Judge Charles R. Richey’s August 22 sealing order kept pretrial testimony in the Democratic Party’s $1 million civil suit from the public until the case proceedings were complete, preventing sworn statements by John Mitchell, Maurice Stans, and others from becoming public before the election. Richey reversed his own earlier ruling without a motion from the Committee for the Re-election of the President’s lawyers, then telephoned Carl Bernstein to explain his decision and insist that it had not been politically influenced.

Background and Reversal

The civil suit was proceeding as Richard Nixon was seeking a second presidential term. On August 22, the evening Nixon was to be nominated by the Republican Party, Richey reversed his earlier decision and ordered all pretrial testimony in the Democrats’ $1 million suit kept sealed until the proceedings were complete. The order meant that sworn statements from Mitchell, Stans, and other figures under investigation would not be made public before the election.

The circumstances made the reversal notable: Richey acted without any motion from the Committee for the Re-election of the President’s lawyers. From the bench, he said he was concerned about the constitutional rights of those under investigation. His stated reason was therefore tied to the position of the investigated individuals, while the immediate practical effect was to withhold their sworn testimony from public view during the campaign.

Richey’s Call to Bernstein

Several hours after the ruling, Richey called Bernstein at The Washington Post. Bernstein had never met the judge, and the call came without warning. Richey explained that he wanted Bernstein to understand the basis for the decision, describing the danger of releasing testimony from the civil suit before a criminal trial.

Richey then raised the possibility that someone might think he had been approached privately to secure a favorable ruling for the Committee for the Re-election of the President. He stated that he had discussed the case with no one outside the courtroom and that political considerations had played no part. The unsolicited denial startled Bernstein: the possibility of improper outside influence had not occurred to him before Richey introduced it.

Effect and Significance

The order postponed public access to testimony that might have shed light on the people and events at the center of the Watergate investigation. Its timing was consequential: the testimony would remain unavailable before the election, even as Nixon’s renomination took place that same evening. The ruling did not establish that political pressure had been applied; the account instead records Richey’s stated concern for constitutional rights and his emphatic denial of private contact or political motive.

The episode joins a procedural decision to an unusual act of explanation. Richey not only reversed his prior ruling but also reached out directly to a reporter he had never met, anticipating suspicion about the very political context in which the order would be understood. Bernstein’s surprise preserves the distinction between what the judge said prompted the call and the concern about outside influence that the judge himself introduced.