office committed misconduct. The formal scope, present status and any findings of that review are not established here. No conclusion by OPR should be inferred.
How the two interpretations differ on the recordings
The June 23, 1972 recording
Akerman points to a recording he calls the “smoking gun.” He says it captures Nixon directing H.R. Haldeman to have CIA officials contact the FBI to limit its Watergate investigation, ostensibly on national-security grounds connected to the Bay of Pigs. Akerman interprets the instruction as an effort to interfere with the investigation and help contain the cover-up.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute#1 Best Overall
As Akerman reports it, Shepard offers a different explanation: the CIA-related contacts were intended to keep the names of Nixon campaign donors from becoming public. Akerman disputes that account and says the recording does not support it. This is a dispute over the meaning of the tape; the recording and an authenticated transcript have not been independently examined here, so their wording and full context should not be treated as verified.
The March 21, 1973 recording
Akerman also invokes a later recording that he says captures Nixon approving hush-money payments to Watergate burglars. He reads the discussion as concerning the risk that the burglars would disclose White House involvement, rather than donor names. That interpretation, too, is Akerman’s account of the recording, not an independently verified transcript or finding.
Rank #2
The allegations about the prosecutors
Akerman says Shepard alleges that special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski met secretly with judges and suppressed evidence favorable to the defense. Akerman, who says he served under both men, calls those allegations baseless and says the prosecutors met their disclosure obligations.
Those are opposing accounts in an opinion article. The available material does not independently establish whether the alleged meetings occurred, what evidence was disclosed, or what OPR is examining. A review of prosecutorial conduct and an interpretation of Nixon’s recorded actions are related to the historical dispute, but one does not by itself settle the other.
What readers can conclude—and what remains unsettled
Akerman’s central point is that claims of prosecutorial misconduct should not be used to bypass the evidence he believes the recordings provide about Nixon’s response to Watergate. Assessing that argument requires separating four questions:
- What the recordings say: the exact words, timing and surrounding context of the June 23, 1972 and March 21, 1973 conversations.
- What the conversations mean: whether the CIA contacts and discussion of payments support Akerman’s cover-up interpretation, Shepard’s donor-disclosure explanation, or another reading.
- What prosecutors did: whether the alleged secret meetings and withheld evidence occurred, and whether disclosure duties were followed.
- What DOJ is reviewing: the OPR review’s formal scope, status and any findings. Akerman’s article reports OPR activity through The Wall Street Journal, but does not establish an official DOJ description or a completed result.
Until the recordings or authenticated transcripts and a formal account of the review are available for direct assessment, the strongest responsible reading is a qualified one: Akerman presents a forceful argument against portraying Nixon as a victim, while the underlying allegations and interpretations should remain clearly attributed to the people making them.
Quick Recap
Best Value
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.
