Up next in 10
'Watergate would have been a 12-hour news story today' | Does Vance have a point?
Jun 28, 2026
JD Vance has said he does not believe a scandal as groundbreaking as Watergate would have lasted longer than 12 hours in the current news cycle – and definitely would not have taken down the president. Discussing his new book at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California, on Thursday, Vance spoke about his spiritual journey from atheism to Catholicism before expressing his admiration for the 37th president. “If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be a 12-hour news story,” Vance said. Matthew Wright is joined by Professor Scott Lucas to discuss. Listen to the full show on the all-new LBC App: https://app.af.lbc.co.uk/btnc/thenewlbcapp #matthewwright #jdvance #watergatescandal #TypeInTopic #LBC LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs in the UK. Join in the conversation and listen at https://www.lbc.co.uk/ Sign up to LBC’s weekly newsletter here: https://l-bc.co/signup
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
I joked with Robert backstage, if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story
0:06
The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy. And by the way, if you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon
0:18
it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions
0:24
tried to do to Donald Trump and the first Trump administration. Now, we've played you a couple of clips over the course of the morning of J.D. Vance, Deputy President of the United States, lest we forget, arguing that the Watergate scandal, which involved the Republican Party getting caught, essentially spying on the Democrats back in the early 70s
0:49
and then President Nixon's subsequent cover-ups led to his resignation in, I think, 1974
0:55
to avoid impeachment. And it's arguably one of the greatest stains on American democracy of the last century
1:05
And it's quite extraordinary that J.D. Vance is now arguing that if it was happening today
1:10
it would have barely lasted 12 hours in the modern news cycle
1:15
And even though I'm a cynic, I wonder if he's on to something
1:21
I'm joined by Professor Scott Lucas, Professor of American Politics at the University College of Dublin
1:29
Good morning to you. There's a part of me which is absolutely furious
1:33
at his dismissal, apparent dismissal, of the severity of the Watergate scandal
1:39
But his point about the 12-hour news cycle, that got me too
1:43
And I just... What's your take, Scott? Well, first of all, let's make it clear
1:48
that what J.D. Vance was saying is not first and foremost about Watergate or about Richard Nixon
1:53
It's about Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. And that is, hey, corruption. Well, you know
2:00
hey, abuse of power, abuse of the Constitution. Yeah. So what about it? Because, you know
2:07
in 12 hours, we'll be talking about something else. Now, it's useful to remind everybody
2:14
exactly what you started off with, that Watergate was not some passing fad. It was not like some
2:20
quick spectacle in the headlines. And then it was just so bad because people wouldn't let go of it
2:26
for more than 12 hours. It was not only an abuse of the Constitution, it was a cover-up which
2:32
constituted criminal activity to cover up the crime of breaking into the opposition party's
2:39
headquarters. And had Richard Nixon not been pardoned by Gerald Ford, his successor
2:44
he could have served prison time. So we flash forward 50 years and what J.E. Vance is saying
2:50
amidst the fact that, remember, you have a president who is a convicted felon, who has been
2:57
convicted not only of trying to manipulate the 2016 election with the payoffs to someone with
3:03
whom he had an affair, but who was accused on felony charges of trying to overturn the 2020
3:08
election and of being involved with January 6th, the attack on the Capitol and stealing
3:15
classified documents and only escaped trial because he became president again, who was
3:21
convicted in a civil court with one of the largest fines in history because of the fraud
3:25
of his business organization. It's worth reminding yourself, this is the record of the man in the White House
3:30
But J Vance is saying what are you all worried about What the big deal And he does give us something with that Matthew which is the entire tactics of Donald Trump as well as those around him
3:42
like J.D. Vance, which is change the narrative, change the news cycle
3:47
change the people talking about something else. Has it changed the voters we heard last week
3:53
Change the voters. What they're doing right now is they're trying to change the voting system in the United States
4:01
because they're worried they're not going to win enough voters, even in the congressional elections this November, let alone in 2028
4:08
That's why you have had all this redistricting, mainly by Republicans, so that they have a better chance of holding on to both houses of Congress
4:17
And it is also why Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are doing things like threatening to end mail-in voting, making it much tougher to vote under the guise of voter ID
4:28
They're trying to put their thumbs on the scales of the election. I think the elections will take place
4:33
I don't think Trump will go so far as to not hold them. But I do think in 2026 and 2028, they're going to try to manipulate the elections
4:40
because they're worried that even for all their diversions and trying to change the news cycle
4:46
they're in serious trouble over the economy. Is this a surprising comment from the vice president or very much on brand
4:53
I think it's probably more on brand. And I mean, a whole lot of people, including myself, have issues with the argument he's making or with the factual basis for that argument
5:04
But it is not uncommon these days on the right for people to try to exculpate Nixon from what was at the time considered certainly, I think, the worst scandal in American presidential history
5:17
And to suggest that it was a kind of quasi deep state effort
5:22
Part of the reason for that, to make a long story short, is that the source known as Deep Throat for Woodward and Bernstein, the journalists who really uncovered the scandal, was later revealed to be a very high-ranking figure in the FBI at the time
5:38
So these attempts by Team Trump to sort of question the guilt of Richard Nixon, they sort of say he may be guilty
5:46
That's just the position they... Is that a recent position they've put themselves into or they've sort of built up to it
5:51
I would actually cast the net a bit more broadly than the Trump administration
5:57
This is an issue that conservatives have had a different interpretation of for a long time
6:05
Again, I emphasise that I personally am not defending their interpretation. But the argument is that the direct linkage to Richard Nixon himself for the Watergate break-in was surmised rather than proven
6:22
The break-in was clearly linked to people who had been working for Nixon's re-election campaign
6:27
But the argument from conservatives is that this was sort of confected or souffled up by a combination of liberal journalists and people in the intelligence services who had issues with Nixon
6:42
And does this sort of fit a pattern of conspiracy theories just sitting in American politics
6:48
They're just sort of ever-present, commonly referred to. They're just sort of part of the discourse now, aren't they
6:56
Pretty much so, and that has been the case for a while
7:00
I mean, obviously, while we're talking about historical things, I mean, the assassination of JFK is a classic example
7:07
Now the assassination of JFK is perhaps in a slightly different category in that a majority of Americans have never believed the official account of what happened to President Kennedy But there are of course
7:22
enormous numbers of conspiracy theories that appear to be mushrooming all the time. Many of
7:27
them were related to the pandemic. Then, of course, you have the vexing issue of the Jeffrey Epstein
7:33
scandal and what is real and what is conspiracy there or what is real and what is merely unproven
7:39
there and on and on. I mean, we could go through a number of different conspiracy theories
7:45
And the fact that J.D. Vance sort of talks about the fact that it would just be a 24-hour
7:50
news story in today's world, he's probably right, isn't he? I mean, the speed of the media
7:59
reporting around Donald Trump and how he himself speeds that up, it is possible to imagine you
8:04
could have a whole scandal that he tries to sort of see blow through in a day's time
8:09
Yes, that's right. I mean, in a narrow sense, Vance isn't necessarily wrong to say that a scandal
8:16
like Watergate would be survivable. That is partly for the reason that you mentioned
8:22
that the speed and volume of controversies during the Trump era, of course, inevitably mean that each
8:30
one gets a limited amount of attention. The other thing that I would just note in passing is that
8:35
a number of Conservatives are of the opinion that Nixon would never have had to resign if Fox News
8:41
had existed at the time. In other words, if there had been an organisation which, as a central part
8:47
of its mission, amplified Conservative talking points and denigrated Democrats and other Liberals
8:54
for being purportedly un-American or whatever. And so that, I mean, it's just a massively different
9:00
climate. And so in that narrow sense, Vance does make a fair point, even though I think the attempt
9:06
to minimise the Watergate scandal shouldn't be done. That was a major scandal with enormous
9:12
wrongdoing and enormous ramifications. Yeah, I mean, it was the biggest US political
9:16
scandal of the 20th century, possibly in the world, really. And a lot of people like hail it
9:22
don't they, as a good example of the checks and balances that are in place in the US against a
9:28
sitting president. What's your observations about how those checks and balances sit with
9:34
Donald Trump and his administration and how firm are they standing up to efforts to perhaps lean or
9:41
squeeze or change them? Very weakly and very meekly. I mean, it's a very different situation
9:48
that we have now. Those checks and balances are ones that Trump has frequently tried to
9:53
ride roughshod over, whether that be ruling by executive action rather than legislation
9:59
whether it be attacking the media, whether it be attacking law firms, political opponents
10:06
seeking to use the justice system to go after his enemies. I mean, this is a very aggressive
10:14
expansive view of presidential power that Trump is putting forth. And a number of those
10:22
checks and balances simply haven't worked because the people who operate the checks and balances
10:27
have often lacked the courage to do so. Do you know we've got the midterms elections coming up
10:32
where his sort of political power in Congress might weaken if he loses one of those houses
10:39
Might that change the dynamic or might he actually just encourage Donald Trump to push against those
10:46
norms even further than he has up till now So it a little bit of both which I know often isn the most satisfactory answer Well it is if you give us both sides Right So one side is if Democrats
10:59
win control of the House of Representatives, which is likely, they would have the power to
11:04
investigate Trump and to call people before committees and to compel testimony. All of that
11:09
could be, I think, very damaging and very embarrassing for the Trump circle. The flip side
11:15
of it is, as we were just mentioning briefly, a lot of Trump's actions and his most controversial
11:20
actions in particular have been taken through executive action. So for a more orthodox president
11:27
the downside of losing control of even one chamber of Congress is you lose the power to pass
11:32
legislation. In fact, Trump has done many, as I say, deeply contentious things without bothering
11:39
to try to pass legislation. He has just declared changes in policy of one kind or another
11:44
Next week, I think it's next week, is the 250th anniversary, the independence anniversary
11:50
a big event for America. Do these comments have sort of more meaning
11:54
because of that anniversary? Does that give cause for reflection on where America has both started and where it is now
12:03
It's a good question. I think that the July 4th celebrations and the anniversary
12:07
do bring into short relief where America stands right now. Now, there are millions of Americans who are very supportive of President Trump
12:16
That being said, his approval ratings are bad. They're around about 37%, 38% approval
12:23
So he is unpopular, but he is also making this celebration very much identified with him personally
12:30
And I think not only liberals but critics of his have real issues with that seeming conflation between the country and the person who occupies the role of president
12:45
And so there is controversy on all sides about the kind of dynamics that you're alluding to in your question
12:53
It's interesting it's J.D. Vance who makes these comments. What can you tell us about the relationship now between Donald Trump and J.D. Vance
13:00
I always find it quite tricky to work out how close or how much – how Trump wants to use J.D. Vance
13:08
He's there currently as the sort of lead negotiator of the Iran deal
13:14
even though we think we know J.D. Vance is pretty much against this military intervention
13:19
So where do you paint the relationship between those two, the president and his vice president
13:26
First of all, I think that Trump himself just demands subservience to an uncommon degree among everyone close to him
13:36
Obviously, a vice president is always subservient in some sense to a president
13:40
But I think in Trump's case, that is taken to extremes. I do not, however, take the view that some people have voiced that the whole Iran thing is somehow a way for Trump to hobble Vance in terms of 2028
13:55
ambitions and perhaps to raise up Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State. I think Trump is using
14:01
Vance, but in a different way, simply as a heat shield for Trump himself. So Vance goes out front
14:07
on an Iran deal that is not that popular, and it is not that popular with conservatives. And some of
14:15
the heat is drawn away from Trump onto Vance. I think that is the element of manipulation, if you
14:22
want to use that word. I don't think Trump is getting really into the business of trying to
14:26
promote Rubio over Vance for 2028
#news