ComingSoon is debuting the official teaser trailer for Watergate Secrets and Betrayals, a new documentary looking at how the political scandal was prosecuted. It will be released on August 8, 2024, to mark 50 years since disgraced US President Richard Nixon announced he was resigning from office.
Narrated by John O’Hurley (Seinfeld) and based on the research of former White House lawyer Geoff Shepard, this documentary aims to reveal new information about the Watergate trial and “political corruption that led to Nixon’s downfall.” It features never-before-seen documents and exclusive interviews with judges Andrew Napolitano, Laurence Silberman, Paul Diamond, and law professor Stephen Saltzburg.
“Written and directed by George Bugatti, Watergate Secrets and Betrayals features incisive analyses from esteemed judges and law professors. The film meticulously connects the dots between the three branches of government and the scandal that shook the nation to its core,” says the synopsis. “Viewers are taken through a labyrinth of political intrigue and corruption accompanied by archival footage, expert interviews, and dramatic film noir recreations blended seamlessly to provide a chilling perspective on the legacy of the 37th president.”
Check out the Watergate Secrets and Betrayals teaser trailer below:
Tyler Treese: What led to the production of Watergate Secrets and Betrayals?
Director George Bugatti: I had read a book in 2016 written by Geoff Shepard called The Real Watergate Scandal. When I read the book, it was just such a revelation. It was so interesting. I’ve had a lifelong interest with American presidents, and specifically with Richard Nixon. So this was just right up my alley. Whenever I travel around the country, I’d go to a bookstore and find a book on Watergate or Richard Nixon or American Presidents.
So this one really struck a nerve because what Geoff Shepard had discovered were documents in our national archive archives and other places that showed some really interesting things that, if they were true, really could turn the conventional narrative on its ear. I contacted him. At first, this was a play. I had an idea for a play, and we ran the play in New York for six weeks, and that turned into the documentary. So that was really the seed that was planted back then in 2021 that today gave birth to the documentary.
What I’ve seen about the doc, you’re showing the defense team and this other side. Typically, in retrospect, we look at the prosecution and what was successful. So, what was the most interesting about getting that alternate perspective?
Well, the truth of it all. We have been given a narrative. I mean, [myself] included, if you’re a student of history, you believe it. It’s part of your cultural awareness and historical awareness. This just was really completely opposite to the conventional narrative. So, the interesting part for me was finding that this wasn’t an opinion. I mean, they’re in black and white. The people, prosecutors, the judges, the congressional staff. They left a paper trail of documents that showed something else.
To me, if I could be a part of that in telling that story just to bring it to light… It still continues to resonate with me. I’m still in awe of the story. It’s not my story. I’m just fortunate enough to be working with a team of people who are helping put this story forth.
Who are some of the key figures that you spoke with for the doc?
Well, first and foremost, of course, the author of three books on the subject, Geoff Shepard. So I get to work with him. He’s my collaborator. But some great historical figures. Dwight Chapin, who was the President’s man for a number of years. He worked in the White House with President Nixon. Bob Bostock, who is a historian, but also the curator of the original Nixon Librarian Museum.
I also spoke with another great historical figure, Rufus Edmisten, who was the Deputy Chief Counsel, second in command, really, to the Sam Ervin committee, the Watergate committee that held the hearings. I was invited to go on the 50th anniversary of those hearings. And that was intriguing to me, and he was delightful to interview because he was part of it all. He was instrumental and had some great in-depth knowledge as to what had gone on what he had seen, and how he had approached the process. Very honorable guy, Rufus Edmisten.
I’ve spoken to some other people on the periphery. Just everyday people that I speak to have commentary. It’s interesting to get their perspective and their insights from an armchair position juxtaposed to the people who were really there in the arena.
Doing all this research for this project, has it made you reassess how you view Richard Nixon? He has always been a very interesting figure, and a lot of his legacy is obviously shrouded by Watergate.
Yes. His accomplishments speak for themself. Being a, I don’t wanna say a fan of his, but being fascinated by him … as I was growing up or being interested about him. You can’t separate facts from fiction or, yeah, what the lies were or what the actual facts were. But just the way he was presented was always very fascinating to me. Just so many layers to that onion. When you peel it back, there’s more, and when you peel it back, there’s more, and the scandal itself, there are so many aspects to it, so many avenues.
That was the, I think, the big attractant to me was how complex. I mean, we’re all complex, right? Especially people in power and those dynamics. The mindset to want to rule the world always fascinated me, for any president or any person in power. But his accomplishments, I think you can’t shroud those. So, I’ve always enjoyed or been fascinated by the yin and yang between what is presented, which of course, I took as truth at one point. And there may be a lot to those stories about his personality that are true. I didn’t involve myself with that, and nor do I really care. I mean, it’s nice armchair reading, and it’s nice to turn something on or read something about his personal life, but what really intrigued me was this new information.
Not that you can really give it all away in an answer, but what can viewers expect from the documentary? What should expectations be for this?
They should be prepared to watch with an open mind. They’re gonna get information that flies in the face of the conventional narrative. It’s not my opinion that I’m presenting. Everything that we put forth on celluloid, as they say, is backed up by documents. There’s not a political slant to it, although some could say that there is just by virtue of the information we’re presenting.
God forbid anybody should say, “Hey, wait a minute, Nixon is not such a bad guy.” But again, that wasn’t my interest in presenting him as a good guy or a bad guy. It was presenting the process that he went through, and they should expect to see prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. They should prepare to see how someone’s rights were trampled on. How we were lied to.
Again, it may be difficult to digest because… Carl Sagan has a wonderful quote, and I don’t have it in front of me, so I can’t quote it verbatim, but paraphrasing it, “Once we’ve been told a story, it’s very difficult to believe something else because we can’t admit to it ourselves that we’ve been taken,” and we’ve been taken. And that’s what the public’s gonna go away with, and we’ve been taken, and they need to question.
It’s good to question things and not just accept what we’re fed, and most, a lot, of us do. But I think that’s the takeaway. What if this really happened? And then maybe they’ll examine it a little bit further and read it online. The documents will be available online after the film is released and they can take a look for themselves and read what you’ve discovered.
There’s naturally gonna be a pushback. How’s it been experiencing that so far? Are you prepared for people to be skeptical? Which people always are when you’re presenting something kind of contrary to the perception that currently sits with Watergate?
That’s a good question. It’s a valid point. It’s what we’re gonna be up against. I’m sure there’s gonna be incoming fire, starting with Geoff’s interview. He did one the other day, probably with this interview. When the film comes out, of course. Hopefully, people will be open-minded enough and not so riveted and not so invested in their personal opinion that they can’t take a look objectively at the information that we’re imparting to them to be able to accept this within with an open mind.
We very well may not be able to change many minds. The big hope is that this will be in the history books, and it will be there for young historians and people coming up in the legal world and in the media to take a look at this and carry this torch forward. So that a new generation of people will say, “Aha. Something was afoot.” So that when after we’re all gone, the history books will reflect something differently. It’ll be the final chapter of a story that was mistold.
John O’Hurley is involved. He’s the host of the documentary. How was it getting him involved with the project?
Oh, John is wonderful. I’ve known him for probably 30-35 years. When this came about, he was the first person I thought of, and I called him, and he was lovely enough and gracious enough to say, “Sure, I’ll give it a shot.” No one, I don’t think, could do it better. I told him what the pieces of this puzzle were, and he was intrigued. He brings a lot of credibility to it because of his approach and the way he is as an artist and presents what we wrote. We’re very lucky to have him. Hopefully, he’ll open us up to an even wider audience than we could have hoped to be in front of it. He brings a flare to it that is really cool.
