Bag Man: The Wild Crimes, Audacious Cover-Up, and Spectacular Downfall of a Brazen Crook in the White House

As the Baltimore prosecutors begin closing in on Agnew, he makes a deliberate choice to retaliate. He fancies himself a fighter—one of the qualities that compelled Nixon to choose him as his running mate—and he will “be damned” if he will go quietly. His strategy, however, takes the form of diversion, obstruction, and obfuscation, a political sleight-of-hand that relies on shifting attention away from himself and on to the imaginary crimes of his enemies. The perfect example is his attorneys’ focus on the leaks. Rather than offering any kind of defense of their client, London, Topkis, and Best angrily demand to know how details of the case were leaked to the press. They even request the court to order the DOJ to conduct an internal investigation, an allocation of time and resources that takes manpower away from the Agnew investigation. Furthermore, London convinces the judge to sign an order that will allow the defense to subpoena members of the press to track down these nefarious leaks.

As his attorneys file time-consuming legal briefs, Agnew continues his assault on the DOJ. Speaking to a group of Republican women, Agnew rages at Richardson and his department: “[I]ndividuals in the upper professional echelons of the Department of Justice have been severely stung by their ineptness in the prosecution of the Watergate case […] and they are trying to recoup their reputation at my expense’” (186). Between their diversions, their stalling tactics, and being assigned a judge sympathetic to their cause, Agnew’s lawyers manage to hold off an indictment until Beall and his team are forced, because of time pressures, to give Agnew what he wants. Agnew knows very well that he can garner support by appealing to his base and to its preexisting prejudice against the press and liberals. No evidence is required when a politician’s audience is primed to believe them right out of the gate.

This diversionary strategy is both effective and timeless. When former president Donald Trump was under investigation for collusion and, later, for trying to extort the Ukrainian president to dig up political dirt on his opponent’s son, his response was to attack the House committee conducting the investigation. While on the campaign trail, Trump referred to the media as “absolute scum.” CNN reporter Stephen Collison writes, “Trump’s incessant torrent of attacks—on Twitter and on camera, amplified by conservative media outlets—has helped to insulate him against the consequences of his actions” (Collinson, Stephen. “Trump assaults facts to avoid impeachment,” CNN. December 11, 2019). The lessons from the Agnew scandal are not lost on contemporary politicians: When cornered by a legitimate investigation, they vilify their opponent, cast doubt on the integrity of the press, and plead their case not in court but before throngs of devoted followers who desperately want to believe their favored politician’s version of truth.